Talk:Black people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

What people have failed to acknowledge

I have heard the objections to the use of "black" in this discussion group and I have heard them very clearly. Now, I think it's time that we all come to a sense of honesty and reality about my position.

• Black americans (African-Americans) have and currently identify themselves as Black, usually with pride. There is no reason to object to that, or to impose against it. They...WE have the right to be Black. We have historically been told that being black is bad, wrong, evil, nasty, dirty, inferior (etc) and this new wave of bull---- which seeks to eradicate recognizing us based on some post-colonial psychology is just another attempt to call us unworthy of recognizing even our unique social and cultural identity. We can be called black and you all can recognize it for what it is. You have historically hated us for being black, not hated us for any negative interpretations YOU have. You just hated us for not being like you (ligher skinned, straight haired, having whatever it is you think that makes you so important).

• Black PEOPLE (i.e. black humans in any part of the world) deserve to be honestly respected in this article. Trying to explain them away again is based on our western imposition on equating black with bad. So again, I hear people being offended and having issue with identifying these people or those as black. Again, blackness is something that is objectionable based on the racist attitudes taught to us by white colonization.

• Black People again! The Black Humans who are historically known as Black (Aeta, Aboriginals)etc, have their own identity as Black people. They need not to be justified in the minds of African-Americans or Africans. This is not about making "Black" as exclusive as "White". Each group of people in the world uniquely have their identity, they do not rely on another to validate themselves.

• You cannot should your views on here. Black people exist. That is the plain fact, like it or not. Black people exist and we have and are unwilling to give up our identity nor the name of the identity for some grandiose request by others to categorize us based on some view that nationalistic identity is more legitimate. So there is no way that you can tell me that I or anyone else should not call themselves black. If black means 'bad' to you, then too 'bad' for you. I am not going to let white sensibilities determine how I identify myself.

So it is for those passionate reasons that I have and will continue to aggressively involve myself in this particular article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Black People again! The Black Humans who are historically known as Black (Aeta, Aboriginals)etc, have their own identity as Black people." -> This is the case in the US. But "Black People" in Southern Africa, might have a totally different identity than Black People in Wester Africa, etc. I know for instance of Liberians and Ethiopians who were discriminated and insulted in the US.

What Zaph certainly acknowledges

I certainly acknowledge and understand that the use of "black African" is inappropriate. However, I am offended greatly by the use of sub-saharan. To the African people in here, are you Sub-Saharans? How better then to describe the people in question? "EQUATORIAL". That scientifically shows the biological (not genetic) parallels to other EQUATORIAL people (the black people in Asia and elsewhere). This addresses the gap between the lack of genetic connection between the groups, and the relatively obvious physical similarities between them. It also addresses the relationship the sun, the equator, and the environment has on the physical characteristics.

I also acknowledge that the use of black may or may not have a positive impact on some people, however that does not mean it should (or should not). How much of that is objective, and how much of that is self-hatred or colonial mindset is something none of us here are able to pin down. Is rejecting it due to a colonized mind or is accpeting it due to a colonized mind? Does it realistically show the difference today when one accepts (or rejects) it?

Finally I do see a difference between a black person and a Black person. One is merely black based on their skin color, the other(s) are due to their ethnic similarities. The middle ground I am trying to bridge is the fact that a diverse group of unrelated and semi related people share many of the same characteristics and experiences. This must be addressed and not merely ignored.

Now I have been as honest as I can be. I am not and far from being alone in this assessment. Most Black Americans I speak to agree with me that we should recognize that there are black people in other parts of the world and that we should not be ashamed of acknowledging it, nor should we encourage shame in their potential to recognize it without fear of disdain. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

-> I am from Western Africa. And believe me, people there usully see themselves first as members of their tribes long before they identify as "Black People" or something. "Black People" is very artificial and makes sense in the US, where culture is indeed divided along clour lines. But this doesn't make much sense in Africa(At least in the many countries I know). And even in the US, I doubt that things are so easy. Many Hispanics, many West Africans and others feel for instance discriminated by Afro Americans: Because they obviously don't have the "same characteristics and experiences".

Interesting, the ones whom discriminate the most are the ones that look at YOU as "too black". And of course it never crosses your mind that your reacting to that descrimination by saying "im not black, im just African". --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Usually African Americans act like they would know best about Africa and everything. And when you tell them about cultural things, they truly believe it can't be true.

Rebecca Walker speaks

http://www.rebeccawalker.com/article_2003_black-buddha.htm She seems to support my viewpoint. Here is what is said in the article:

Which black people are you talking about?

Look at the statues at Angkor Wat or look at Bodhidharma, the founder of Zen Buddhism, who is depicted with a broad nose, thick lips, and curly hair. There are also some interesting murals in India's Ajanta caves depicting black people handing a lotus to a prince. Or look at Runoko Rashidi's book African Presence in Early Asia and read about black people in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and so on. I have personally met black people from Burma and I have a student who is currently living among the black people of south India. And that is just skipping the rock over the surface because we don't have a lot of archaeological information to discern the complete history of black people in Asia. The African diaspora in Asia has been mislabeled and African Americans continuity with the black Global diaspora has been broken as well. African-American's disconnection with the black people of the world is an injury resulting from slavery in America and in some way, western Dharma's exclusion of the black Asiatic experience in Buddhism has become conjoined with that continuum of injury.

Thank you Rebecca Walker. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

-> Totally crazy. Sincerely, we in Africa we know that Afro Americans have a huge identity problem. So some of us like to tell you stuff that is completely wrong, but which will result in Afro Americans giving us their $$$.

The problem is you don't like our identity. For you black is something to avoid, and like the arab janjaweed idiots in Sudan you see darker skin, you see a black people and you see something to erase. identity problem... that's right. Too often Africans had sold African-Americans to white people and never thought about the ramifications down the line. Now it's time to deal with the worldwide effect. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know where Vietnam and Cambodia is? There have never been African people sold to these places(At least not the last thousands of years). It is totally crazy to create a link that can't exist.

Black Asia

I in 1991, I observed a documentary on China that depicted Black skinned people. The film maker indicated that Black skinned people reside in China. China has listed 2,400 minorities with the United Nations. there are millions of people of Black skin living there. The Vietnamese people also includes many ethnic minorities which can be described as almost jet Black in skin tone.--VaniNY 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Peculiarities

The word seems to have taken on a negative connotation, which was not intended on my part. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Afro American identity problem

Sincerely, I have the impression that many African Americans have a huge identity problem.

Because their original culture was largely destroyed by slavery, exclusion, etc.(Actually, white Americans aren't much better off. Many Euorpeans like to joke about them).

So they yearn for something that could give them an identity.

But really sincerely, no African would ever identify as "Black people".

Just be sincere enough to look at the many tribal wars which are destroying our continent.

I really hope that someday their will be a unity. But we are still very far away from it(Europeans are actually having similar problems, BOsnia, Albania, Georgia, Armenia, Russia, Rumania, Southern Italy/Northern Italy, etc.).

So do "Black People "exist: Yes, in America this identity certainly makes sense.

But in no way does it reflect the complexity of the world(Ex.: Black Arabs killing Black Africans in Darfur, Somalis are actually "Arabic" and not African, though they look Black, African Americans-if they don't have money- are in many places still considered to be inferior/slaves, etc.)

My point. It would be nice to have Blacks united against racism. But right now, there are still big divisions(Just go to Africa). And it is not helpful to ignore them.\

The only problem is that you don't like how Black people choose to identify themselves. You think the whole self-hating black issue can be avoided if people just stop relating to themselves as black. Real dumb man. It also seems that most of these people arguing against black are arabs from Africa. You all get zero respect from me regarding your sneaky attempt to deconstruct black identity. You hate black people in general and you think you can "change us" by turning us emotionally from "black" to "arab". --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again: People in Africa identify themselves by Tribes. I can tell you, because I come from there. You should narrow the subject on the US(Black people). And then open another subject on Panafricanism, which is very important but still far from been accepted by most of the people in Africa.

An example for why "Black People" is wrong

The following article is an example that shows that it might even be dangerous to ignore the many differences between "Black people".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400793.html

Not Just Black And White New Efforts Look More Deeply Into Racial Comparisons of Health Care

By Jeffrey G. Ghassemi Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 25, 2006; Page HE01

That health disparities exist between whites and blacks in the United States is widely recognized, with the latter group faring far worse on many major health outcomes. But some experts are calling new attention to a host of lesser-known differences within the black population that they say may help explain the nature of such disparities and offer new clues about how to address them.

A small but growing body of research shows health disparities between native-born blacks and foreign-born blacks living in the United States. Carlotta Arthur, a researcher in the Department of Afro-American Studies at Smith College, in Northampton, Mass., recently highlighted some of these differences in the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. In a review article, she cites evidence that paints a better overall picture of health for foreign-born blacks than their U.S.-born counterparts -- at least initially.

Upon arrival, for instance, black immigrants have been shown to have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer, hypertension, obesity and overall chronic medical conditions than U.S.-born blacks. Yet this robustness may drop with years of residence -- a concern for health researchers and immigrant advocacy groups alike.

"Much of the research out there doesn't bother to tease apart these differences among blacks," said Arthur. "But 'blacks' in this country are not a homogenous group," she said. "They include immigrants from Africa, Central and South America, and English-, French- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean nations, as well as people now known as African Americans."

Better understanding of such health disparities is critical to improving care and controlling health costs nationwide, says Raynard Kingston, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Immigrants, mostly from the Caribbean and Africa, account for a large part of the growth in the country's black population over the past 25 years, Arthur writes in her review. In the Washington area, African immigrants account for 11 percent of the foreign-born population (the second highest concentration in the U.S.) and number close to 95,000, according to U.S. Census data. Immigrants from Ethiopia, Nigeria and Ghana comprise nearly 45 percent of that figure, found a 2003 Brookings Institution report. Adding black immigrants from outside Africa brings the estimated count of recent black immigrants to the Washington area to well over 100,000, according to some experts.

While the reasons for an initial immigrant health advantage are not entirely clear, one theory points to "selective migration" -- the idea that healthier people tend to migrate. Other theories credit higher education and socioeconomic status, lower-fat diets and tighter social networks of foreign-born blacks.

But Winston Price, immediate past president of the National Medical Association, an advocacy group for physicians and patients of African descent, fears the loss of these health advantages over time. He and other experts predict that the assimilation process and associated stresses may lead to a decline in health status, a finding consistent with data on other immigrant populations.

Another factor: obstacles to accessing health care. These may include an inability to speak English, a lack of health insurance and discrimination -- bias and stereotyping -- by health providers. "Whenever there are barriers to navigating the health care system, people will have poorer outcomes," said Price.

Vera Oye Yaa-Anna, vice president of the African Women's Cancer Awareness Association (AWCAA), a Maryland-based health advocacy group, agrees. Her experiences working with African immigrants suggest that many find the U.S. health care system daunting.

"I may not have hard numbers, but I come across these people every day who say, 'I have cancer. Where do I go? What do I do?' " Yaa-Anna said. "The U.S. health care system may be better than ours, but at home we have family to help us navigate it. Here, most of our people don't go for early screening because they are lost."

The AWCAA conducted its second annual walk-a-thon last Saturday in Wheaton to raise awareness and funds for its cancer outreach programs.

Some of the research reviewed by Arthur supports the concern over growing health risks, showing lower rates of cancer screenings for certain black immigrant groups compared with U.S.-born blacks. Black immigrants were also less likely than U.S.-born blacks to have a regular place to go to for health care. Some fear that if such patterns continue for black immigrants, along with the already dismal health of U.S.-born blacks, disparities between blacks and whites could grow even larger.

Data show that U.S. blacks generally lag far behind whites on many health measures. Death rates from heart disease, for example, are twice as high among blacks as whites, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Similar gaps exist for obesity, cancer and infant mortality. Lower socioeconomic status among U.S. blacks as well as barriers to access (similar to the ones mentioned for black immigrants) contribute to the problem.

In response to current disparities and fears over future trends, some experts are calling for more research that looks beyond race to specific factors within it, such as ethnicity, class, sex and length of residence in the United States. They claim that understanding the differences within black communities can provide new ways of thinking about disparities and addressing populations at risk. According to Arthur, cultural differences might be addressed by printing health literature in many languages and promoting services that respect different belief systems. Other efforts could address social determinants of health care, like discrimination, psychological stress and economic issues.

"The same thing has already happened with other minority groups, including Latinos and Asians," Arthur said. "It's time to start doing it for the black population."

NIH's National Center for Minority Health and Disparities, established in 2000, has already begun to focus its research on this problem. Other institutions are conducting their own studies to address the issue.

Arthur applauds the move. "After all," she said, "we may have come here on different boats, but we're all in the same boat now." ·

Comments:ghassemij@washpost.com.

Firstly, your having yet another shadow debate. The differences between black people are already illustrated here in the article VERy clearly. Also, there is a clear understanding in the article that no scientific (i.e. DNA) basis can used to group black people together because it causes some to be excluded. Thirdly it's just as logical to consider black people in America who are mixed (one drop rule) as "not black" just as well as any Aboriginal, or East Indian. This whole discussion about the health factor is unrelated to this article. It's an unrelated discussion where you are equating "race" with "similar biology" and I have yet to use the word "race" or "same biology" anywhere in my contributions on this article. The concept of race is at the very best an inconsistent concept and impossible to pin down with certainty. ESPECIALLY with the one group that came before all the others, and from which all others derived from. All this is just an attempt to disintegrate the concept of a worldwide black identity. And it's justified because YOU think it shouldn't be that way for YOUR reasons. The fact is, it is there and was there and there is no reason to break it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not there. It would be great if Black People would be united. But it is just wrong to pretend that it is already the case.

Again: Don't think that your reallity in the US is the reallity of the world.

Editingoprah learn to recognize compromise when you see it

A few weeks ago I was going to leave this article alone, convinced you could be trusted to not give undue weight to your personal opinions. I come back to find that you've done ridiculous things like inserted light skinned Sri Lanken kids at the top of the article, and are making it sound as though the term Black describes equally if not more to Asians than it does to Africans. Before you at least had the good sense to make it clear that the term refers primarily to Africans but you're trying to abuse wikipedia as a soapbox to promote your own POV, instead of finding mainstream sources and citing them. Also by putting Ethiopians right next to Sri Lanken kids, people will start to believe Ethiopians aren't Black since the same article is absurd enough to equal weight to South Asians. If you explain to me what agenda you are trying to accomplish, I will help you come up with intelligent ways of reaching it; but for now you're just making a mess, and are only discrediting your own views. Editingoprah 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing POV about putting a photo of Sri Lankan children in an article on black people. They are people of the Indian subcontinent and are considered by some (myself included) part of the African diaspora; they are considered (and some consider themselves) black people. There are various ethnic groups within Sri Lanka -- the Tamils (already mentioned in this article as black people) and other blacks, particularly in the northwest of the country. (See Sri Lanka Kaffir people.) Just because you may be unaware of the history of the country and its various ethnic groups and seem automatically to take an adversarial position to the pan-Africanist perspective, don't assume information foreign to you is automatically incorrect or POV. Assume good faith. Also, keep in mind that many of these peoples are physically indistinguishable from many African-Americans (myself among them). I have been mistaken for Sri Lankan, East Indian, Bangladeshi, Egyptian, Latina -- you name it. Why? Not because there is anything exceptional (deviating from the common) or "exotic" about me. It is because in all these nations there are black people. And they are called black people by more than Afrocentrists and pan-Africanists. Here's one example, where they are not only called black, but "black Africans."[1] Furthermore, such language as "you're just making a mess" and "absurd", etc. is disrespectful and not at all helpful to the project. And there is nothing "absurd" or incongruous about placing Ethiopians and Tamils together. Ancient Indian oral tradition actually tells of blacks migrating from the Horn of Africa and the Levant to India. (And, frankly, I suspect the tradition of dreadlocks among holy men in India originated among the blacks of East Africa.) And, finally, recent research by geneticist Spencer Wells traces the DNA of San bushmen from Africa directly to a Tamil man in Tamil Nadu, India -- and then on to the Aborigines of Australia. So much for "absurdity."deeceevoice 23:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice I am going to let go of my prior animosity towards you. I apologize for it. I think it's obvious that Wikipedia is going to let Editingoprah do whatever he wants, so if you and I can just take turns reverting his edits, we've explained this to him zillions of times and at this point all I am doing is reverting his edits. I don't even pay attention to his arguments anymore. He feels more compelled to put a white man on this page than the sri lankans and tamils, and so we know he is just biased. I'm not going to discus with him, and I only await any Wikipedian enforcement (either against him or me) to resolve this. If they never do, then i will just revert his edits until eternity. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And it seems the only other people besides EO that argue against the logical position are UNSIGNED people, and I am not going to address them anymore. If we can't have this be done right, I'll just do my thing without dealing with the nonsense. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol! Sri Lankans are not African Diaspora! No way!

