Talk:Negroid/Archive 1

message: That picture is not a typical picture of a negroid skull, it is exaggerated to a non-typical extremity of human possibility. I do not find it to be helpful in the article and reinforces stereotypes. I will change it when possible.
It's from the "Western Kentucky University forensic anthropology" web-site, do you have a PHD? --Agurzil 23:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a fairly standard representation of the so-called "Negroid phenotype."  JWB, thanks, but your link provides an African-American skull, which is not the same as a "typical Negroid skull," which is less likely to be affected by miscegenation over time.  This rendering is a classic representation of an Africanoid skull (black, unmixed, unmiscegenated).  Oddly, the insertion of "Sub-Saharan Africa" into the text of the article is most certainly inaccurate in that it is unecessarily limiting and seemingly intentionally misleading.  Nilotic peoples are also "Negroid," with identicial facio-cranial characteristics to those illustrated in the rendering -- and they inhabit, as is clear by their name, the Nile Valley region, which includes Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Eritrea, etc. deeceevoice 13:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the skull needs to be updated 

message: I personally think "Negroid" which ultimately goes back to the root for "death" and "nothingness" should be replaced. Yes, I know that it's the most commonly used word in science, but, this is what needs to be changed. These scientific backbone foundation ideas (scientific classification of racial-skull shapes for example) will have an impact on the minds of children. - Zaph
Well, that's why I use "Africoid" -- because of the negative connotations of "Negroid" and "Negro" -- and because, unlike the other "racial" classifications, it doesn't refer back to our geographic point of origin.  As far as "race" goes, hey, it's not going away.  What has more of an impact, IMO, on the minds of children is the aversion of far too many blacks to dealing with the attendant issues up front and forthrightly.  If we teach young, black children who they are and to truly value that -- not just parrot slogans and still run around color-struck and pursuing the perfect perm -- and continue to fight for their right to walk free in the world, with equal opportunity -- and teach them to take advantage of those positive opportunities when they present themselves, and to fight alongside us when they are not -- and own who they are then they (and we) will be just fine.  I don't waste my time with pie-in-the-sky or marginally relevant struggles like battling about certain terminology.  Part of the battle is being strong enough and knowledgeable enough to go toe to toe with ignorance and beat it down beneath the ground, on its own grounds -- instead of trying to change "locations" (terminology) completely.  I pick my battles -- especially since I realize most white folks don't give a damn.  They've got their own issues.  What's important to us is not what's important to them. I don't even try to make them see certain things.  What's the point?  Don't waste your time.  deeceevoice 13:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Topic  

message: they have been in lived in the ociena for at least 50.000-40.000 years and before that Southeast-Asia and then south-asia. And their hair is rather straight then curly and can often be natural blonde. and also from a genetic point of view they are far diffirent. -Anon
:Firstly we shouln't randomly be removing things from articles just because some mad-man comes in here and demands we do.  I think any discussion on the negroid races should involve only people who believe race exist or else this page should otherwise be deleted. -Png2tog  (sign your name by typing four "~"s)
::The perspective of scientists who emphasize the weaknesses of "race" are germane to this article.  Any edits I make here are to keep the science concordant with mainstream scientific opinion.  Polynesians etc. are not african and have never been included in usage of this term.--Nectar 06:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jmac800, my only interest is in making this article reflect scientific usage.  This article is on an anthropological term that refers to biogeographic ancestry, not appearance or culture.  Appropriately, the article includes disccussion of criticism of the term.--Nectar 07:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians & Australoids not negroid 