They may be "Black People" in the US because they look Black. But they don't consider themselves as Africans but as Asians/Indians. And genetically they are as much different of Black Africans as Whites or Chinese are. Again: This shows that this "Black People" article is very American. => Everybody who looks Black belongs to one group.

But it has nothing to do with the reallity in the world.

Finally: The articles you quote are very questionable. I dont want an African American to tell me that Sri Lankans are Africans. But I want serious Indians/Sri Lankan journalists confirming your ideas. Elseway it doesn't have any credibility(Like those African Americans coming to our village in Africa and telling us about African culture...).

Look at this stupidity!*

*Inappropriate personal attack by Editngoprah. deeceevoice 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That personal attack was written by Zaph, not me. Editingoprah 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Yep. I can't deny that it sounds just like him. I saw the notation below with your tag and read it as your signature. Sorry about that. deeceevoice 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

02:43, 1 October 2006 Editingoprah (Talk | contribs) (→Beyond Africa - it's pov to classify them as non-African since millions believe they're Africoid)

That's like saying its POV to classify the earth as round since millions think it was flat. And doubly stupid considering that EO has been arguing that they ARE NOT AFRICANS! So now he wants us to put the very thing he rejected in the first place. He wants that so he can get leverage to remove the other things he does not like. In other words he is massaging the article. He wants us to, under false pretenses, put in that they are "African" for people we all agree are not "African" in order so that later there will be momentum to remove them entirely from being BLACK! What is it going to take for Wikipedia to see that EO is dishonest and has been trying to manipulate through deception the integrity of this article? I am just going to revert revert revert until the year 2059 when the Internet is replaced with Galactic-net. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, all I'm trying to do is create a coherent article. Since you insist on merging a bunch of what I consider unrelated people into one article, I am looking for a common theme. You suggested that experiencing discrimination was a common theme, but you arbitraily excluded the Black Irish, so the only good reason I see for uniting South Asians and sub-Saharans into one article, is the wildly popular idea that South Asians/Pacific Islanders are in fact Africoid. They are members of the original out of Africa migration who remained members of the Africoid race. I personally do not believe this but it's a valid coherent and influential ideology that deserves enormous weight in article on Black people. Editingoprah 03:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are failing miserably. You insist on playing games instead of admitting that your position is untenable. The common theme was and is illustrated in the article. YOU however keep adding in exceptionaly fringe examples in order to disrupt the coherency of the article. And of course you are aware that readers will see the same lack of coherency and reject the article entierly, which is your ultimate goal. If you can't get rid of the Asians, then your poison the article with rediculous examples of irish in order that no one will ever seriously consider the article a source. I included the Black Irish as long as you accurately described their origins as distinct and unrelated to any worldwide notion of being black (i.e. recognize that they are still viewed as white people in all respects). Then you continue to make judgements as to how I put the Asians in the article, falsely accusing me of doing so in ways that I have not. It's populat that people consider them Africoid, but you try to put that in an area of the article where its inappropriate (a disclaimer if you will), which poisons the article. You put that kind of thing (people consider them this or that) in the appropriate place, not at the TOP of the article or section! You know this, why do you continue to play dumb?--Zaphnathpaaneah 03:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Editingoprah (Talk | contribs) (Please respect their right to identify as Africoid, and the right of others to broaden the definition of Africoid)

Then YOu go to the Africoid article and you just do that. but here that goes off the subject. Africoid has more than one meaning, but this is the BLACK PEOPLE article. Not the "Africoid" article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph it has to be mentioned at the top of the article because by saying "Black refers to African ancestry, it also refers to South Asians" you are telling the reader that South Asians are not part of the global African community which is very POV. We have to be balanced and show all sides. It's also ridiculous to talk about Africans & South Asians in the same cultural context, without mentioning the obvious connection they share in Black culture. Editingoprah 04:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else see his "Africoid" argument as just a lame attempt to do a tit-for-tat with the word black? "Please respect their right to identify as "Whateveroid", and the right of others to broaden the definition since you have done the same thing with the word black? EO - Once again let me explain so a baby will understand. The Australians, Filipinos, and Asians never identified themselves as "Africoid". Africoid is a relatively new term that has not reached a consensus even in the scientific community. Heck, Wikipedia won't even let the word exist in it's own article. How then are you going to put another ambigious word into an article that is experiencing the kind of contentiousness you are injecting into it? Aeta translates as "black", Negrito translates as "little black person", never did any of those terms in antiquity mean "people with skulls shaped like continental africans". --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Black refers to people who have historically been called black. I say HISTORICALLY which means since the time of writing, not Pre-HISTORY (not historically since the dawn of man!) You yourself reject the notion that south Asians are part of the global African community, and you know you don't support the notion. This article is called black people, and whether or not the S.Asians are or are not part of the African community is an issue not addressable here. You can add that to their pages (African or Asian). In addition, your only doing this in order to create discord just to have the asians eventually removed entirely. Why do you continue "pretending" to have a POV that you don't even have? As if I have short term memory or something! Africoid and Global African community are often interpreted differently. In the context used by Rashidi and others, it refers to the HUMAN concept of being black (not of being directly descended from Africans). DESPITE the fact that IN ADDITION there are ALSO directly descended African-Asians (notice the term here!) They are clearly described in the article already. Siddi, Shudras, Basri Iraqis, the Abd, etc. You mind putting this fact in its proper context, or instead continue to misuse it to mislead the readers? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it to you yet another way. In India you have the Siddi and the Dalits. The Siddi are historically from Africa and the Dalits by and large do not have a historical link to Africa. Guess what, both groups share the experiences of what we could consider is "black" in America. They both look far more similar to each other than either does to the Aryan or Brahans! So the yap about them being Africoid or not falls into confusion because you yourself insist on keeping them seperate based on their historical link or lack thereof to Africa. Look at the name "Kali" which is yet another sanskrit word for black (relating to a person). Kālī, like Caliente for hot, (shows you the historical link between Latin and Sanskrit, and the relationship linguistically between people of black skin and hot climates). The East Indians had concepts for Black people! it's right there, yet you continue with this STUPIDITY! ENOUGH! --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, contrary to your cynical outlook, it is not my goal to have South Asians removed from the article. I've accepted the fact that they are in the article whether I like it or not, but I am trying to integrate them into the article in a way that's coherent. I don't want this article to just be a random list of people who have historically been labeled as Black. That's trivial and uninteresting. I would much rather explore much deeper and more meaningful connections that go beyond superfical historical nomenclature, oppression, and skin color. You're right, I personally do not consider South Asians Africoid, but I respect the people who do, because at least they're advocating a coherent ideology. And their view point is valid. All humans started in Africa, so it's perfectly logical to think that Asians who still look like sub-Saharans are Africoid. True they are genetically distant, but DNA is only one method of biological classification out of many. And it doesn't matter whether this view is right or wrong (it's actually a matter of opinion, and the way terms are defined) because wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth. And this view is notable, interesting, and well documented, and so there's no reason to exclude it. If you are truly interested in uniting people of color under a single umbrella, you will look for a connection that goes deeper than word games and shared oppression. It's only because of our tumultuous history that you are fighting me on this. If I arrived at this article for the first time today, you'd have no problem with it. Editingoprah 04:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you seem bent on comparing S.Asians to IRISH! It is coherent, your just stuck on "black must be african" and so you make these prejudiced disclaimers "they are black but..." or "even though they aren't really black" or "some view them as black just because.." type of thing. Now, this article is beleive it or not almost a random list of people, because thats how it happened. Now I don't have a morality about it. I find it fascinating YOU are wanting to finally explore the meaningiful connections... but then when you list them you consider them irrelevant! What else is there? A magical fairy that created them all like dwarves, elves and hobbits? What else is there? The human capacity to relate IS the meaningful connection! Over time we will find more evidence linking the historical populations, but for now it's not strong because of the colonial period. DNA is somewhat open to interpretation, one cannot map all of their ancestors through DNA, only certain lines, it's hard to conclude with the kind of certainty that some insist on whether there is a relationship or not based on DNA. But besides that, the human relationship is the capacity to relate, therefore that is where the meaning is most important. Let me put it another way. If you were to find on another world another group of people who looked like, and lived like black people... that would blow our minds away even if they have no link whatsoever to black people. (keep this in mind when people show aliens on TV shows of white looking aliens all the time). I don't know what meaning you think is required for you to accept others as black, but what I have presented to you enough for you to chew on for years. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to quit with the personal comments for maybe 3 or 4 microseconds and discuss the article for maybe 2 or 3 of the 3 or 4 microseconds, please? The first thing (obviously) that is needed is a good definition of "Black People" because that is the title of the article. Presently the article presents;

• Black (noun, black or blacks; adjective, black people) is a term that literally refers to people of a dark complexion.

  This is not a very good definition to build an article on. First of all the parenthesis presents a confusion of speech parts. Better would be to present;

• Black People pertains to any of the various populations of people whose skin is darkly pigmentated, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. The term can also apply to African-Americans. Sometimes the term Blacks and Black People are used interchangeably.

  This exact phrasing could change somewhat, but the point I'm making is the article does not cleanly introduce the concept which it states it is about. IF the article is cleanly introduced, then there would be opportunity to build an article because the subject would be understood. But until the subject of the article is cleanly stated so it would be hard to misunderstand what the article is about, confusion can be expected. Terryeo 08:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is why I refer to the use of capitalization in proper context. Like I said earlier, lowercase b refers to the simple use of skin color. Uppercase B is used when an ethnic or social group is described. Some "non nationalistic" ethnic groups in the world originated from a non-proper context. This is a point worth discussing and I personally see that as a legitimate form of healty debate about the problems we have had with this subject. But I think it would be wrong to eliminate everyone outside of Africa and the Western Hemisphere in the process. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

While I, personally, find your use of "B" and "b" to be interesting, to my general knowledge, there is not a wide spread and well recognized use, as you spell it out there. If there is, the article should present that information and should present it early in the article. Else the article's statements will be misunderstood, since upper and lower case have other uses than what you specifiy. For example, how does one present a lower case "black person" when a sentence begins with that term ? So, if that is the actual situation, please specify some sources. On the other hand, if that situation is only present in a narrow field, or in one or two publications, please specify those and quote the portions applicable. There's simply no reason to introduce your own, personal coding you know? Terryeo 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced

There are many sections in this article that read as mini-esssays and that are not supported by references based on reliable sources (See WP:RS. Unless sources are provided for those sections, material will be mercilessly deleted as per WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 08:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss them instead of mercilessly deleting them. I will simply restore those portions you refuse to discuss. Citational red tape is something I think has been used unfairly here. This article has quite a plethra of citations and references. "Reliable sources" in such a contentious article becomes a game of validation and less of objectivity. I guess what I don't like about your comment is that it comes just as the article is gaining some good momentum. Pictures finally added, the footnotes are looking good, the chronology is coming together, and you just want to unilaterally ruin it without really participating or letting others address the issues you may feel require it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph the talk page is full of people trying to discuss things with you and it's impossible to convince you of anything (you just end up making personal attacks). The founder of wikipedia has made clear that anything that isn't well documented by a reliable source should be mercilessly edited. And the article is not gaining momentum at all. It was in much better shape at the time it was protected. Obviously you think it's better now because it reflects your personal POV. Editingoprah 16:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote from wikipedia verifiability: Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Editingoprah 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah: The burden to provide references is on the editor adding information, not the one wanting to delete information that is not procured from a reliable sources. Please read WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. Material that is not verifiable to a reliable source, will indeed be mercilessly deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted section on capitalization

I've deleted this section, because it's needlessly argumentative and assumes an opinion to be broadly accepted fact. The simple fact is the capitalization of "black" is a stylistic one. The same is true for "white." And while it is possible credibly to advance an opinion about what should be uppercase or lowercase usage and there are those who may parse its application based upon such reasoning, stylistically the word generally (as with "white") is not capitalized. The fact is there are no widely accepted guidelines, no generally agreed upon criteria, which serve as the basis for such claims -- and Wikipedia is not the place for the pushing of a personal opinion or viewpoint on this or any other matter. And in the highly unlikely event I am incorrect in this assertion, then the language should be reinstated -- but not until the editor provides the customarily required and appropriate citation(s) for his/her claims. deeceevoice 10:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is actually based on the grammer and proper capitalization of names in America. If Black is a name given to an ethnic group, then it's first letter must be capitalized as all ethnic group names are (so a lightskinned person who says they are Black would be using the uppercase B). If however it is simply a description of a skin color, then it must be lowercase, as it no longer is a proper noun or name in that sense (a darkskinned person indicating they are a black in that their skin is black). I believe this also eliminates the "whites and blacks must go together" nonsense. It also illustrates the respect of recognizing Black people as a legitimate and bonafide social and ethnic group with specific origins and meaning (and not just some silly notion of race that no one can really discuss rationally).

The reason "white" is RARELY capitalized is because it rarely describes any specific ethnic group, white simply means "lightskinned" or "I am not a person of color". This explains why white cannot be identifiable in the same manner as Black. White is never used to describe an ethnic group, but a nebulous physical description of unrelated people with little or no social and ethnic relationship to each other (Arabs and Scotsmen have no relationship) other than skin color and perhaps the social prejudices or assumptions based on it. However, Black people coiencidentally are named such seperately in history (Kushites, Black Americans, Nehesi, Aeta, etc). This also adds clarity. I certainly think it should be clarified and cleaned up. And I can HONESTLY say this is a legitimate disagreement worthy of honest discussion and re-evaluation. I do feel strong about it, however I do agree that it is something that most people are not even aware of. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is that "black" (like "white") is a broad and general term not confined to any specific ethnic group, as this article makes abundantly clear. And for the same reason "white" isn't capitalized, neither is "black." It has nothing to do with one's awareness; again, it is a matter of style. And you may personally feel very strongly about the capitalization of the word. Unfortunately, your personal opinion in the matter is irrelevant here. While you've characterized the matter of capitalization here as a "legitimate disagreement," your distinctions/definitions and your references were presented in the article as what are right and proper. I'm certain you are aware that laying out an issue and presenting one side over another as correct are two different things -- and the latter is unacceptable in this venue. deeceevoice 12:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

IF we reject the notion that black people are an ethnic group in certain cases, then we ignore the fact that black people certainly share an ethnic distinction from their host populations. So for instance, there are a wide variety of Slavs, Roma, Jews, etc. They vary GREATLY, yet the ethnic group identity still sticks with them. It's like your saying that a word that is commonly misspelled should not be spelled correctly in the article because it is usually not spelled correctly. The agreement, and disagreement stems from a grammatical point of view, I would like to hear WHY Black is NOT an Ethnic group (like Jews, Roma, etc). I certainly know of people who are Black and Jewish. I also know the same people who are Jewish and Black! Not to mention this lack of recognition of distinction is what allows the EO based ignorance to tread all over this article. If we fail to take a strong stand here to establish anything, this article will simply fall into the ((citation needed)) ~ no original research game. (Citation needed of citations already given over and over until one must actually go and record a conversation in person, which is original research!) --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity implies shared history, shared cultural values and norms. The term "black" is larger than ethnicity. It is trans-ethnic in nature; it transcends ethnic boundaries and describes a broad swath of humankind, many peoples who share little or nothing in common with one another. That's why "black" is not a singular ethnic designation -- any more than "white" is. deeceevoice 12:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

St Maurice

From what I learned (which was long before this article). St. Maurice is a patron saint of Austria and has statues erected in Germany. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Indians AND Americans are very racist

Inidans might look Black, or might be "Black People". But they are extremely racist towards Africans.

• African students (And others are often discriminated in India)
• The relation between Africans and Indians in Africa is usually very bad(Uganda, etc.)
• Mississippi Masala, Ghandi and his racist quotes, etc.

Just read what they think and feel:

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000456.html

Indians have a totally different culture than Africans(Different religion, different food, different clothes, different family tradtions, different education traditions, different economic traditions, etc.)

Why do you insist to put people who usually don't consider to belong to one group, into one group?

Either your "Black people" stuff is totally empty(Everybody can be it, and it means nothing).

Or you are wrong because you put people into one group, though they don't belong together. (Unsigned post.)

There were two (or three -- I think three; my memory fails) ancient, Indian civilizations comprised of black African peoples. The Dravidians of Mohenjo Daro were one. There are very clearly not just black, but Africoid peoples in the south of India. Just google the subject if you doubt me.

And, yes, many East Indians are appallingly racist and have been infected with the sickness of anti-black color bias -- like a good deal of the world when it comes to the internalization of white supremacist values. There are lots of incontestably black people (e.g., African-Americans, continental Africans) who also have internalized the sickness of anti-black color bias. So, what's your point?

When the Persians invaded India, they pushed the black peoples to the south and spread their virulent anti-black attitudes with them. The caste system in India is the result, upheld by the Brahmin class. For example, the Tamil blacks, many of them of the Untouchable or Dalit caste, refused to accept the caste system with its injustice, racism and oppression and have fought against it since ancient times. To the north, the population has been heavily miscegenated with Asian and Persian/Eurasian bloodlines. They have adopted European values, try to marry light-skinned people with straight hair and more European features and look with disdain upon dark-skinned people of their own ethnicity -- let alone Tamils and other black Indians.

Again, I am an African-American who repeatedly has been mistaken here in multinational, multi-ethnic D.C. for an East Indian or Bangladeshi -- and that is because there are lots of black people in India. But in an African-American cultural millieu, there is no question that I am an African-American; it would never occur to anyone sane person to question my ethnic identity.

Your opinions are seemingly based on ignorance and a simplistic notion of Indian peoples -- and, yes, that's with an "s". Do not paint all East Indians with the same broad brush. They are not homogeneous culturally/ethnically or physically, not all fair-skinned or tan with straight hair and Asian/Eurasian features. Nor are they all racist (not even those of the north). There are Indians who are almost blue-black with straight hair, and almost blue-black with nappy hair who, if you plunked them down in Africa, or Australia, or New Guinea, dressed like one of the locals, no one would bat an eye -- and you, perhaps, least of all. deeceevoice 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Indians are racist does not belong here. Actually any discussion of general racism would not be appropriate. Please constrain talk page discussion to the article which the talk page is about. Terryeo 16:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen, Terryeo, please do not try to tell people what can and cannot be discussed on an article talk page. People will write about what they will. If someone raises a subject, it is likely that people will respond. deeceevoice 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And, frankly, I don't see a problem with the subhead. As a general statement it's a pretty accurate assertion. So, now we're the thought police? As long as we're censoring subheads, how about Editingoprah's blatantly offensive "Look at this stupidity!" subhead? What? No removal of that one? deeceevoice 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

errrr, ummmm, getting back to the article's subject, errr...208.106.20.67 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Such statements are irrelevant to the purpose of working on the article, and it could be inflammatory. Talk pages are for talking about the article, not the subject of the article. Anyone who wants to make a post titled "So and sos are racist" needs to find a forum, because that doesn't go in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeeze. Ease up, why don't you? The person who posted the header and the info under it claimed that because Indians are racist and have a record of anti-black discrimination (all true to a great extent), it didn't make any sense to include them in the article as black peoples. Not exactly logical, but that was their point. As such, it is perfectly relevant to discussion of the article. And I responded. IMO, no big deal. deeceevoice 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Deceevoce, it wasn't me who posted the "stupidity" personal attack. It was Zaph. Editingoprah 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I got it the first time. Saw your note above and responded above. deeceevoice 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Taking this section from the top. Indians are racist and so are Americans.. Shall I post the obvious ignrance that Americans have towards Black people and Africans? Or are we going to stop pretending that Indians (which are 4 times as numerous as Americans) all come from the same ethnic background? We all know that most Indians are not Black, I am not saying that all of India, most of india, or even half of India is black. I am addressing the elements of India that ARE Black, not the ignorant ones that are not. Here we go with another ignorant quarterback sack! --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is an essay and has no references

Moved here so that interested editors can find references for all thse assertions made.

---

==Who is black today?== {{Essay-entry}} {{unreferenced}}

Because it is more of a social classification label than a bonafide race, it cannot be objectively tested with consistent results. Similar to the difficult experience of unanimously agreeing on who is ethnicly Jewish, there is no scientific way to identify a "Black" person without excluding one segment that has historically been known as black. The criteria can be subjectively applied based on cultural and social customs, political reasons, or historical context. A black person in the U.S. would be considered non-black in Brazil, while a Colored person in South Africa would be considered Black in the U.K.. Finally any mulatto (person mixed with black) is usually considered black in the U.S. Some scientists have insisted on focusing more on DNA but this also creates more problems as Africans are extremely diverse genetically and intermixture among black people creates too many exceptions to the rules which they seek to impose.

• It is generally agreed that Equatorial Africans are unquestionably black, along with black African Americans. In fact, their "blackness" tends to be unquestioned, despite varying degrees of Native American and European admixture.
• Northeast Africans, while generally considered black in the West, are sharply divided in some areas due to religious and ethnic identity. Arab culture and the Islamization of East Africa have caused cultural divides and, in some cases, armed hostilities, between so-called Arabs who otherwise would be considered black in any other cultural millieu and other black Africans.
• In Latin America, many people of predominantly African descent consider themselves black under very specific conditions, whereas many mixed Afro-Latinos use other terms to describe themselves. On the other hand, their African heritage is often more strongly preserved and manifested than among other diasporic blacks. Their religious and social customs are much closer to Yoruba, Ife, and other groups than those of, for example, blacks in the U.S.
• In the Middle East, various unrelated groups of Africans and other black people inhabit the regions. Their appearance in the region varies considerably, and there is no stong unified sense of black identity there. Mostly East African in origin, their culture is distinct, with some even retaining African languages.
• In Southeast Asia, the Negritos (aboriginal Filipino) of the Philippines, the Sentinelese and the Orang Asli of Malaysia have retained the distinctive qualities that otherwise would be known as black characteristics. They share many physical features with continental Africans and are visually and culturally distinct from the Chinese and Sinoid peoples of the region.
• In India and Indonesia, the Papuans and Andamanese groups also have experienced social upheaval, economic hardship, displacement, violence, social and political marginalization and discrimination based on their social status and skin color.
• Australian Aborigines are one of the oldest, distinct human populations outside Africa known today. Their skin color is, on average, darker than that of the average Equatorial African.

---

How about this. How about I semi protect the article from further edits by unsigned editors? Hmm. Yea I think I am going to put in a request for that EO... I mean "anonymous poster". --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Do Indians/South Asians consider themselves to be "Black People"

Please find me indians who will agree that they are "Black People" and who will agree that they belong to one "Black People" group together with African Americans, Africans,Black East-Asians, etc.

I am West-African, and I definitely don't see me belonging to one "Black People" group. As I know that Africans get sometimes discriminated in the US by African Americans(Who always know everything better, even about Africa).

THANK YOU! You may even disagree with me, but you have hit the nail on the head on what I have been saying. There is MORE than one GROUP of Black PEOPLE. Each group has their particular contribution but they are all, each one, still legitimately black. And no African-American should be the judge of all the others. And with India. If only one out of THIRTY East Indian were to say they are Black, that would still leave a population of black Indians greater than that of the black population of the USA. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And I also know that some (Of course) stupid people in West Africa are still discriminating African Americans because they think are "slaves".

Black People unity is certainly great, but it would be wrong to pretend that it already exists.

Most of the Indians I know call themselves "Brown people" even those who are literally Black in skin color. It's because the term Black has come to be equated with African ancestry, so even if an Indian has black skin, they will call themselves Brown, and call a much lighter skinned African-American like Halle Berry "Black". Similarly, a Northern Chinese with white skin will not consider himself White because he's not European. He will consider a dark skinned Italian White though, even though the Italian is much darker than he is. Now I'm sure there are some Indians who are to new to English who mistake themselves for Black because they have dark skin, but most dark skinned Indians know they're not Black. Mississippi Masala was all about the difference between Indians and Black. The untouchables of India called themselves Black but that was just a metaphor that many editors here have misunderstood. Editingoprah 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is making a little more sense, I would say. Terryeo 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the recent edits by you and Jossi have been a productive step in removing original research and undue weight POV pushing, and limiting the article to that which can be solidly supported by reputable sources. Every single week this article is bombarded with someone pushing yet another political agenda (and often they come in packs), so it's a breath of fresh air to have objective editors like you and Jossi come in and force people to stick to the facts and respect the policies of wikipedia. Editingoprah 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OH EO, when are you going to stop with the political punditry? Why don't you get a job working for FOX news, the no Spin Zone or something? Yes you have mastered the art of cleverly worded rhetoric. I'm sure you could sound objective and believeable if you told a blind man that it's safe to walk the streets of New York City during rush hour. Yes, yes, hurray for you. --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have met an American of Indian descent from Bombay who considers himself a black person.--Dark Tichondrias 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

138.217.35.137 09:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)The fact is, most people are citing "credible sources" such as "people they've met". If you go to India, (i would know, i'm Tamil myself), and try and tell Indians that they are black, they will either laugh, be shocked, or feel insulted that you are daubing them with a lable that is entirely innapropiate. Deeceevoice seems obsessed with the idea that the Tamils feel 'black', when his sources are merely people who are notable because they are of a low caste, and hence feel black. The citations he provides are insignificant when compared to the tamil population. I must also say that the articles on Tamil people have obviously been written by people who have VERY little knowledge of the Tamil people, who for their own aims, whatever they may be, seek to by whatever means identify the tamils with black people. To be frank, I was shocked upon first reading this article, as in all my experiences, and in all my interactions with my fellow tamils, both outside of india and within, I have NEVER met a Tamil who truly felt that he was black. The people closest to thinking they are black are those typical people (found in every ethnic group), who think they are "from the hood". The fact that so many Tamils have openly opposed the inclusion of Tamils on this page is telling, especially when the main opponent to this is not Tamil himself.138.217.35.137 - mboro

Is "Black People" a matter of integration?

Somebody wrote:

"There are Indians who are almost blue-black with straight hair, and almost blue-black with nappy hair who, if you plunked them down in Africa, or Australia, or New Guinea, dressed like one of the locals, no one would bat an eye -- and you, perhaps, least of all. "

But in Africa people killed other people, just because the dialect was different. Or because there were minimal cultural differences. It seems very unlikely that Indians -even if they looked very African- could better integrate than others.

Just be sincere: An Indian who looks very much like an African American, would need a long time to adapt to the African Amercian way of life. For instance people of Sudan or elsewehre who were settled in the US sometimes had massive problems to integrate.

And on the other side many African Americans who tried to start a new life in Africa failed, because they were unable to adapt culturally. (Unsigned post)

Okay. Now, this really is irrelevant to the discussion. The article is about who is considered, or has been considered/called "black" -- not which group feels any sort of kinship towards black Africans -- a matter which, incidentally, the article already comments upon. Got that? Anything else is simply completely off-point. deeceevoice 23:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How quickly we forgeteth our own words Listen, Terryeo, please do not try to tell people what can and cannot be discussed on an article talk page. People will write about what they will. If someone raises a subject, it is likely that people will respond. deeceevoice 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC). History, doomed to repeat? Peace. Enoch Shaftoe 06:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-read my comments in their entirety. Clearly, an argument can be made for the validity of the earlier post. However, I see absolutely nothing relevant to the article about the above one. deeceevoice 11:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I have added the {{OriginalResearch}} tag to the article and marked these sections that read as an essay and that, unless supported by reliable sources, are obvious case of original research. Please note that Wikipedia does not welcome material that has not been previously published by a reliable source. This includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. See WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton?

I haven't read the article in quite a while and don't know what changes have been made. But let me say this. While some of Zaph's language and choices in this piece may be open to question, the addition of the photo of Bill Clinton with the comment about him being "America's first black president" is patently absurd, utterly irrelevant and, IMO, calls into question the motives of certain editors involved in this effort. It reads like trolling. What? You want to include a bunch of white, so-called "honorary soul brothers" in the article, too?

I don't know who contributed that utterly useless bit of trivia, and what's more I don't care. But enough of this kind of nonsense. If you aren't about contributing constructively and in good faith to the article, then perhaps you should move on, because that kind of inaneness will not be tolerated here. deeceevoice 11:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the photo of the Sri Lanken kids in the the intro is pure trolling and the Caucasoid Ethiopians right above them? What's up withat? It seems incredibley afrophobic to have an article on Black people and exclude photos of anyone who is atcually Negroid from the intro. Now Bill Clinton was called Black by Nobel Prize winner Tony Morrison and a photo of him with Nelson Mandela undersocres the use of Black as a political metaphor. Remember Black is a social concept to. It's not 100% based on biology. --Whatdoyou 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh heeeeere we go with this utter nonsense. When are you going to go to the white people article man? Why don't you go there and contribute something useful? Fine put "negroid" Africans on the top, I don't care. But Oprah comes off. I put the kids up there because I wanted to show the similarities. SINCE WIKIPEDIA FAILS TO ALLOW REASONABLE USE OF IMAGES ON ARTICLES, I cannot use (cannot even UPLOAD) images of other black children on here. You notice no Nigerian, or any other West African kids? WHY? Because I have to have the owner of the images write a silly confirmation before I can even use the images. No one feels like doing that! --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I love how you put lightskinned Oprah with her long flowing straight hair. Nice example of a "negroid" presentation. Oprah looks less "negroid" in that picture than the Tamil kids, not to mention she's substantially de-negroid-ified in that picture compared to her images over a decade ago. Good job with the consistency pal. But I forget, all this talk about placing the "negroid" seal of approval on an presented image of a black person... that never applies to African Americans. --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oprah looks extremely negroid when she's out and about without her hair and makeup and lighting. Check out the images of her in Katrina or watch her movie Beloved. Whatdoyou 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I leave: "Black People Unity"

Please write something about "Black People Unity".

Because though I disagree that it already exists(I am West African, and I don't think that we basically have ANYTHING more in common with Indians -even if they are very Black- than with Colombians, Australians, Germans or Japanese), it is definitely something that is much discussed right now.

And which might (I hope so) even develop to some kind of a larger mouvement, ideology, or whatever.

In my experience "Black People Unity" is also strongly linked to Hip Hop culture and African American Culture in general, as many young people around the world like to identify with this culture.

But again, again and again: Be very careful not to take the American reality(Two cultural groups separated by colour) as the reality of the world. If you don't believe me, just travel and you will understand!

Tamil image

I have deleted the tamil Image from the start of the article. Paste it somewhere else if needed because they are not typically considered black. (unsigned post).

You may not simply remove an image without adequate justification. This doesn't wash. Tamils are mentioned in the article as a people who have been considered black by many -- and this is a historical fact. Not necessarily "black" in the sense of black African -- though there are some who take this view also -- but most definintely black. And many Tamils themselves self-identify as black and, as the article so states, identify with the African-American struggle for equality/black power. The image is reinserted -- and reinserted where it was. If you have a suggestion about where better to place it, then perhaps you'd care to mention it here. I'm certainly open to suggestions. Further, I will add a caption that clarifies its insertion into the article. deeceevoice 12:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No you can kick rocks. I will restore the images, simply by the virtue that your not giving a credible reason. Secondly because I (and others) feel that they are. In addition, the use of entertainers and media people (instead of everyday people) should not be used at the top. Everyone in the world is saturated with images of American entertainers. MOST people forget that Black people are more than just entertainers (just like most people forget that black people historically have lived outside of Africa). --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to even address the assinine unsigned posters and EO. I address the Wikipedia moderators directly: How long are you going to sit by and do nothing while unsigned posters and an already refuted contributor continues to violate the policy here? I will simply do as you do then. I will ignore and do what I feel like doing. So we will let this come to a head sooner or later. Oh and by the way, more and more people are reading the article thanks to my widespread advertisement of it. I won't be surprised if this article (and the nonsense behind it) gets on the newspapers sooner or later, where this whole question of "who is really black, and what does black mean" gets addressed. And in the end EO, that was a big factor in what I was ultimately going for. The breaking point has already passed. --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dream on. The rest of the world is not as obsessed with race as you are, and most Africoid people are proud of being Africoid and don't have this obsession with lumping themselves in with South Asians that you have. You need to chill out and be more like Ezeu. He agrees with a lot of your positions, but he's not obsessed the way you are.--Whatdoyou 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are not in a position to judge who is, or is not "obsessed" with anything, given your unabashed edit-warring with this article, making changes that are completely unjustified and purely argumentative. Remain civil. deeceevoice 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

YOU dream on. Do you know WHY I am not involving myself to the level I was before? I got this article on the forefront. That means that this article is now attracting the attention I have been insisting on. You all with your short minded concepts failed to see where i was going. Look at the Yoruba Article. When I first got to it it was "a marry making tribe". Now look at it (most of whats there now is not due to my contributions). See what happens is this. usually some racist smart-butt wants to nitpick something I contribute somewhere. They dont care that before hand the article may have been a zero. But so they do their thing and they attract attention. Now with this article? Black people in general know that when they see pictures of Black people in Asia, they aren't playing this STUPID game of "oh no they arent black". WE KNOW WHAT A BLACK PERSON LOOKS LIKE. Black people, everyday black people don't play "national identity" with being Black. When I read that Rebecca Walker was on the same page I was, and she was able to express it as casually as yawning, then I knew I no longer needed to be the avenging angel in this article. You guys are too LATE. The Black people in Asia are going to get more and more of a voice in this kind of conversation. They are going to look at themselves, look at each other, and look at your tired butts and say "yea I AM Black, and I'm ok with it, im proud of it." Because be honest, the only way your narrow minded fear mongering rejection of Asians will hold up is if white racism prevails: That means if Black Asians play into the psychology of equating blackness with soemthing wrong. And for you in here to run with that, and to moralize it, its sad. You know thats why most refuse on the surface to acknowledge they are black,yet you pretend its objective. I cant wait to see how this article evolves over the next 9 months. YOU ARE TOO LATE "whatdoyou". --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring by Whatdoyoudo

1. "Intermediate" is an utterly, abysmally inappropriate term for the section treating racial admixture. Admixture is a well-known term used to describe miscegenated peoples. There is no such thing as an "intermediate" black person, and people are not referred to as "intermediates." I challenge the editor to find credible references to point to the the common use of "intermediates" when referring to multi-ethnic/racial black people. If and when he/she does, then the subhead "intermediates" may be considered. Until then, the insistence upon the use of this terrible term will be considered without merit and just another example of edit warring by this editor. The subhead "Admixture" will be reinserted.