message: All you eurocentric people are the same.  You have manifested yourself in a cage of lies for the last 500 years and have went around the world calling everyone savages.  You murder rape and pillage natives and call them sevages without culture or civlization.  You murder them steal their cultural works and deny that they had culture.  To add insult to injury you the cultures they did have must have been white becuase mostly mixed people live there today.  Maybe you can con black in america who have accepted your lies but you cannot con africans and tell them they are white.  You believe anyone able of achieiving greatness is white.  This is why Eurocentrics have been reduced to claiming someone like this as white or 'caucasoid'.
http://www.surforeggae.com.br/imagens/bandas/ethiopians.jpg
http://www.moledin.ru/dela/photo/putin.jpg
Now be open minded who here is the liar the person who says the above link is black, infact lets compare this caucasoid to another caucasoid we all agree is white. Vladi Putin Russian pres.  According to this guy they are both caucasoid.
Or we can believe this these two guys are of the same 'race'
http://web.syr.edu/~affellem/jclr.gif
http://www.rfi.fr/images/054/mohammed6_220.jpg
http://durrutyguedjphoto.free.fr/fleurdepeau_fichiers/image014.jpg
Kings of two countries which Ill disclose later
Now be the judge which two look of the same race to you.  How about which is not the same race as the other 4.  Its quite clear.  I have presented an Ethiopian, an Ethiopian King, nigerien, moroccan king, and a caucasoid russian.  Any one yearold could tell the difference. 4 are negroid 1 is not.
You find articles and zero in on a section you think proves your point and don't bother reading the rest of your article. I then come and show you the part that say North Africans are black, you then start discrediting your own source and tell me that here here is a better source (stormfront.com).
These are all from your own site that disprove your lies
"In summary, populations outside Africa derive from one or more migration events out of Africa within the last 100,000 years [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]."
This indicates that any genetic mutations that would change race would not have affected any native africans or would have affected all africans the same.  None the less it is clear that africans whether it be from kenya or tunisia are one race for the last 100,000 years
"The greatest genetic variation occurs within Africans, with variation outside Africa representing either a subset of African diversity or newly arisen variants"
So all non-african are different than africans genetically.  Well that no surprise becuase native africans are one big negroid race.
"Genetic differentiation between individuals depends on the degree and duration of separation of their ancestors. Geographic isolation and in-breeding (endogamy) due to social and/or cultural forces over extended time periods create and enhance genetic differentiation, while migration and inter-mating reduce it"
So according to mr. phd from stanford.  Migration cannot change race.  So pygmies from congo moving to polynesia can't change their black race.  Further more in order for North africans to be a different race than other africans they would have to have been isolated from each other for at least 10000 of years, becuase thats the time normally accepted for mutuations to take place in humans.  We know that Ethiopians africans emipre along the east african coast were numerous and so was war.  So they would have been intermixing like crazy.  We know that the Nubians are the closets to ancient egyptians in almost every form.  The cultures were the same and they warred alot both built pyramids and have been under one ruler many times.  Clearly North africa was not isolated from nubia, ethiopia, etc becuase they were trading sharing culture warring and intermingling.  Not even to mention that many ancient egyptians were black.  Often Eurocentrics will say the Sahara desert was a massive barrier that kept blacks to the south.  No it wasn't.  I can't even name all the african kingdoms that got rich off of the transaharan trade route.  They don't know that there are many oasis' in the sahara.  Being from their myself my father taught me how to find water.  I just go up to any location that is low as possible and dig for several feet and I will eventually find spring  water.  What about people who are nomadic.  Now I'm getting off topic but point remains that North Africas was never isolated from West or east africa and many places like kanem bornu grew rich off of trans sahran trading.  In fact the largest empire in africa was built on the sahara by the songhai.  The second largest was by the fulani also on the Sahara.  Morocco had no trouble sacking ghana when it crossed the sahara desert.
:Most of the genetic make up of North Africans migrated from East Africa to South Asia to West Asia to North Africa... by the time of their arrival in North Africa, approximately 30,000 to 40,000 years had passed since their ancestors left Africa.  That is plenty of time for North Africans to have a phenotype and genotype relatively distinct from black Africans.  Most North Africans look more Middle Eastern than black African, although about 20% of the ancestry of North Africans is black African.  And you're correct to point out that the Sahara desert was never a complete barrier to trans-Saharan migration. --Gerkinstock 16:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: jmac800's response