2. The lengthy caption under the photo of the Ethiopian children is completely inappropriate. No credible publication captions photos in such a way. If the author has a point to make, then let them try to make it in the text, where lengthy text belongs -- not in the caption. The original caption will be restored.

3. The photo of the Ethiopian children is perfectly appropriate where it originally was placed, at the beginning of the article. As a general rule, for an article such as this, I think it far more preferable to use images of everyday black people -- and multiple images -- rather than an image of a single, famous person -- particularly one made up so that her nose appears thinner (shading) and with her hair cosmetically straightened. This isn't a matter of famous peopole who are black, but finding a photo that accurate illustrates the text. This photo of Oprah does not do that. The photo of Oprah has been deleted for these reasons.

4. Finally, there are those who maintain that Ethiopians are not mixed at all as a general population. DNA testing does nothing but prove an interrelatedness among some Ethiopians (the population sampled, and not likely those of the south) and other populations. It does not prove they are miscegenated with them. Others contend the similarities are there because it was the blacks of the Horn of Africa who migrated out of Africa, taking a northern route, giving rise to mutated populations that became whites. In that light, the placement of the photo of Ethiopian children is needless argumentative -- another reason it does not belong there and should be placed in its original location. deeceevoice 18:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggest RfC

I came here through a request at Wikipedia's Village Pump. A request for comments might be the best way to go with this. Please check out the following essay Wikipedia:No angry mastons: emotions seem to be running high on this page, which really doesn't help to get the best results for the article. Best wishes, 68.7.88.112 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

TAMIL IMAGE Aishwarya Rai (actress) is of Tamil origin. Why not include an image of her instead?? In Australia the term Black is used to identify Polynesians as well why not include imags of them?? (unsigned post)

Polynesians, Samoans, Melanesians, etc., all have been or are considered black by some people. Many consider at least some of the peoples of these regions black, so if you'd like to add photos, then by all means do so! As a general rule, though, I think it's better to add more photos of everyday people, rather than people of note. And if there's a single photo with multiple images of people, then so much the better. Further, I'm not familiar with Aishwarya Rai, but I checked her out on the Internet. She doesn't look like the typical Tamil. While she may have been born in the South of India, she looks like many northern Indians who are highly miscegenated with Eurasian and Asian bloodlines. Coincidentally, I just came across this curious video at: http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=2&pmmsid=1726852. (Rather than clicking the link, I recommend copying and pasting it to your web browser.) Many of the people in this video are typical of Indian "blacks". In fact, the second to the last fellow on end is typical of Tamil blacks. Note his Australoid features. He could be an Australian Aborigine. Spencer Wells' recent DNA research conclusively established a link among the San of Africa, the Tamils in Tamil Nadu and the indigenous people of Australia. deeceevoice 09:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I had heard about pseudoscience on wikipedia but now I see what all the fuss is about. All humans have "links" as we belong to a single species. This is a very basic biological concept that is taught in all but the lowest level courses. I encourage anyone commenting on DNA to enroll in an introductory course at a local community college. Wells would be horrified to see his name being used to prove that Australians are "black people". CarlosRodriguez 06:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, DNA doesn't "prove" race; race is an unscientific social, political and economic construct. DNA can reveal the relatedness of human populations; that is all. So, before you go on and on about "pseudoscience" and what Wells would be "horrified" to read, you might try rereading the passage yourself first. Furthermore, I encourage anyone commenting on my comments on DNA and then mischaracterizing them beyond all recognition to sit in on a rudimentary English class at any local elementary school and focus really hard on reading comprehension. deeceevoice 13:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions to other Wikipedia articles

1. "In Dravidian people", one can read that they have NO genetic connection to Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_race#Racial_classifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_race#Racial_classifications

And even if they had a connection to the San, it wouldn't mean much as the San are a very tiny genetic minority in Africa, and as they have for instance no strong connection to Equatorial Africans - And therefore no strong connection to African Americans.

Irrelevant, fallacious and contentious argument on several levels. Suffice it to say here that the term "black" does not, ipso facto, imply any connectedness whatsoever to Africa. They could be from Mars. This article deals with human populations who are considered "black" peoples -- not African -- regardless of their ethnicity or location on the planet. Furthermore, there are several editors who obviously disagree with you. It is bad form to continue edit-warring, unilaterally reverting the text to something that sits well with you (and for all the wrong reasons, I might add) and then post your fallacious arguments on the discussion page. deeceevoice 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

=> So it is not about genetics?

2. "The Tamil identity is primarily linguistic, with Tamils being those whose first language was Tamil.":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_people

It is also obvious that these articles have certainly been influencend by Indians/Tamils/Dravidians. Who certainly know better about themselves than others do.

Another irrelevant argument. (See my comment above.) deeceevoice 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

=> So it is not about culture? About what it is then? Just about skin colour? But if this is the case, how can you pretend that "Black People" are a group that does have anything in common?

3. "Trading between the people of Africa, Madagascar, and Indonesia gave rise to various similarities between the Madagascay peoples and some Indonesian groups, especially from Borneo. These interactions give a historical glimpse of the possible Equatorial relationships between black Africans, blacks in Asia, and possibly Australia. "

This is wrong. Malay people migrated to Madagascar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar#Demographics

Therefore there is no reason to assume that Madagascar could be an example of "possible Equatorial relationships between black Africans, blacks in Asia, and possibly Australia".

I haven't read the text and have no comment on this matter, but that doesn't mean I agree with your point -- particularly if your "rationale" is in the same nonsensical vein as your other arguments advanced here. deeceevoice 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

=> Deeceevoice, it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree. It is the truth.

4. Concerning Tamils, I would suggest you to visit the following pages:

http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/tamil/gallery/actor.html

You will see that they definitely don't look "African".

Another fallacious, illogical and utterly irrelevant attempt at making a point. (Again, see my earlier comment.) deeceevoice 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

=> So it is possibly not even about skin colour or "looking black"? It is just about Deeceevoice deciding who is Black and who is not? Sincerely, this article definitely lacks "scientific rigidity".

Although the San are perhaps the most genetically divergent group in Africa, they're still Negroid or Black. However I agree that it's impossible for Indians to be Black. The fact that they may have some genetic connection to the San proves nothing because all humans have a genetic connection to Blacks since we all started in Africa.

Tamils are not black.. and were never been.

First of all "Tamil" is not a Race, it's a ethnicity ( belonging to the Dravdians)

the guy who put this article maybe do not know that there are brown people in this world aswell. i thik we should remove the "tamil-part" tamils are allways been historically indians (which are brown people). just because some tamils are dark as africans, doesnt make tamils black, its the same thing with (example) punjabis, just beacause some of them are fair as europeans, doesnt make them white. Tamils differ in color as much as every other indian community.

tamils have NO historical or ethnical relationship with any african community. and DALITS are NOT TAMILS, dalits do not differ in term of race from the caste people where they live. A gujarati dalit is of the same race as a gujarati caste man.

in term of race... tamils belong to the dravidians, who are classified as caucasoid (mediterranean sub-branche), NOT CAUCASIAN =White!! And Not Australoid. actually there is not even a difference between Indo-Aryans and Dravidians, except the languages. Another study show that Indians (tamils included) resemble mostly west asians, followed by east asians... and least the africans.

Do u really think, tamils get a afrocentric worldwiev ? thats absolutly Bull$hit...I'm sorry.

You may not know, that tamils are like the most racist indians (maybe most racist people in general) towards Africans. there is even a Tamil Word, for Africans.... which means about the same like the "N-word". Do u really think Tamils sympathize with black people..? Or do you think someone would give himself such a rude term to call his own people?

I hope someone will Remove the "TAMIL" -part as soon as possible...If there is a neutral admin, i hope u will remove such incorrectness soon. We want to keep Wikipedia a correct and clean source for informations. Not a platform for someones fantasies or his own way of thinking.

Thank You..

On black diversity, the "global African community" and backlash/ignorance

• RULE ONE: Wikipedia is NOT a place to push one's particular viewpoint.
• RULE TWO: If there are multiple, reliable references with regard to a particular ethnicity or nationality being "black," being called "black," or -- even more importantly, self-identifying as "black," then they should/must be included in this article. This article is about black people -- not African people, not people whom others don't think or refuse to accept are black.

I've been watching this talk page for quite a while now. It is full of ignorant (uninformed), opinionated people pushing their own particular agendas, their own POV. This is not acceptable.

Frankly, objectively, what I'm seeing looks a lot like white fear, white backlash. Why else would there be such opposition to stating obvious facts?

• Like Tamils historically have been considered black people -- and they have suffered the various, nasty racial/ethnici slurs associated by white supremacists with black peoples.
• Many Tamils self-identify as black.
• Australian Aboriginals historically have been considered/called black people -- and have suffered the various, nasty racial/ethnic slurs associated by white supremacists with black peoples.
• Many Australian Aboriginals self-identify as black.
• There are black peoples throughout Melanesia and Southeast Asia. There have always been black peoples throughout Melanesia and Southeast Asia. They are, in fact, the oldest known peoples of these regions (as well as in the Far East).

I could go on and on, but the concerted determination to oppose inclusion of relevant information/images in an article on "Black people" defies logic. The only reasonable explanation is some misapprehension on the part of the misinformed or ideologically obtuse that these assertions/facts stem not from the objective realities in which they are firmly rooted, but from some sort of rabid, Afrocentrist POV pushing.

I understand the concern. And, while I admittedly have not read the article in its entirety, or many sections very closely, I am aware that there are/have been sections of this article by Zaph that were/are either POV or so loosely written and/or poorly documented as to seem POV. I've done some cleanup here and there, but my approach has tended to be impatient and scattershot. I have also attempted to revert some very obvious and seemingly ignorance-based POV pushing from the other side(s).

I would ask that those who are involved in the editing of this piece take a step back and examine a few of the links below. Many of the contentions of an earlier draft of this article, of which Zaph was the major architect -- and I use that word because of his framing of the article, which I think was essentially sound and analytical -- regarding who is "black" are borne out by the information contained therein. Please, stop editing from your own knowledge deficits and the assumptions sprung from them. Dark-skinned peoples of the planet increasingly are embracing the concept of their own "blackness," increasingly seeing the need to organize, unite around shared experiences of racism/white supremacy, oppression, poverty, genocide, etc. -- like it or not, agree with it or not.

A. Sivanandan wa born in Sri Lanka....He is best known for changing the Institute of Race Relations (set up as an academic elitist think-tank in 1958 by politicians and civil servants) so that it began, in the 1970s, to serve the people who experienced racism. The Institute... has, for example, exposed the extent of police racism, of black deaths in custody, of racial violence and of black exclusions from school. It has also created a series of materials on the history of racism for young people and retrieved the (unknown) history of what black people themselves have done here since the second world war to fight for racial justice....When, in the 1960s, racists were saying that black people had come to Britain to steal its wealth, Sivanandan said: "We are here because you were there."[emphases added]- "A. Sivanandan"

Another paragraph states, "As an Asian who was influenced by Black Power, he was able to draw out what linked the experience of all those who had suffered racism and imperialism. This led him to define Black as the colour of one's politics and not the colour of one's skin." This is a take on the phenomenon of blackness, which is borne out by the uniting (politics) of dark-skinned peoples across ethnic, language and national boundaries around the issues I mentioned previously.

Is it this determination to throw off the yoke of white supremacy and oppression under the rubric of a global black identity that editors (and whites, generally) find so objectionable/threatening? Is it because they mistakenly see the phenomenon as an "us against them" thing? I don't know, but it certainly seems like a distinct possibility from where I sit.

• Another link.[2]
• Another.[3]
• Another (an unabashedly learned Afrocentrist perspective). [4]
• Another (an unabashedly learned Afrocentrist perspective).[5]
• Another ("A Native's Perspective").[6]
• Another: "A Family Tree in Every Gene" - an op-ed, The New York Times.[7]
• Another: "Notes from a Brother in India: History and Heritage."[8]
• Another: "Looking at India through African Eyes."[9]
• Another: "Blacks Around the World Must Unite."[10]
• Another: "Understanding Australia's Black Uprising."[11]
• Another: "Heroic Resistance: The Black Presence in Australia."[12]
• Another. "Blacks for Australian Independence."[13]
• Another: "Melanesia: The Struggle Continues!"[14]

So, in light of even this smattering of sources, what are the valid objections to photos of Tamils, Australian Aborgines, West Papuans, Melanesians, etc., anywhere in the article? Answer: there is none.

News flash: it is not your right, nor is it even remotely within your power, to tell other peoples how they may self-identify. This is not about your comfort level with the facts; it is about the facts. It has nothing to do with you. And, frankly, it seems to me the ongoing opposition/antagonism toward certain factual information and images previously included this article evidences a degree of race-based paranoia and antagonism that is unacceptable here. The scope of "Black people" will not be shoehorned -- by the presentation of only carefully culled, absurdly narrow definitions -- to focus solely on equatorial Africans and their progeny. Nor will the further Bowdlerization of properly documented information be tolerated.

Straighten up, people. This is an encyclopedia -- not a soapbox. Try to keep that in mind. deeceevoice 09:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Taken from your source: http://www.lines-magazine.org/Art_Aug02/Nirmala.htm

"AK: Having lived in Sri Lanka, the US and UK, what do you think of the Black identity and its influence on Black struggles.

"NR:I think the idea of a Black identity, was inspired by the Civil Rights movement in the US. Unfortunately, now Black is identified with people of African origin only, but it didn’t used to be that way. It was used as a political term of people of color uniting to fight racism. I might call myself a Black British person, but I won’t because I am a Sri Lankan national...But you know, there are young Asians who would like to call themselves Black, but the African youth will say “You are not Black, you are Asian. We are Black. Similarly, there are young Asians who will say “We are not Black, we are Asian.... "

"AK: The Sri Lankan immigrants in the sixties and seventies, the professionals, how did they relate to such a Black Identity?

"NR: Oh, they would never want to be called Black, ever. They wouldn’t want anything to do with people of African origin and anything to do with the identity Black... Because they don’t mix or meet with Black people. My daughter has friends who are Black, both boys and girls, and Tamil women in my neighbourhood will come and tell me, "is your daughter hanging around with Kaapili boys…" (Unsigned post.)

Yep, I read all that, too. But Sivanandan is speaking anecdotally, from his own experience, and decrying recent developments. He is speaking in terms of contemporary, or popular, culture, everyday awareness among, perhaps, the general population. The salient point is the quotes in the Sivanandan piece (and elsewhere) clearly establish that Sri Lankans historically were/have been considered black peoples.

Further, conveniently, your response cites only one link. The other sources establish that a black identity among the peoples discussed in the links provided is still very much the case, and growing -- particularly among those with the sort of political consciousness evidenced by Sivanandan, who very clearly considers himself "black." deeceevoice 11:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotes do not imply these things. On the contrary, the quotes clearly establish that "the idea of a Black identity, was inspired by the Civil Rights movement in the US." and that all these people will not affiliate themselves with with blacks unless it's somewhat political advantageous to do so. (unsigned post)

Try again:

NR: I think the idea of a Black identity, was inspired by the Civil Rights movement in the US. Unfortunately, now Black is identified with people of African origin only, but it didn’t used to be that way. It was used as a political term of people of color uniting to fight racism. I might call myself a Black British person, but I won’t because I am a Sri Lankan national, but my nieces might, but their generation is also changing due to the experiments of multiculturalism. It was a failure because it divided the Black community into its constituent parts...into Jamaican or Punjabi or Sri Lankan Tamil and so on, rather than build up Black unity....[emphases added]

And that's just one passage, the same one, incidentally quoted above, just not hacked to pieces -- so as to be more complete and more honest. :p deeceevoice 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, "the idea of a Black identity" started with the Civil Rights movement in the US, when it was somewhat political advantageous to affiliate with blacks, today they differentiate themselves from blacks as they did before the civil rights movements. Thanks for adding that part.

Recent POV pushing by Deeceevoice

Deeceevoice can you please just stick to the facts. I created a section where we could cite all kinds of different definitions of a Black person because there's no way we as editors can agree on who Black refers to. If you think the definitions are too narrow then feel free to add definitions that you like. I'll welcome even the most Afrocentric and broad defenition as long as it's an actual definition and by someone who can be referenced. If you can't reference a definition that suits your POV, then obviously your definition of Black is not notable and does not belong in wikipedia. And stop complaining about the Intermediate section. I called it intermediate instead of admixture because the intermediate position that Ethiopians have between Negroids and Caucasoids may be caused in part by the fact that the Eurasian Y chomosomal Adam may have lived in Ethiopia, and not caused wholly by admixture. I replaced Hugo Chavez with Ethiopians because we already have enough admixture photos. Ethiopians add variety by showing another way intermediates can form. --Whatdoyou 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo of the Ethiopians already appeared earlier in the article -- and, as has been mentioned over and over again, Ethiopians are not admixtures. And Hugo Chavez's photo was fine where it was. There are no other examples of Afro-Latinos in the article. Finally, the introductory paragraph is fine. There's absolutely nothing POV about it; the simple statements it makes are supported by the information presented later. Another editor reverted your changes -- and then you simply reverted it back to the terrible mealy-mouthed, single-sentence lead paragraph that is so general it says absolutely nothing. It's just bad writing.

The same can be said for the caption you keep inserting under the photo of the Ethiopian children. It's longer than your freaking lead paragraph. Terrible writing! Terrible form!

The "Intermediates" subhead is ridiculous. No one refers to people like Barack Obama and Ethiopians as "intermediates." It reads like an insulting and dehumanizing term. "Admixture" is a perfectly adequate term, and certainly a far better one to describe the phenomenon of miscegenation.

Your rationale is just excuse-making for your continued edit-warring around the matter of Ethiopians. Ethiopians do not consider themselves "mixed," and the majority of them consider themselves black. And no academic worth his/her salt would state otherwise. Ethiopians are black. Some (and I would say a minority) of them have Africoid faciocranial characteristics that others have termed "Caucasoid" or even "proto-Caucasoid." No one in their right mind has called them Caucasians. There's a big difference, one which you seem either unwilling to grasp, or incapable of apprehending. In ancient times, in fact, until the 1920s and '30s, the word "Ethiopian" was synonymous with "black (African) person" -- regardless of their country of origin.

You aren't fooling anyone with your deliberately misleading/disingenuous edit notes and then extensive changes to the text. If anyone is POV pushing, it's you.

Finally, the business of you putting the definitions in boldface type is not consonant with wiki style. It's not correct, and it's unsightly. Stop reverting the change back to Roman type. deeceevoice 19:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No academic worth their salt calls anyone an "admixture" or a product of "miscegenation". These are racist, outdated terms. And I'd love to see the man who could describe Chavez as "black" with a straight face. CarlosRodriguez 22:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, Carlos, dear. We had this debate a long time ago in Miscegenation. The term is not inherently pejorative; it's what people bring to it. I cited several instances, in fact, where it has been used currently -- and in a positive fashion. The same is even more true of the term admixture. Google it -- but make sure you read the results more carefully than you did my earlier post regarding Spencer Wells! :p deeceevoice 00:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but I am of mixed race and I find the term admixture very offensive. I'm a human being not a soup. Intermediate is more accurate because there's no proof that Ethiopians are heavily mixed, they are however intermediate between Blacks and Arabs. This is probably because humans started in Africa as Blacks and later branched out into the middle east through Ethiopia where they slowly became Arab/White. Gottoupload 01:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You may find the term offensive. There are people who find the term "black" offensive. The fact is "admixture" is a far more widely used -- and also value-neutral -- term than "intermediates." Like I said, google it. And, no. "Admixture" will win out every time. deeceevoice 03:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

stop the foolishness now, Ethiopians are a mixed as the people in the congo. If anyone is mixed it is the Arabs. Because the slave trade didnt bring mixing into EThiopis it took Ethiopian out of Africa and they became teh mothers of many rich Arabs. This is why Arabs look "black" so the story is wrong, but again Ethiopians are beautiful so i guess they cant really be black. thick lips and coarse hair is pure? Pure nonsense. legacy of "whitness" more or less "blacknes" its funny because the darker Africans we see today are more "recent" than the lighter ones, hence Africans were lighter the further back or black you go--Halaqah 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Halaqah, you have to prove your point? For me Ethiopians belong to the "Black" or to the "African" group, whatever. But can you prove that "the darker Africans we see today are more "recent"?

Arabs are not that mixed. The highjest level of admixture in the Arab world is in the Yemen Hadramawt and even there it's only 35% and only on the female side. The level of sub-Saharan admixture on the male line is virtually zero all over the Arab world including tthe Yemen Hadramawt, which means that over all the people of the Yemen Hadramawt are only 17.5% Black. And the rest of Yemen and the Arab world are only 10% sub-Saharan on the female line, and 0% on the male line, making them only 5% Black overall. [15]. And keep in mind that what little sub-Saharan DNA exists in the Arab world is probably of Ethiopian origin and Ethiopians are arguabley the population that began mutating into the proto-Caucasoids who left Africa.

That's ridiculous. Take a look at Prince Bandar, who looks like an African-American. Put him in FUBU and set him down in Harlem in a Black Panther Party rally, and no one would bat an eye. Take a look at Qaddafi of Libya, with his curly/nappy hair. Some of my father's siblings could have been Saddam Hussein's brothers. (And I'm flat-out African-American.) Gimme a break. Of course Arabs are mixed. "Arabia" and the Levant are permeated/suffused with black African bloodlines. And, as in Egypt, the farther back in time you go, the blacker and less Semitic these peoples were.

And the fact that blacks of the African Horn are likely the branch of humanity who left Africa and later mutated into whites has no bearing whatsoever on their inherent and fundamental blackness. They are who and what they are. You can't redefine this branch of clearly Africoid humanity out of the black "race" and credibly slap them with the label "Caucasoid" (a European geographical referrent) simply because somewhere down the line millions of years hence they mutated into a bunch of hairy, pale-skinned, flat-faced, thin-lipped people, classified as Caucasians. deeceevoice 10:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You can redefine a negroid branch of humanity as Caucasoid if the genetic changes that defines Caucasoid began in Ethiopia and not the middle East as previously thought. Now Ethiopians still retain a lot of Negroid traits like Black skin and tight curly hair so I can't say for sure that they're Caucasoid. Some genetic research shows them as being closer to Caucasoids. Other studies show them being closer to Negroids. But if they are Negroid, they are the branch of the Negroid race that is closest to Caucasoid so it makes sense to put them in the intermediate section.__Whatdoyou 17:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Put him in FUBU and set him down in Harlem in a Black Panther Party rally, and no one would bat an eye"

=> The problem is not about who is considered Black or not in Harlem. But whether people are considered Black in Saudi Arabia, India or whereever. And in the case of Prince Bandar, it for instance doesn't matter that he looks "Black". Because his status, his culture and his life is mainly determined by his family origin. Therefore he is actually the exemple of a Black looking person who doesn't belong to the "Black People" group, as he probably is not defining himself as a member of the "Black People" group and as he is probably not considered by his fellow Saudi Arabians to belong to this group(Who for most of them probably never heard about "Black People"). Concerning Muammar al-Gaddafi: A lot of people have "curly/nappy hair". Even in countries like Holland, Switzerland, Germany, etc. It doesn't mean anything. (unsigned post)

Actually, no. The discussion at hand was whether Arabs are "mixed" -- and they clearly are, with black African bloodlines. With regard to Qaddafi and the Libyan peoples (and other dark-skinned, nappy headed peoples in North Africa and the Levant), even in North African nations not considered i the misinformed, modern mind to be black, the "Negroid" presence in the regions are a matter of clear historic record. It is, in fact, widely known. With regard to Libya, specifically, this is borne out by genetic studies. A quick google revealed this.[16] Opinion is good -- but informed opinion is even better. :p deeceevoice 13:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

=> Even if they were mixed, does it make them "Black People"? I mean everybody comes from Africa. Even Scandinavians. And I doubt that many Arabs know about "Black People" or that they care about whether "no one would bat an eye" for them in Harlem or not? (Another unsigned post.)

Please. Don't underestimate Arabs; they haven't been living in caves. Of course they "know about black people"! They've been selling us as slaves for centuries. Arab culture is among the most virulently anti-black/racist on the planet. And those among them who are black generally would rather die than admit it. In fact, you've got blue-black, Islamicized Africans with nappy hair denying their blackness and embracing instead an Arab identity -- when they are nothing of the sort.

And your question is irrelevant. Where, in the article (or here) have I asserted that all Arabs are black? Nowhere. Be careful to try to stay on point and not erect strawmen -- just for the sake of argument. deeceevoice 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

=> Dear "Deeceevoice", you are maybe too American to understand: Among themselves Arabs won't talk about "Black People" because the fact that somebody is lighter or darker than another person might not be that important in their culture as it is in the USA. I think we both agreed that "Black People" is not about genetics. It is a cultural thing. And you (Thanks God) have more and more people embracing it. But if it is cultural, and if Arabs don't care about it because "Blackness" doesn't matter as much as family ties, Religion, "Is someone a slave or not", and so on, how can you then consider Arabs "Black People" if they even don't care about whether or not they are "Black People"?(Some of them might not even know about the difference between Black and White, etc.)

Don't forget, Arabs enslaved as vigourously Europeans as they enslaved Africans.

Deeceevoice the typical Arab is only 5% negroid when you combine maternal and paternal lines. They may look more negroid than that because even 100% pure Arabs are naturally a little on the dark side (they come from the middle East) so when you mix a dark skinned Caucasoid with a splash of negroid, they may look as negroid as an African-American, but they're not. Yes there was ahuge slave trade in the Arab world. That's why they're 5% Negroid and not 1% Negroid like American Whites.__Whatdoyou 17:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are the most backward thinking person in here. You get the Mugabe Award. Listen to yourself dark skinned Caucasoid with a splash of negroid, they may look as negroid as an African-American, but they're not. This isn't rocket science. THEY ARE BLACK, THEY ARE NEGROID BECAUSE THEY LOOK NEGROID! What? Are you going to get some kind of measuring tape everytime you see a black man with a middle eastern accent? "Hold still, I gotta measure your skull... ok were you BORN here or raised here? Are you Muslim or Nation of Islam? Oh ok, well your not black my friend... no.. Well see your mom was just a dark skinned caucasoid... yea... see her skull looked a certain way, and a billion years ago some of her ancestors and my ancestors were probably cousins in Ethiopia so well of course that means they were all on my side of the fense (white, caucasoid, whatever). Now your DAD... he's gotta splash of negroid in him, but.... naaaah, i just cant say thats enough. See he lived OUTSIDE of Africa, and I just don't feel good with accepting him as black. LOL I know it sounds crazy... yes you look just like the African Americans, and yes I know you look NOTHING LIKE ME, but you are actually more like me than the African Americans! Yes I know its crazy. yes, culturally, socially, ethnically we have nothing in common, but come on dude, your not black! Your caucasoid just like me! Your skull has a certain shape to it. And some of your ancestors were distantly related to mine eons ago. Lets just ignore the fact that more of them werent." --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

=> Americans are definitely much more than 1% Negroid. Then there are a lot of differences among Arabs(Marocco, Soudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebannon, etc.). Finally Whatdoyou, please prove your claim that Arabs are 5% Negroid.

See why cant you guys be honest? You cant just be honest and say that your more concerned with the mounting numbers that would change against the status-quo. The black population would be regarded higher than it is and the orientation of the world would shift and that scares you. So you invent all of this nonsense and hold on to it to dear life "you look black but your not" "your Caucasoid" etc. What? You want the arab kid to look up to you in your eyes and nod his head slowly in acceptance of your conclusion? You want him to go "Oh ok... yes... i guess your right!" See how you try to take the choice and superimpose your useless reasons on someone else? The Arab (or whomever) say they are black, they are black. Caucasoid has to do with a skull shape that people believe comes from a pure white ancestor. Yet another myth that you all hold on to like its fact. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the article

I removed the text below from the article. The source cited (vanguardnewsnetwork.com) is not reliable. The website vanguardnewsnetwork.com is a white supremacist site. Its pov is obvious: its tagline is "No Jews. Just Right." This is definitely not the kind of source with which you want to build an encyclopedia. I realize that the quote taken from the site is from someone completely unrelated to the site itself. But, if you really want to inlcude this quote, you still need to provide a reliable source, preferably the original source. Find out where the quote is taken from, and cite that. Is it from a book, an article, a speech? If a reader wanted to further interrogate this source (which is the whole point of having references), where would the reader go? Please don't be lazy with research and just grab anything off the internet; think critically about the sources you cite. Lionchow - Talk 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Negroid is defined by Michael Levin in the following way: So, letting 25 years mark a single generation, a Negroid may be defined as anyone whose ancestors 40 to 4400 generations removed were born in sub-Saharan Africa. He also adds If blacks, whites, and Asians evolved separately over (say) the last million years, a Negroid is anyone (75% or more of) whose ancestors 40 or more generations removed, with no upper bound, were born in Africa.

It was me who added the definition. I just did a google search on definitions for black people and it came up. Michael Levin is a notable academic. The fact that white supramecists support his ideas is not a valid reason for removing it. A lot of the Afroccentic perspective being pushed in the article is also very racist, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Obviously if your going to cite experts on race, they are going to be supported by racists, because racists are the primary people who care about race.

Hi "me." (please sign your posts :-). I agree that Michael Levin is a noted academic, and that the fact that white supremacists support his idea is not a valid reason for removing it. But that's not what I argued. First, think about the reliability of the source (vanguardnewsnetwork.com). On a site that is devoted to hate speech, what reason do we have to believe that the creator of the site represented Levin accurately? Who is checking that he represented the author accurately? No one; there is no editorial team, or fact-checking. This means the site is not reliable as a source for wikipedia. Secondly, what is the purpose of providing references in the first place? It is to demonstrate that you have a well-rounded understanding of the cited material, and to allow the reader to interrogate the sources you provide to critically analyse your thinking, and delve deeper into the subject. This reference does not allow the reader to do that. The reference should refer to the original source to achieve this. This would assure your reader that you have actually read whatever book the quote comes from (or at least a chapter), and not just some snippet you found on the internet, without any context for that snippet. It would also allow the reader to further investigate the concept with the original author in the proper context. Saying "I just did a google search.." doesn't make something worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. How about this: I will leave the quote and remove the source, and tag it with a 'cite source.' Then, you read Levin's book and see if the concept is worthy of inclusion in the article, and properly cite his book. That will be the first step to making this a well-researched article. Thanks, Jason Lionchow - Talk 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I found a primary on-line source where Levin defines negroid and replaced the vanguardnewsnetwork.com reference. Kobrakid 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

=> On the Wikipedia one can read:

"He was cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center's publication Intelligence Report (Summer 2006) as repeatedly addressing the so-called "white supremacist" organization American Renaisannce. The same article claims that he has since stopped attending due to Anti-Semitism, but not because of their explicit racism against other minority groups."

I guess he is not he right person to mention in a discussion concerning "Black People"?

Pic

Those Ethiopian children do not resemble Caucasoids. Why are you putting that they look like that? Take it off. --69.241.247.13 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I think they do resemble caucasoids and I have genetic and I have anthropological sources that back me up. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are caucasoids, but they're probably descended from Negroids in the early stages of becoming the first caucasoids and then later mixed to some degree with actual caucasoids. If a forensic expert had only the skull of an ethiopian and was asked what race the person was, he would guess Caucasoid, not Black.__Whatdoyou 21:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

if only!