message: It is true that many North Africans have ancestry from Turkey, which I don't deny.  The thing is the Turks have only came over in the last few hundred years and are not natives to North Africa and they are not berbers.  So when the dr is saying that North African ancestry largely derives from the middle east he is correct.  Many North Africans in Egypt have mixed ancestry and their non-black side is from the mid-east so he is correct.  In fact their black side is also from the mid-east becuase there are many native black egyptians and egypt is in the mid-east.
Our current Sahara articles list Sahara important Sahran cities as "Other important cities are Tamanrasset, Algeria; Timbuktu, Mali; Agadez, Niger; Ghat, Libya; and Faya, Chad."
So sub-saharan would mean anyone south of these places.  So in other words people from Niger, Algeria, Libya, Chad and Mali are white.  In fact even Senegal is located on the Sahara so they are white too.
http://afrikafont.free.fr/personnages/Danseurs%20ballouks%20Senegal.jpg
Yup see how white the are in Senegal opPS I mean caucasoid.
I think you have misinterpreted what was on the website and misquoted as well misunderstood what the professor was trying to say.  Up until now you can provide no explanation of how you claimed various people from African governments as arabic.  eg he claimed a west africa minister as more arabic than black.  You have a scewd idea of race and do not understand it.  The worst thing is that you are trying to use genetics to define an anthroplogical term.  Thats like using vectors and derivatives to determine race good luck.
In fact I don't know if what you even said about africans in the article is true.  All you did was quote the word sub saharn african.  For all I know it could be saying everyone outside of europe is a subsahran african.
Let me even assume you have quoted correctly.  American use the one-drop rule where anyone with remote black ancestry is considered black.  I have looked far and wide and to no surprise they have avoided racial ratios.  What I do find consistent is anywhere I search for North African berber I find that at lowest 5% sub-saharan african admixtures.  Well in America this would make all berbers and North Africans considered to be black becuase they have traceable black ancestry as a group.  Hence your entire arguement is dead on arrival.  Any argument you use cannot cite american sources for this reason, because no matter what to American berbers and North Africans are black even if they may only have small amount of black ancestry. -Jmac800
:Americans don't use the one-drop rule; in fact, people are allowed to define themselves racially in the U.S. as they wish.  The one-drop rule also has never been a part of anthropological taxonomy, except, maybe, in some cases by people like Carleton Coon (whose one-drop rule meant one drop of white blood makes you white).  Also, Wikipedia is not supposed to be American-centric in its text; the one-drop rule was unique to certain parts of the U.S.  As for Berbers, they are and always have been a multiracial people. 
:Sub-Saharan Africa is West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa and South Africa.  Niger, Chad and Mali have traditionally been considered part of sub-Saharan Africa.  
:Do you consider Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry to be black?  I believe they have the teensiest wee bit of black blood in them. --Gerkinstock 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3

message: 1. Re:"Up until now you can provide no explanation of how you claimed various people from African governments as arabic." 
:They are of Middle-Eastern descent because their ancestors came from the Middle-East.
2. Re:"you are trying to use genetics to define an anthroplogical term. Thats like using vectors and derivatives to determine race."
:In scientific uses in this area, race is just a measure (approximation) of biogeographic ancestry.  Genetic cluster analysis is the best way to analyze biogegraphic ancestry.
3. Re:"All you did was quote the word sub saharn african. For all I know it could be saying everyone outside of europe is a subsahran african."
:Sub-saharan means beneath the Sahara.  Tang et al.: "We categorize Africans as those with primary ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa."
4. Re:"What I do find consistent is anywhere I search for North African berber I find that at lowest 5% sub-saharan african admixtures. Well in America this would make all berbers and North Africans considered to be black becuase they have traceable black ancestry as a group."
:Biogeographic ancestry is most accurately spoken of in terms of percentages.  A group would be majority sub-saharan African if their genetics cluster with the other sub-saharan peoples, and majority caucasoid is their genetics cluster with European and Middle-Eastern peoples.--Nectar 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4

message: Remember to cite references if you have them, as unreferenced claims may be deleted down the road by other editors.--Nectar 22:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: There have been several rounds of deletion of interwiki links to this article and related articles, and reversions of the deletions, on several wikis. The problem seems to be that most wikis deal with the biological/evolutionary as well as sociological/linguistic aspects of the word in one article, whereas in English and a few others the subject is split into Negroid and Negro. Interwiki linking shouldn't be a problem between wikis that have only one article, but there may be a problem with linking to English and other wikis that have two articles – unless "double interwiki" is possible, i.e. two links to the same wiki from one article. Is it possible?  Unfortunately the deletion that has been going on is plain deletion and not replacement, and it even deletes interwikis between wikis where there is only one article. I think this is wrong, and I have reverted the deletions once in some of the wikis. However, I would like to see the opinion of other wikipedians before I go on reverting across the wiki world. --Eddi (Talk) 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki trouble 

message: I've merged content from Congoid, according to this AfD. Do with this content what you will. --Deathphoenix 13:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged content from [[Congoid]] 

message: Don't Africans usually have bigger heads than other peoples? and is that picture based on a non-adult? Digitalseal 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the skull picture 