Well your obviously out of touch with reality. Those kids do not resemble caucasoids. You cant distinguish them from other black people. They do not resemble any other white group. Ok which group do they resemble the most? French? Germans? Let me help you understand, A "Caucasoid" skull has nothing to do with someone being black or not. If that were the case, most of the Black Americans in America would be "not black". One can be Cauacsoid (based on this new silliness) and it have NO effect on them being black or not black. You gonna let a negroid shaped white man be reclassified as black? heck no. His skull will just be added into the greater Caucasoid variety! Its manipulation and how long will you and EO and others keep playing a game that has already been dissected and figured out? No one EXCEPT the forensic expert would or has ever gone from person to person measureing skulls in ethiopian villages (or american cities) saying "ok your skull is shaped like this, your not black, but your older brother, he is black, his skull is shaped more negroid than yours). "if only" you say... "oh if a forensic expert hod only the skull of an ethiopian" ... then all would be nice and flowery... oh why didn't you add the obvious "if only the forensic expert already agreed with me first, and if only he chose the kind of ethiopian skull i wanted him to choose... if only... if only" OH you sound like those white guys I debated in the 90s. Silly sincere sounding appeals, oh if only, my heart just wants to go and find your expert and give him a free dinner so youll feel better. If only! --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Diaspora?

"It is used in a variety of applications, but primarily to identify the indigenous peoples of Africa (with the exception of Maghreb Berbers) and their diasporic populations throughout the world"

Are Sri Lankans African Diaspora? If yes then everybody is diaspora.

Tamils are NOT Black People

Just check their actors:

• http://www.thenisai.com/img/gal/imgs/a_arj_0001.jpg
• http://www.thenisai.com/img/gal/imgs/a_ars_0001.jpg
• http://www.thenisai.com/img/gal/imgs/a_pra_0003.jpg
• http://www.thenisai.com/img/gal/imgs/a_aji_0001.jpg
• http://www.thenisai.com/tamil/gallery/tamil_actors.htm (Unsigned post.)

This "Black People" article is racist American bullshit. A lot of Black Brothers over there have an inferiority complex:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferiority_complex

So they don't like to identify with Black Africans, but prefer to identify with Indians or Arabs, even if they have nothing in common with them. Because they think Indians or Arabs are stronger and more equal to whites.

But just accept it:

• Ghandi was racist
• Many Indians, Sri Lankans, Tamils and others are also racist(Just check the situation in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa)
• Almost all of this Asians(Tamils included) don't think that they have anything in common with Africans
• Sometimes they refer to Martin Luther King, etc. But who doesn't? *Even white British(Pacifists) refer to Martin Luther King. It doesn't mean anything

But those actors look nothing like the majority of Tamil people, but you know india has a serious color complex, i mean the most serious in the world. If you are dark you can forget by default entering bollywood or any "face is your passport" industry, unless you wanna be a cleaner or the clown---Halaqah 13:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments precisely, Halaqah. To the author of the unsigned post: this article is about people who have been classified/called "black" -- not about whether the applications of the term are universally agreed upon. The simple fact is -- as has been supported by ample documentation herein -- that many people historically have referred to Tamils as black people, Tamils included, and that an increasing number of politically left/radical Tamils are doing so today. You may personally disagree with the application of the term, but you cannot deny that many do apply and accept it. You, therefore, cannot credibly contest the information in the article, and you cannot credibly challenge the inclusion of photo(s) of Tamil people. There is no justification for either. Accept it or move on.deeceevoice 10:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

=> "many do apply and accept it"

"Many" for me, is like at least 25% of the Tamil population. Sorry, but there are no serious Tamil mainstream information sources indicating that many Tamils consider themselves to be "Black People".(Try at least to find ONE single article from a major Sri Lankan/Indian Newspaper, who uses "Black People". I found nothing).

what u mean by many do apply it? not even one out of 10000 would apply, that they are black, just get it. u probably never met any tamils, thats why u talk BS. i dont know where u live, but people on this planet associate the term "black people", with being of african origin. I agree these actors dont look like the average tamil man, but they still come closer than africans. take the skin color out, and they look like any tamil guy.

Ghandi was not a Tamil. Tamils are not East Indians, they do not politically or culturally agree with each other. Secondly. Look up Black Diamond from Bangladesh. Black woman, why in the heck is she famous as BLACK diamond if they dont view themselves in some way as Black. She ain't a Irish woman with black hair, she looks like a Black woman (whether African, African American or Asian). In addition, you guys miss the point that we are not talking strictly of African origin. What will you do when tamils do recognize themselves as Black? What will all of you do when (not if) people around the world realize they can choose to be black without feeling like something bad will happen to them if they honestly in their minds do? That "bad" association is what takes the objectivity out of this article. It's what makes you miss the point. But rest assured, my lack of participation on this level is for a reason. I've been asked to get back in and do what I do, but what many of you fail to see is that the ripple effect has already started. I sent this article to everyone on the planet. I got on people, and I guarantee you that this issue about being Black, being Asian, Aeta, all of it, it will be something we all will finally face and no more hiding. Black Americans are going to have to face the fact that we have to share our identity. Black Asians are going to have to get over trying to find comfort in denying who they really are. Finally all will get over this notion that blackness is something to guard and hide and keep seperated into a little niche filled with stereotypes and pop-culture. You all act like the whole psychological "negrophobia" aspect doesn't skew things, like it's always been an honest discussion over the past 100 years. Who is the one who keeps insisting that DNA has been the defining factor? God, you cant even pay attention to recent history? Who here remembers the lightskinned kid down the street going to the census bureau to get a DNA test back in 1965 so he would find out if he was black or not? You guys wont let go of your little American cumfy wumfy concept, but it's too late. The world is going to reorient itself away from White on top, Black on the bottom and people (Africans, Aeta, Aboriginals, Tamils, Siddi, Dravidians, etc) will have the freedom to express themselves (not imitate) as Black people, without feeling like they are losing something, because they aren't (that fear is the only thing that holds so many back from being ok with who they are). Knock yourselves out in this article guys, i got what i wanted. And I will be making drastic changes in due time, just not now. Others will be too. Like putting Dr. Ben Carlson and Wole Soyinka back in the article instead of showing a model in a sexy pose near the top making us look like sex crazed fools. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

who told you tamils are not east indian , u moron? Of course WE are. Who cares what Ghandi was, he wasnt punjabi or bengali either, or was he? Barathi was Tamil and Indian Poet, Thiruvalluvar was a Tamil Indian writer. so what? every community has its own cultural heroes.

Tamils are not East Indians, they do not politically or culturally agree with each other First of all, u kidding right? Everything typical Indian is Tamil (Barathanatyam, Carnatic, Sari, Lungi, Rice & Curry) So u may tell me what Tamils and Negroes have incommen u cunt... Please get a life, and get the fuçk out of these afrocentric sites..

Black Asians are going to have to get over trying to find comfort in denying who they really are. Black asians...LOL who are they, ur mom and ur dad?

..Tamils, Siddi, Dravidians, etc) will have the freedom to express themselves...

Yo brother, what do u know about tamil or dravidian history in general? seems like u know nothing. WE tamils had empires back to the Chola, Cera, Pandya and Pallava times, as far as southeast-asia. We had our freedom to do what, we wanted to do. And we still have. Please speak for urself if u feel limited in ur freedom.

Finally please Nigga, go listen to some jungle bungle sound and leave such shitty comments. (unsigned comment by a likely "black" self-loathing mental cretin.)

Above Racism Please note the above racist statement by a Black Asian. It reminds me that a very black-skinned Sri Lankan approached me and some friends in NYC. He began talking bout race and describing in an very disparaging and insensitive way how Black African Americans are. Yet, he was extremely Black himself. We were clearly dealing with a form of self-hatred. Yet I have encountered more evolved Black Asians who do wish to be identified as Black. In any case, this is about skin color and not political or social identity. While there may have been any number of dominant light-skinned cultures in Asia that doesn't change the fact that Black skinned people resided and continue to reside there. How they came to live there is unknown to me. Perhaps they are the result of an early African exodus. Unbiaised archaeological evidence will eventually reveal this. However, this

PLEAS DONT TELL ME U DELETED MY POST...

Problem with "Coloured"

"Those with weak or three-caste endogamous barriers, such as the French, Dutch, and British distinguish between black and Coloured."

"Coloured" does only exist in Southern Africa.

But hasn't been used by the French or others, who didn't therefore didn't "distinguish between black and Coloured".

Something like "People with ancestrors of different colours" would be more appropriated.

Another Coloured Problem

"In apartheid South Africa, association between members of the Black and Coloured endogamous groups was forbidden."

In South Africa, some coloured groups were very close to "Tribal Africans". For instance those couloureds who had "Bantu" or "Tribal African" parents. What was forbidden for a very long time(Until 1984?), was the mariage between whites and people from other groups("Bantu", "Coloured", Inidan/Asian). But the separation between "coloureds" and "Bantus" was definitely not as rigid as the separation between whites and non-whites.

Also important. The confusion about African-Americans came from the fact that they were not associated to the "Bantu", "Tribal African", "Black" group, even if they looked black. Because they were -like coloureds- considered to be westernized.(African Americans usually don't speak "Tribal African" languages, etc.; Towards the end of the Apartheid they were -because of political reasons- even classified as "Honorary Whites").

Just to remind you how obviously out of touch with reality some contributors are

I told you guys this, almost a year ago, that if we let this nonsense prevail, soon Ethiopians would be placed in the "not really black" context? Well here we are. The Ethiopian kids are called "mixed with Caucasoid" and someone wants to insist they could be white if they were painted white and shaved heads. That is funny... First "Caucasoid" meant the shape of one's skull. Now "Caucasoid" implies "white race". So people who have a skull a certain shape called "Caucasoid" will be "like white people" if they live in Ethipia... but again, here comes Mr.Forget-me-Jones.... the SAME proportion in America (all of these Black Americans mixed with Caucasoid whatever, same amount with the "caucasoid look" or whtever it is in those ethiopians you all see as so white looking)... those same looking people in AMERICA... you will NOT, nor EVER see pushed on this article as such. You will not see anyone in here say "Black Americans are mixed with Caucasoid and at least 20% if you shaved their skulls and painted their skin white would look like a European! Why? Because it's nonsense. If you did a whole bunch of things you could make anyone look like anything. You see an ethiopian's long nose and you guys go into some kind of orgy of "caucasoid" and you think its all about their entire face. A NOSE! Retarded. but go ahead "Zaph, your dreaming, Zaph your nuts, Zaph this Zaph that". Some of you should be hired as some kind of racialized experiments. See how your brain reacts when you see a black man in Ethiopia with a nose a certain way, how does the endorphins in your brain respond. When you see the same man in America, how does it react. Cuz thats all this is about. How does the "AMERICAN" and especially the "white American" feel? Look at the Rwandans with the same features... you know the "pretty looking Tutsis" . Lets get a cheer in here from some of you saying that they might not really be black. Come on. Why stop just at Ethiopia? The Rwandans have the same features too. And the Black Americans? BE CONSISTENT. Call them Caucasoids, call them not really black. Have some balls. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Brute force the article?

I just love how this is added in:

• Admixtures is not the only way individuals can be genetically in between two different races. Although Ethiopians are widely considered Black both historically and by the census, because of their Negroid skin and hair type, a 2001 Oxford genetic cluster study stated: 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans. In addition their craniofacial features resemble those of Caucasoids. However the cause of their genetic and physical resemblance to both Negroids and Caucasoids may not be entirely explained by admixture. Scientists believe that modern humans originated in Africa, and that all non-Africans carry a later mutation that occured in what is today known as Ethiopia. The man who first carried this mutation is known as the Eurasian Adam. .

So of course these intelligent scientists objectively determined that when this Eurasian Adam had this mutation, it made him look like a Norweigen. His parents must have been shocked at how different he looked from them, and from then on out, their entire family was cut off from the rest of the black people of that time. Of course this mutation made Eurasian Adam look white and caucasoid and there is simply no way that this muation would just be found among people who are black AND white. No it must mean that the white ancestors GAVE all people who have this mutation. Again, EO said so himself, once you walk out of Africa, your no longer black. Its magic! how many of you were fooled by this hocus pocus paragraph. Come on admit it. Razzle Dazzle Flippity Flam, Abracadabra Another Sham! --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice how negroid gets jumped around. Now its not a skull shape anymore. Its skin color too. Is it me? Or has the quality of this article GONE DOWN after this so called research was added in? Negroid is a SKULL SHAPE. P E R I O D. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL and even more silliness. 62% is such a wierd number. They had to do at least 50 skulls to get that number. 31 out of 50. Im sure they went all over Ethiopia (not just in one area where they feel the Ethiopians look the MOST Caucasoid). Oh 62%. that's like every other relative. i remember in Brazil or somewhere they would literally break up families based on how "black" the children looked, so this whole picture of garbage would come true. The blacker looking parents got the blacker looking children, and the whiter ones went elsewhere. Then a genaration later, they go "oh well Brazil is a country that is primarily Caucasoid with Negroid admixture". Will you guys grow a brain? Every country in the world where the people fail to homogeneously look like Desmond TUTU you hear "Caucasoid with negroid admixture 62%)--Zaphnathpaaneah 08:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I just highlighted the ignorance so you all can remember. Putting a lot of references to ignorance doesn't turn it into intelligence. there are still Mormon anthropologists that can be cited left and right that will swear that Native Americans came from Israel. Don't be afraid to take it out. Someone wants to force this to be a article strictly about race (where the article is called black people, not the black race, there is no black (or white) race unless you make believe.) The article said at the top how hard it is to cleary define it, then that race is a social concept then here we are. Guys, I will be coming back in here and handling this article, so why waste your time? What? you want to have a little fun while I'm gone? --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Caucasoid lie

This is for the people who are convinced by this Caucasoid lie. Let me explain to you how your being manipulated. Firstly, no matter how they explain it, the Eurocentricists in here are still going to massage your subconscious with the belief that Caucasoid is just another way of saying "white people", whether mixed, whether with a tan, whatever. Here is how your being manipulated.

• Your being told that caucasoid is a skull shape that came about at some point in prehistory in Ethiopia. Ok so far no big deal. Changes happen in populations.

• What your being fooled into thinking is that this change, whether a skull shape or a DNA blip, or a Eurasian Adam, somehow created two seperate races of people.
• What is impllied is that this break was clean and distinct and in Ethiopia (of ALL places) the changes can be kept reasonably discernable to present day populations.
• So your led to believe that Eurasian Adam had something that carried over to everyone else except some Africans, which thus become the "non-mixed" ones.
• what your led to believe is that this change had something to do with hair texture, skin color, nose shape, etc.
• what your fooled into thinking is that this change generated the white race which came back (still in prehistory) and repopulated Ethiopia and mixed with the remaining black people there to create our pretty Ethiopians now.
• Your fooled into thinking this blip on the DNA or whatever it is, is not just a HUMAN feature that simply was found in ALL populations, but a strictly Caucasoid feature that when found in Black populations means "oh their true ancestors were not black".
• Since this EURASIAN man has this feature, why then do we assume it's Caucasoid? Why not Mongoloid instead? Didn't the Caucasoids of Europe migrate westward from Central Asia?
• your led to ignore the fact that environmental changes and variatoins within the same regional area creates physical variations. After all, why won't the people with features similar to Africans elsewhere (our African American looking arab for example, or the Aeta) be reclassified as Negroid through historical changes? Why? because the DNA profile for the black group is decided beforehand, set in stone. The DNA profile for the white group is always left open for more variation and more inclusion. This is backwards since the black profile comes from the OLDEST humans, and thus the OLDEST group should be the root from which all varitions are gauged, not the other way around! --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you don't understand the science behind research conclusions("a blip on the DNA or whatever it is"), you shouldn't be commenting.
• DNA-based anthropology does not set the black profile, or any profile, "in stone" beforehand.
• Who are these people that you think have been "fooled"? Could you name a few?
• The word you're looking for is "you're"

CarlosRodriguez 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats because there is nothing scientific about it. You guys just keep changing it around. Just like EO was doing earlier with "what does it really mean to be black". You guys just keep playing chess with terms like "caucasoid" "negroid" etc. There is nothing scientific or objective. Your goal is to create a greater 'white' race which encompasses every society in the world that you feel should (not objectively observe) be recognized for it's historical accomplishments. WHATEVER IT IS is irrelevant because obviously you don't care what the scientific relevance truely is. You only care that it's appropriable. "I want the Ethiopians, they are pretty, they have an intereesting legacy, I must make them appear to be more in common with me and my white race than with the African people they live among!" This is the Nordic Pharaonic Master Race all over again. So do yourself a favor. Go get all the spelling errors you want from every comment I have ever made, list them in here, make yourself feel important. Been there done that RODRIGUEZ. I type fast, I think fast, and I will continue to make more spelling errors. Enjoy them! (This spelling nonsense is the dead giveaway of Eurocentric buffoonery and arrogance) --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the high-handed, niggling correction of "your." Saw that one coming a mile away -- didn't we? (I guess he sat in on that English class.) :p deeceevoice 19:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, all we are saying is that the human race started out negroid in Africa over 100,000 years ago (probably in the form of a khoisan which is arguabley the most ancient and divergent branch of negroid) Tens of thousands years later mutations occured in Ethiopia and many of those who had that mution branched into the middle east and at some point became caucasoid. The question is did they become caucasoid before or after leaving Ethiopia. If they became caucasoid after leaving africa then pure ethiopians are negroid. But if they became caucasoid while still in africa, then pure ethiopians are caucasoid. The answer is probably somewhere in between hence the intermediate position of ethiopians on the racial spectrum. However because some of the fully caucasoids came back to ethiopia to mix with segments of the indigenous population, ethiopians were pushed a touch further in the caucasoid direction. Now your question about mongolids is not relevant because the mongolid race didn't come into existence until long after humans had left africa and finally branched out of europe and into north-east asia and the americas. Editingoprah 23:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DAmmit EO, why don't you just pack it in and capitulate to the white eurocentric bias and get it over with. Please? Just sell out and stop trying to even give a residue of a damn about black people? Firstly, the KHOI vary in color, many are very dark. That means, like OTHER HUMANS, they also varied in their appearance over time.When will you all get over this notion that some human populations must be evolutionary hold overs? You will never be able to clearly conclude that the original humans (whether Khoi or not) looked ligher. The melanin content in a human cannot be incresed over time during a historical period of 10 thousand years. Once it's gone, it's gone. Therefore the original Khoi most likely will be dark, because again, there is no known way that the melanin and the DOMINANT genetic predisposition towards darker skinned individuals can 'evolve' over a measaly 10,000 years. Once dominant genetic traits are removed from a population, they can't be 'evolved' back into it in a short time. Dark skin is a genetic trait, and the lack of dark skin is due to environmental factors over time. If you want to go back 100,000 years and what not, then this all doesn't matter. THIS article is called "black people" not "The Narrow criteria that white people and their sidekick EO feel black people should be defined by" --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah

You wrote:

stop the foolishness now, Ethiopians are a mixed as the people in the congo. If anyone is mixed it is the Arabs. Because the slave trade didnt bring mixing into EThiopis it took Ethiopian out of Africa and they became teh mothers of many rich Arabs. This is why Arabs look "black" so the story is wrong, but again Ethiopians are beautiful so i guess they cant really be black. thick lips and coarse hair is pure? Pure nonsense. legacy of "whitness" more or less "blacknes" its funny because the darker Africans we see today are more "recent" than the lighter ones, hence Africans were lighter the further back or black you go--Halaqah 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it you were being sarcastic here. because if not you know you messed up on the first highlighed statement. (which also proves my point about associating black with bad, white with pretty, and not objectivity). The second is simply false. The further back you go, the DARKER you go. You cannot tell me that the melanin in ones skin is generated through time, once it's gone, it's gone. The DNA profile of people who have dark skin was there when the first humans were on Earth. Black descendants did not come from white ancestors. Proof? The white arabs living in the desert hot weather of Iraq and Syria since Alexander's day did not get any darker. I believe that you just dont want to believe that the original humans we all came from were black black people. For you its like Darth Vader telling Luke he's his father. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

the line about the ethiopians is obviously sarcastic. They have their own language hence their is a new pattern in academia (European academia) to seperate them from the "rest" of Africa.

It is hard to discuss the controversial topic of skin darkness (especially in this space). But the oldest African ethnic groups are actually lighter than the "average" bantu person. The Kohsain of South Africa and the Baku of the Congo are all much lighter in complexion to the average man in Congo. Genetically the older groups are lighter in complexion. What my point is skin darkness is no indication of "Africaness" your skin is dark or you skin is light is influenced by climate most of the time, and sometimes it is just random. Look at your own family, you have a rainbow of colors from one set of parent. The myth i really want to smash is fine "pretty" features and light skin are less "black", hence the curly hair person in Africa is by default "mixed" or the light Hausa woman is be default "half-Arab" it really isn’t so. More and less blackness is a racist myth. We should put a picture up here of a San person (i spent much time in SA) and they are very light skinned people (when you see them in reality). “The Egyptians weren’t black, they were brown” is used against us, because we call ourselves by a color. Even Diop made this error in his books. They call us black and they change the meaning when they want. If Egyptians were eating one another and walking around naked they would be quickly classified as “black.” But the Egyptians were the same color as the Ethiopians! So I say the Egyptians were the same race today as the people of the rest of Africa, I don’t say they were black or brown—THEY WERE NATIVE AFRICAN. Don’t confuse denial of black for some sort of shame in Africaness.---

Move Criticism

I have merged the critics with the problem with black? It should be together. it should be put under one heading. Also the title needed to be changed to Defining blackness as this is what is being discussed (cant remember the original title) but it was long and should have been a sub-topic, ahh it was European objections to global black identity. I have to again stress that the article should remember they are 12 million "black" people in America, a significant minority compared to Africa 800 million (estimate) so the pan-America perspective is by numbers a minority view on a majority people. (as pointed out to Zap by another continental Africa " we see ourselves as Africans of say our various ethnic groups, not as black people" (my version) The problem is clearly this majority have no means to express their own self-interest and the banner of "blackness" is carried exclusively by African-Americans. (not discounting their contributions in anyway) --Halaqah 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopians

I think we agreed that "Black People" is cultural and not genetic.

The reason I believe that Ethiopians are "Black People" is that they have a strong African feeling, even if they indeed had a lot of problems with their neighboring Black African Population.

For instance Haile Selassie I was considered as Jah by the Rastafari movement. And Bob Marley himself - who definitely belongs to the cultural "Black People" group- had a lot of respect for him(Haile Selassie I gave them a place to settle in Ethiopia).

Besides while Somalis or Arab Sudanese consider themselves often to be Arabs, and ehile Sri Lankans tend to consider themselves as Sri Lankans/Indians/Asians, one can say that Ethiopians tend to consider themselves as part of Africa(I met for instance Ethiopians belonging to the African Students Society in Oxford, etc.). (unsigned post)

No we don't agree that being Black is cultural. Some people consider it cultural. Others consider it genetic. (unsigned post)

Clearly, black identity (embraced or imposed by external powers) existed centuries well before the modern scientific discipline of genetics, so no one credibly can argue blackness is dependent upon genetics. It never has been. Further, as has been noted, genetics cannot establish or prove "race," a concept fraught with contradictions. Blackness is a multi-"racial," multicultural, multiethnic phenomenon; it transcends the narrow (and often dubious) parameters of "race," culture and ethnicity. deeceevoice 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Deceevoice you misunderstand history. Black was invented as a racial metaphor and race was a biological invention, so no one credible would divorce Blackness from heriditary biology.

Talk page discipline

I remind editors that this age is provided, courtesy of the Wikimedia Foundation, to discuss the article, not to discuss the subject of the article. If editors want to have a discussion about the subject, please move the discussion to USENET, a discussion forum, or a blog. Repeated violations of talk page discipline will be considered disruptive of the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph (necessary to any article) has been restored and tweaked

The lead paragraph has been tweaked and restored. The weak, mushy, say-nothing single-sentence thing that repeatedly has been substituted as part of the continuous edit-warring on the part of you-know-who (can't think of his tag at the moment) was woefully inadequate and totally uninformative. This version has multiple citations from various, international sources: the American Heritage Dictionary; Nirmala Rajasingam, a Sri Lankan activist; Horen Tundu, a Bangladeshi-Santhal, author and research specialist whose work focuses on "Dalit and tribal historical/political situation of Bangladesh and India"; Iniyan Elango, a native-born Indian, physician and author of a book Without Malice: The Truth about India; and, finally, noted historian Runoko Rashidi.

And thanks, Yom. :D (I knew that about the Haratins -- and there are others, actually), but I added the Maghreb Berber thing as an antedote to the horrible "sub-Saharan Africans" thing (that would have excluded a whole lot more black folks in North Africa--including Ethiopians :p) that was there earlier. I've added "most" istead. I hope that meets with your approval.deeceevoice 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A missed opportunity?

"In addition, the term may refer to people who historically have been regarded as black. Blackness may also be a group identity assumed for political ends, the result of cultural and political forces at work often in a fragmented or stratified societal framework."

This may indeed have been mentioned by Zaph before, but I added this to the mix in the intro, because it's an important aspect of black identity and at the root of the growing globalization of the phenomenon. I think this aspect of black identity could develop into a truly interesting angle in the article that then would lead readers ("See also") to the varied political movements of peoples who have been, or are now at least in some significant part are considered, or who consider themselves, "black": the struggle against caste discrimination in India, the Tamil struggle for independence, the struggle against Indonesian colonialist oppression in West Papua, the Australian Aboriginal struggle, the plight of the peoples of the Adaman Islands, the peoples of Melanesia; the movements of various "black" ethnic minorities around the globe; to renewed interest, on the part of editors and readers, in the woefully inadequate and highly U.S.-centric article on Black Power. deeceevoice 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of the mono-image of African people

More or less African is a colonial inheritance. I am looking at what people say is "true black" you know, says who? My lips are thick am i more "black" than someone with "thinner lips"? If my hair is "curly" and if i come from Rwanda, someone in the Caribbean has tighter hair than me, am i less "black"? Now the Caribbean person more than likely has European ancestors. We need to stop with someone else view of a "real African" there really are no things such as "African nose or African lips". Most people with these views have never been to African. Anyone in doubt take a trip to Mali or Niger, or even Nigeria or Ethiopia. In anyone of these countries you will see a plethora of diversity among the people in these countries alone. Among the Amhara alone you find great diversity (even in the same household), same in Mali. The images on this site should reflect the real Africa not the colonial stereotype.--Halaqah 21:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of everyone trying to put images of Africans mixed with arab blood, or Africans half way into becoming caucasoid, or south asians. I don't know why people are so embarrassed and ashamed of actual pure negroids. The negroid race is the most diverse race on earth. It contains the khoisans, the pygmies, the bantu and the watusi. It may even contain the ethiopians, but not enough genetic research has been done to say for certain whether they're negroid or caucasoid, or a separate intermediate race, or simply a negroid/caucasoid hybrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding both your tiredness, images in articles needs to represent widely held opinions, including these that may not be in accordance to editor's viewpoints of what is accurate. 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)≈ jossi ≈ t • @

This "white and black features" images can only be used for people that are, don’t take some photo of Oromo people and pace up there talking about admixture. Please if the subject is admixture then show those who are, not some colonial statement from the annals of ignorance about Ethiopians. please do not put this image back in the admixture section as it is offensive. why not put South Africans? And Oromo people are originally from Kenya anyway. Do you know how ignorant it is to see someone with a straight nose and say they are half Arab just because their nose isn’t flat!!! have you been to East Africa , most people in East Africa and West Africa do not have flat noses, are they half Arab??? Africa is and has always been diverse. By the way Arab is not a race! Many Arabs are "black" and many are "white". keep your bias on a twisted site that deals in myth. And listen that nonsense about European skulls is like saying Bantu people are closer to the apes, this is not creditable scholarship. Why is it up there, just because you can site so racist saying it doesn’t validate it! I have to put my foot down here now. Don’t regurgitate that madness about "white skull structures" what the hell is a white bone structure. So what about the Fulani? How come they have such fine bone structure, finer than Ethiopians, Arabs and white people, What about Somali? What some European thinks is black and isn’t black is really a weak case of anthropological validity. The date is 2006 not Charles Darwin and his voyage of "discovery." This is a site about who black people are, not what white people think we are!--86.132.117.250 23:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This article written by actual ethiopians claims the Amhara of Ethiopia are arab, mixed with Black [[17]]

IS THAT VALIDITY, they are 60 million people in Ethiopia, so you are saying anyone of them can be an authority of Afro-Arab mixture? Ethiopians left Africa and populated Arabia, not the other way around. And any mixture would have been as impacting as the African mixture with ancient Rome. We must agree Africa is diverse and the images such reflect that diversity. Not three pictures of women from the same region. Diversity. And if you understand anything about the legacy of COlonialism you would know that people dont want to be "pure Black" i remember Caribbean people would boast of an Admixture, South African did the samething to escape the weight of being "black" ---Halaqah 23:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A major oxford study claimed ethiopians aren't black so this needs to be mentioned in the article. The human race started out negroid in Africa over 100,000 years ago (probably in the form of a khoisan which is arguabley the most ancient and divergent branch of negroid) Tens of thousands years later mutations occured in Ethiopia and many of those who had that mution branched into the middle east and at some point became caucasoid. The question is did they become caucasoid before or after leaving Ethiopia. If they became caucasoid after leaving africa then pure ethiopians are negroid. But if they became caucasoid while still in africa, then pure ethiopians are caucasoid. The answer is probably somewhere in between hence the intermediate position of ethiopians on the racial spectrum. However because some of the fully caucasoids came back to ethiopia to mix with segments of the indigenous population, ethiopians were pushed a touch further in the caucasoid direction. Editingoprah 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you here to do again? A major Oxford study also found that Africans were fauna and flora, should we add that too? You are adding it as fact of the contempoary era. This is not a modern view and you have it here as a valid study. Oxford is questioning if Ethiopians are really "black." it needs to be rewritten as a very strange opinion. I mean in African culture in popular Black culture Ethiopia is the mother land of the mother land, So who exactly is bring these challenges and to what end?---Halaqah 23:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed above and i am frustrated at people coming here an corrupting what is starting to be a decent piece, I strongly object to that material being included because it isnt balanced it isnt in context and it gives weighty creditability to something that would be considered a joke in the "real" world. Go and tell the rastas that Ethiopia is half-white because they have straight noses. As Zaph said what about Rwanda? WHat about the Masai? WHat about the Fulani. It isnt a valid study it shouldn’t be written as fact---Halaqah 23:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why the study is so important. The most prestigous university in Europe is telling people who were thought of as Black that they're not Black after all. This is a very fascinating and notable development that needs to be mentioned. You say the study's not valid, but the greatest minds in england beg to differ. If you have a source that says oxford is wrong feel free to add it, but censoring relevant reliable sources is not appropriate. Editingoprah 23:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen u are missing the point, you have stated it as accepted fact. No one in the entire community holds this view, For heaven sake look at the entire black movement, look at Haile who is he in black history? So re-write it to reflect serious minority opinion, isolated to Oxford and the like. Dont put it as a fact that EThiopias Have MIXTED FEATURES. Because it is not an accepted view, you are copying and pasting something and you dont know what you are doing. I mean you actually dont know what you are discussing. Have you been to EThiopia? DO you really know what Ethiopians look like? The greater minds of England are White not Africa, how could they know more than African people. Put it in as an opinion not ACCEPTED FACT! it is a distortion about African people, it is invalid because it is a isolated exotic view. It is not necessary to invalidate nonsense just because someone publishes it. How the hell does Oxford define "blackness" Why didnt they mention the rest of "white looking Africa"?---Halaqah 23:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A little better. And the text on the image has to change because it is not FACT. This is a factWhite people come from Europe. Ghandi was an Indian. So this text needs to change. it is better not there if it is not accurate. Lies are dangerous. And this statement needs to be removed "However the cause of their genetic and physical resemblance to both Negroids and Caucasoids may not be entirely explained by admixture" this is an opinion which is not part of the study or mis-study--Halaqah 23:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to make clear it's just the opinion of some scientists. don't know why you're panicking. it's just a scientific theory. who cares whether they're caucasoid or negroid? Editingoprah 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that i have calmed down it is because it is so offensive to hear these people in their close rooms telling us who and what we are. If i quote an African scholar it is almost like a joke, take a look at the top of the article on defn. How many of these def are from black people? Imagine if i go on the white people site and put our African defn of them--Halaqah 00:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC).--86.132.117.250 00:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We do. Afrocentric scholars are constantly claiming caucasoids are negroid. We've claimed that Indians are negroid, we've claimed that arabs are negroid, we've even claimed their most sacred symbol Jesus Christ was negroid. So why are we so offended when caucasoids try to claim some of us as caucasoid. Editingoprah 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats because you naive fool, those terms didnt exist 200 years ago. They didnt exist until recently for most of the world. Now you talk about their most sacred symbol... how is it that a thief can steal something and you automatically recognize the thief as the legitimate owner? Thats your biggest problem EO. Jesus didn't live in Europe. Jesus lived and grew up in Egypt. And if I recall you at least still held to the notion that the Egyptians were Black, or has that also gone up in the residue you have left of a conscience? When are you going to recognize that these people have distorted the meanings of the word "Caucasia" over and over for a political agenda? Now the Ethiopians, Egyptians, and Hebrews are "Theirs" to you? God I wish you would get off here and go be some white guy's puppy sidekick. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

--Zaphnathpaaneah 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)== research, please ==

Zaph, there's no evidence Jesus had a drop of negroid blood. Face it, you worship a white boy. I on the other hand am intelligent enough to move beyond religion and look to science, and terms like negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid, have objective genetic reality. Ethiopian DNA is either more similar to the populations of sub-Saharan Africa or it's more similar to the populations of Europe. It's that simple. Only future research will answer this question. You may always consider them black no matter what, but to me black is a matter of blood, not color. Racial categories are no longer arbitrary political structures. Science has moved way beyond that. They are clear mathematically identifiable clusters that are generated by computers. Certain gene pools cluster together. Others don't. It's that simple. Editingoprah 06:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that blacks of the African Horn are likely the branch of humanity who left Africa and later mutated into whites has no bearing whatsoever on their inherent and fundamental blackness. They are who and what they are. You can't redefine this branch of clearly Africoid humanity out of the black "race" and credibly slap them with the label "Caucasoid" (a European geographical referrent) simply because somewhere down the line millions of years hence they mutated into a bunch of hairy, pale-skinned, flat-faced, thin-lipped people, classified as Caucasians. deeceevoice 10:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There are others on the planet beyond "blacks" and "whites" -- for instance, North and South American Natives are neither. If we're going to get anywhere the editors that claim to be African-Americans here need to open their minds to the remainder of humanity.