message: Currently the defintions of negroid and caucasoid make no sense whatever.  The caucasoid pages that all of africa is caucasoid as well as North and West Africa.  I'm trying to stay out of this because its silly and stupid and ends up in an edit war but this is too ridiculous.  Two weeks ago I saw that same article claiming east and central africans were caucsoid and I'm wondering if negroid will just become a link to the caucasoid page.  It seems no one can agree on what is negroid or caucsoid.  
Primarily because different countries have different race classifications.  Eg all North African is considered black in America because of the one-drop rule, yet in UK they may be considered brown.  
Also is negroid really mean from sub-saharan africa?  I don't think most people know where that would include because it would mean most of the blacks from Saharan africa are white, like the guy from egypt who was classified as white.  Not only that but Nigerians, Nigeriens, Sudan, Libyans, Mali, Chad etc. are all caucasoid which should cause somone to lift an eyebrow.  I guess that means many of you african americans are white because your ancestors come from there well good luck on your new found identity.  Just consider when the defintion of negroid came into being and in the 19th century Africa was called the dark continent because Eruopeans were ignorant towards it.  So explain to me how they could have possible used geography to classify people in a continent they knew nothing about?  How did they not know that the Zulu were white, or that there was a race of green people(thats streching it but you get the point), you can't define what you don't know.  
The connotations are that say people from South Africa who are white are negroid.  Its really silly to classify people by geographical location because people move around like crazy.
:DNA analysis has shown to be a very accurate way to trace evolutionary history.  Not many people think the Middle-Easterners in North Africa, such as in Egypt and Morocco, are black.  These are generalizations; more detailed reports of genetic cluster analysis would assumedly map many Saharan areas and peoples as being more closely related to sub-Saharan Africa (which includes Nigeria and the Ivory Coast) than to Middle-Easterners.  The historical "one drop rule" isn't a criticism of genetic methods of tracing ancestry.--Nectar 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Negroid? 

message: You can't refer to a blog because anyone can create one in 5 minutes and put on anything they want.  Yeah I know the whole internet is like that but there are too many afrocentric blogs for anything they say to be taken seriously
:That's correct. Wikipedia:reliable sources covers what is and is not acceptable for a source. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog Refernces 

message: I find it highly disturbing that one scientist is used as a refernce for the entire negroid race.  How do we not know she has made a mistake.  How do we not know she is poltically motivated.  I almost feel like gutting half the article because its filled with ridiculous assumptions all based on the findings of Cavalli-Sforza back in 1994.  I would like to see us using somewhat modern books because gentics has advanced a mile fool since then
:Cavalli-Sforza's 1994 data is still made use of in works published recently, and it's widely praised.  Jared Diamond, for example, praised it for "demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races."  If there was a genetics study disagreeing with Cavalli-Sforza's data, that would be grounds for changing the article.--Nectar 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disturbing trend 

message: This term is considered offensive since it is derived from the offensive term Negro. Although it is still used by a small number of anthropologist the consensus is that it is an inappropriate term. This is true for several reasons. Previous stilted European anthropologist used this term as a mechanism for explaining physical differences and biased opinions of Athe fricans inferiority compared to other races. A more preferred term is Africoid as it relates to a less offensive interpretation of the indigenous people from Africa. In addition Dr. Yosef A.A. Ben Jochannan explains this point and origins of the word in his book "Africa: Mother of Western Civilization" Secondly as it was originally believed by Eurocentric historians and anthropologist that Europeans originated from the continents of Europe, this also was proved wrong and is now universally known that the origin of mankind originates from the African continent. In addition in ancient times Africans were widely called Ethiopians, once the medieval times began most Africans were called Moors this was an accepted term based on the group choosing to identify with this term. The word Negro or Negroid was manufactured during the Atlantic slave trade. To shine more light on this, it is fair to say that just as there are many species of small fish in the ocean, once placed in cans they obtain the label Sardines. There is no free fish called a Sardine. Just as various Africans obtained the name Negro once placed in chains. In trying to keep a NPOV I must go on and state that, "Man names himself so that others may address him accordingly. This is why we ask a person's name. So that we may have a way to identify a person from others etc... One doesn't just go out and say, "Hey you person with wavy hair, pointed nose and slanted eyes, what time is it?" Neither do we just place labels on others as it is offensive.
Unfortunately there existed a time when a group of biased historians and anthropologist took it upon themselves to name other races of the world. In doing so this memetic engineering has created numerous problems and as this becomes adopted and accepted by others as well as those who were forced to take on this term during the slave trade causing a lost of self identity.
Elohimgenius   |  Talk 21:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Negroid was changed to Congoid a long time ago but it seems that anthropologists still stick to "Negroid" --Digitalseal 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as you can see by the quotation in the last sentence of the article's opening paragraph (or any other undergraduate physical anthropology textbook, for that matter), real anthropologists very seldom use the word at all because it cannot be objectively defined. The only people who use it are those who have never taken a course in physical anthropology and yet, for some reason, they falsely attribute it to anthropologists. -- Frank W Sweet 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Term Negroid 

message: Okay, people, fair warning. If nobody can substantiate the above claims (1, 2, 4, and 5) by tomorrow (3/30/2006), I shall rip them out and replace them with legitimate peer-reviewed information. I do not know if the above counterfactual claims are the result of ignorance, error, or deliberate ideologically driven falsification, and I do not care. Anyone can glance at the opening paragraph of section "1.6 Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races" on page 19 of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, trans. Sarah Thorne (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994), and see immediately that claims 1 and 2, above are not only false, but they invert what the authors wrote. My correcting this misinformation may well lead to a classical 3-reversion Wiki edit war, complete with accusations of POV and original research. So be it. As a scientist and scholar in this field I cannot in good conscience ignore such misrepresentation of scholarly work. -- Frank W Sweet 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has suggested a connection between either the Bantu expansion or the Andaman islanders and the obsolete term that this article is about, I have now replaced the two paragraphs in question with links to Wiki articles on African cultures, African languages, the Bantu expansion, and the Negrito peoples of southeast Asia. -- Frank W Sweet 14:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Warning

message: I'm moving the information we had about the history of African peoples to African Continental Ancestry Group.  This is the term used in the US National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) since 2004, when they deleted terms like "Black" and "White".(ctrl+f negroid)--Nectar 20:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Continental Ancestry Group 

message: I removed a map claiming to depict Coon's conclusions. The map does not match Coon's map. Coon's map shows the horn of Africa as "Caucasoid," not mixed. Also, Coon's map distinguishes "Capoids" as an entirely different "sub-species" of human, rather than lumping them in with "Congoids." Either remove the claim that the map reflects Coon, or fix the map to reflect Coon. -- Frank W Sweet 10:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed image. factual error. 

message: Someone removed the observation that "Negroid" is no longer used in science. If anyone can cite any recent peer-reviewed scholarly work in physical anthropology that supports the use of the term "Negroid" please insert it. Any scholarly source on this would be welcomed. We do not want to give the impression that no current scientist supports the use of the term "Negroid," if in fact any scientist does. If anyone knows of one who does, please cite his or her work. Until then, please keep unsubstantiated unsourced POV opinions out of the article. If you are unclear as to just what is a scholarly peer-reviewed source, I would be glad to explain it. (Hint: it is not a web page.) -- Frank W Sweet 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frank, the term appears to now be mainly used in medical/genetic contexts.    For more references, see a sholar.google.com search for the term from 2004-2006.  --Nectar 03:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see current usage of negroid in forensic contexts in this scholar.google search (see the first entry, for example).   Is there anything else that we need to find?--Nectar 04:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You removed a quotation and cited reference to an acccepted college textbook and replaced it with a non-peer-revierwed, non-scholarly web page link. You have done this repeatedly despite the wiki standards for NOR and NPOV. Your behavior has begun to border on vandalism. -- Frank W Sweet 11:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Some prominent scientists may feel that way, but other prominent scientists feel the opposite way. We'll just report what can be agreed on, that these terms are in scientific usage, and give the specific domains in which they're used (medicine, genetics, and forensics). (A neutral encyclopedia wouldn't want to take sides in an active debate.)--Nectar 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted unsourced POV 

message: These two articles are becoming damned near identical. I propose to merge the two articles into one titled "Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid," so that we only have to explain these obsolete terms only once: what they once meant and how they are used today in the last few remaining academic and professional venues where they are used. -- Frank W Sweet 11:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Obsolete" doesn't seem like the right term if Negroid is in current usage.  Anthropologists and biologists have long disagreed on this stuff.--Nectar 13:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Caucasoid]] and [[Negroid]] 

message: Since the issue of the terms' obsolence is contentious, it deserves a subsection of its own. I can use all the help that I can get. I how have several recent articles that use the terms "Negroid" or "Caucasoid" and I will cite them in the appropriate section (either admixture mapping, medicine, or forensics). On the other hand, no one has yet found a scholarly, peer-reviewed source (NOT an unsubstantiated web page!) that actually advocates either of the terms. -- Frank W Sweet 13:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolescence of Terms [[Caucasoid]] and [[Negroid]]