White editors might not appreciate racist descriptions such as "bunch of hairy, pale-skinned, flat-faced, thin-lipped people", but what I'd like to point out is that if you want to use anthropology you should spend a little time to learn the basics. As anyone with more than a high-school education knows, modern humans didn't come into existence until probably less than 40,000 years ago. There isn't agreement on the exact date, but few if any educated individuals think that the date is anywhere near "millions of years" ago.

I would also suggest that editors here be intellectually honest. No one has said "Ethiopians aren't black". They've pointed out that Ethiopians share more genetic characteristics with non-African populations than they do with African populations. This is based on sound scientific research, not the handwavery mythology that sadly passes for science among Afrocentrists. The reason this research is included in the article at all is because one editor has used this very same research as scientific evidence that races exist at a biological level. Funny how that works out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosRodriguez (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Please sign your comments with four tildes. Thanks) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, let me address the last item highlighted. YES, someone DID say "the ethiopians are not black". Once it was said that because they are beautiful they can't be black. Again, another said that because they are Caucasoid they cannot be black. Thirdly someone said that becuse 62% are Caucasoid that its not scientifically valid (or right) to call them Black. That being said, your request for intellectual honesty should not be a one way process. I find that white contributors that insist on intellectual honesty fail to do so themselves. They assume, assume, then run with their assumptions with the feeling that they just "must" be right. Secondly, Ethiopians share more with africans than with non africans, you just fail to acknowledge that the specific Ethiopian populations CHOSEN which do not are not representative of the whole group. it's like me taking African-Americans only to represent the USA and saying "Most Americans share more genetically with Africans than with Americans". Finally your insistance that races exist on a biological level is false. Here is why. The definition of race is always based on circular reasonsing. It's not like "this is a chair" and "a chair is a four legged object that people sit on" (thats scientific logic). No, race ultimatately is this belief that people have inherent differences based on a specific quality. That quality is intelligence and intellectual capacity. That is the bottom line. Thats why skull shapes is the root biological constant used beause a person's head houses the brain, the center of one's intellect. That is why you say "the Ethiopians share less with other Africans" because (why do I have to explain the obvious) white people like yourself see the accomplishments of the Ethiopians and want to appropriate their legacy away from a black context. This is especially obvious with the context of the Christian and Nilotic history in Ethiopia. The "caucasoid" skull is "different" than the Negroid skulls. Therefore those "caucasoids" in Ethiopia are the "real Ethiopians", inherently (race) different from the other Africans. Thus, they are "not really black". This with a 62% and with the overwheming characteristics between Ethiopian groups that makes such a classification scheme impossible. This, despite the fact that Ethiopia is most likely the origin of the entire human race! Notice how "caucasoid" has left its supposed official designation as being a skull shape, and now its being used (to no surprise) to just describe people who look a certain way (usually their noses is the difference) and appeal more to a comfortable sense of beauty to Europeans. And so here we are watching this article go backwards to the days before I came in. Black = negroid, White = caucasoid. Anyone with any history worth appreciating = not-black. Anyone outside of Africa that came of their own free will in history = not black. What's left? Black people stuck in Africa, black people only come out as slaves in history. Black people have no legacy that is inter-related with the rest of the world. How does the game go "Oh you black people, why not just be happy with your own cultures like the West African ones and the other ones that were isolated from the rest of the world." Here is your answer: Any group of people that interact with the rest of the world will gain characteristics of that. But ONLY Black people are classified out of existence whenever this occurs on a two way street. If there is a back-fourth cultural/social/ancestral relationship with other populations, inherently the "scientific" community will want to say "not black not black!" No matter how dark, how close, how interrelated those groups are with other black people. This psychological manipulation sneaks by most people because most people are already attuned to the stereotype. WHICH IS WHY I INSIST ON RECOGNIZING BLACK PEOPLE EVERYWHERE NOT JUST AFRICA. You cannot limit us to a narrow definition and then expect the relationships conveyed by "anthropologists" to be devleoped objectively. Because they will simply see any accomplishment, find a context outside of the Black context and jump up and down for joy in believing that non-blacks are the ultimate source of that. WHICH GOES BACK TO THE VERY DEFNITION. Caucasoid = skull shaped a certain way. Caucasian = people who came from Noah's ark in the Caucaus mountains..i.e. the first humans. Caucasians = white people. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Modern Humans originated somewhere around 160-200kya, not just 40 kya. The first migrations out of Africa were probably around 50-60kya, followed by another ca. 40kya. Ethiopian and Horn African Haplogroups shared with populations outside of Africa are primarily due to gene flow from East Africa to North Africa, West Asia, and Europe (esp. Southeastern) beginning in the Paleolithic and continuing through the Holocene (with further migrations in the Neolithic from West Asia bringing these genes to Europe). The only haplotype found often in the area that did not originate there is Haplotype J, found mainly among the Semitic speakers, but which is connected to the Neolithic revolution, rather than any historic admixture. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. All of this nonsense about 100 years and 40 years has nothing to do with determining if Ethiopians are black or not. They are black, that's obvious. Their name is "ETHIOPIAN" greek for "black skinned people". Holocene, Neolitiic, yadda yadda, a neolitic revolution. They are Black, disucssion over! --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I find most of Zaphnathpaaneah's comments fascinating, but nontheless irrelevant to this article. In Wikipedia articles we describe the different opinions as reported in published, reliable sources. So, rather than engaging in a discussion about the subject of this article, editors should focus their energies in summarizing and describing what experts in the field have published in reliables sources. We can also include opposing viewpoints, again, if we can provide sources that describe these opposing views. Endless discussions about this complex subject are better held in other fora than these pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, recoginze that firstly this denial of Ethiopians is the "opposing" opinion, and the dominant view, the established view, the more sensible view is that they are Black. Don't try to make Ethiopians "non-black" and attach the term "opposing" to those who regard them as Black! --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a specific POV in this dispute, so I do not need to recognize anything in particular. What I am saying is that regardless of what your opinion is, what we need in this discussion page is to address how to improve the article, based on research on existing, reliable sources. These discussions about who is black and who is not, based on editor's opinions, are interesting but nevertheless inconsequential to this article. You may want to read WP:NOT ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

yes yes yes, none of us in here have a specific POV. IT's "objective" that a people called "black people" throughout history, who look no different from other "black people" who have historically lived among other black people, who culturally are related to other black people... its "objective" to say "they aren't really black". This is a Eurocentric hit job and you know it. Ethiopians??? What is it with Eurocentricists? They see a people with the word "black" in their name and they start having convulsions. If there was a country called "black-people-inia" You guys would be screaming that they were the original pure caucasoid white people of humanity! --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, you are so right, it is irrelevant. I am insisting that you guys acknowlede that. What is said above about Ethiopians not being black. The so called 'reasons' are irrelevant. Black is historically (that is prior to the Western white desire to redefine everything) been defined by skin color, cultural relationships. Ethiopians historically have been black. Not until the 20th century with white anthropologists trying to make race be more about intelligence and skulls and a means to an end (appropriating historical legacies) did the Ethiopians get reclassified. No. Not here. EditingOprah gave you guys a crack and because I relented, your reclassification schemes seeped in here, just like I knew they would. Now, when are you guys going to call the Rwandan-Tutsis "non-black" too? --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what I am so close to reverting this article back to its prior state before I left. If you guys don't get the crap out of your ears and stop with this Eurocentric nicey-nice manipulation, I am going to come back in here and do it. We are not going to have an article where the first sentance is a disclaimer, and where every other black people in history are disclaimed "oh they arent black because their skulls, their DNA, their semetic language". This is not an article designed to define the Classical Negro stereotype. I am very serious, you guys better look within your hearts, your minds, your souls, and get real about how objective you are being. Ethiopian means "sun-burnt skinned people" in greek. That is as dark as you can get, darker than "melanos". That is Black people, my people, my ancestors. I don't care how far back you go. Every black person on the planet can trace their origins also to Ethiopia. So you want to play this "distant cousin" game, get real. I am going to leave once again for one week. I better see this article shape up and I don't mean a misuse of DNA dissection to whitewash every other group of black people. I and a few others worked hard on compiling the information we did back last year and maintaining it over the last 9 months or so. We did a good job, period. You guys better acknowledge and admit that WHITE racist perceptions and how they distorted scientific objectivity in recent history (with DNA classification, the implications and assumptions). You guys better acknowledge the role that colonialism played on the psyche of black people and how that distorted things making people renounce their blackness. This isn't a game about citations and copyright pictures. Get real. ONE WEEK. And you can pre-emptively send me to all the Wikipedian moderator administrative complaints you wish. Oh and by the way, I don't give a damn about getting personal messages on my talk page. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me just reiterate the most important points: "Ethiopians cannot be black because they are beautiful", Ethiopians cannot be black because the have ancient civilization. Ethiopians cannot BE BLACK BECAUSE THEY DEFEATED ITALY. This is the real issue with Ethiopia. and Europeans need to find a way to explain the above. So in a nutshell "ohh they are an Admixture" Someone wrote "Ethiopia cannot be black because they have done so much" Listen the Lemba people have more in common with ancient Jews than modern Israelis today, that is just another group in Africa, why is Ethiopia always isolated. They said the San arent really black, do you know why, because Europe knows the san came first and it the san are black then maybe the first man was "black" aka ADAM! Do you know how many Africans have the same features as Ethiopians? What about the Wodabee are they mixed too? And the Somali? And the Samburu? My God 40% of Africa is European. I don’t know who went there and mixed them all. You can prove any idiotic claim if one wanted to and under sign it Oxford gives it validity.---Halaqah 11:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oxford does give it validity whether you like it or not and makes it notable and reliable enough to be in the article. But if other sources claim such idea reflect eurocentric bias, that should be added too. But as jossi said, editors' personal opinions are interesting but not relevant. And your accusation of white people picking and choosing who is black based on biased criteria is hardly surprising because black is a category imposed by whites on non-whites and so it's always had a political component and ethiopians may simply reflect the latest chapter in that story. Editingoprah 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes when it looks bleak

You know all this nonsense sometimes wears down on a man's patience. HEaring the ignorance from Colonized Black and Eurocentric White people in honestly discussing this, going on and on finding ways to limit black people and make us into some isolated sub-human group, incapable of appreciating the complexities of history... Then i come across pictures like this, and I remember how stupid some of you sound.

[[18]]

There is no white anyone anywhere that has had a cultural history of doing that to their hair. DNA be damned. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Be glad I will not be here for the week

As much as I'd like to be, I won't be here reverting articles from misguided and biased contributions. So I guess the Eurocentric-Negrophobia Coalition will have their fun time until I get back. I hope someone else in here has the guts to take the risks and take a stand. Dont let no one in here call Ethiopians "not black" or put "Caucasoid" on the article. Caucasoid is strictly defined as the shape of a skull. When people add it in here, they are trying to make that relevant to the article and it's not. Secretly they are trying to slowly put "Caucasian" into the article and "Caucasoid" sounds like "Caucasian", and so it has a subconscious effect to distort the minds of people reading. They leave the article thinking that the Ethiopians aren't "really Black". And of course thanks to EO, we find yet another big chunk of our identity under seige in this discussion. Next week there will be heck to pay when i back get in here. Just warning the Coalition ahead of time. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why single out Ethiopians for genetic interpretation?

I've deleted the nonsense about Ethiopians being some sort of in-between population based on genetics. First, the caption is incorrect/not substantiated. Where did you get the idea that the recognition of a faciocranial structure (in only some Ethiopians, mind you) that varies from the classic Negroid phenotype is a recent phenomenon? Where is the citation?

Further, the very same faciocranial characteristics of Ethiopians which have given some Eurocentrists an excuse to try to classify them as "Caucasoid" are shared by other blacks from the continent. Some Nubians have the same characteristics. Many Senegalese also share some of the same characteristics. So do Somalis. Where is the lengthy discussion of their DNA. Or, what of the Tamils. Where is the discussion of their DNA?

The very same website used as a reference for the nonsense also contains the following information -- which is what many of us contributing to this article have said all along:

It's been well documented that Ethiopians share a substantial amount of their ancestry with Western Eurasians (Caucasoids), but less talked about is the similar position of Somalis. These findings have led researchers to reject recent admixture as a primary explanation, and posit that such elements are indigenous to East Africa.[emphasis added]

And:

The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.

...The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity -- and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis -- makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) -- that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. Tishkoff, et al. (2000). "Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins". Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925]

Unless you want to present the full picture of the issue, then don't mention it at all. To do otherwise, as editors here have sought to do, is blatantly misleading and POV.

There is no discussion of the genetics other popultaions herein. And why? The subject it has no bearing whatsoever on blackness, which is a concept which predates genetics. What is more, the notion that Ethipians are anything other than idigenous black African peoples has been discredited and has not been supported by further genetic study.deeceevoice 14:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the most prestigous university in Europe singled out Ethiopians and explicitly said it was genetically inaccurate to call them Black. If you have a reliable source saying somalis aren't black then feel free to add it but I'm aware of no such evidence and I am aware of evidence to the contrary. But don't censor this information because it's absolutely fascinating, very relevant to the topic and very notable. And the article doesn't say ethiopian caucasoid traits are the product of admixture. You're the one who kept trying to name the section admixture. Others gave the section more appropriate titles. The article very clearly states that the Eurasian adam lived in ethiopia and so caucasoid traits may have been indigenous to ethiopia. The article explicity states that admixture may NOT be the primary explanation! Editingoprah 16:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the topic should be removed as it isn’t focused, there has been strong opposition to it, it isnt a accepted view, it isnt an on the ground view (like Egypt was Black which is a common argument), but i have never heard of this silly discussion before, it is out of place in the context of this topic. Ethiopians are in-between. And as the above said why single out Ethiopians and they couldn’t be talking about Ethiopians because they are too diverse to be part of that mock study. 70 million people are racial in-between--Come on now>? I say delete it as it is argumentative and distracts from the purpose of this article. Its not even an urban legend. It is a very exotic Eurocentric view. Maybe create a section called Eurocentric myths about Africans somewhere else, or add it to the white people section and see what they think!! --Halaqah 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's a very credible view as evidenced by the fact that the most prestigous university in Europe advocated it. And they're hardly the first ones. We have a section devoted to people who are racially in between and of that group Ethiopians are the foremost example. Far more notable than any individual. The article makes clear that it's not a widespread view, but that's what makes it all the more notable: The most prestigous university in Europe is telling the public they are wrong and unscientific to consider Ethiopians Black. This adds variety and a novel and scientific perspective to the article. Just because you don't want anyone questioning the race of ethiopians does not give you the right to censor ideas and theories. This is not a totalitarian state. All relevant notable ideas will be expressed and cited criticism of those ideas is also welcome. Editingoprah 17:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The problems with this information are the article doesn't examine the genetics of any other group. More significantly, it presents the bogus argument without presenting the holes in the theory, which has been challenged by credible research. Doing that would require an even lengthier discussion of genetics (already out of place and too long). Further, it's been shoehorned into a section where it really doesn't comfortably fit (previously titled, in a very POV fashion, "Intermediates," in acceptance of this bogus notion of Ethiopians being mixed, "intermediates" -- as in not a legitimate people, but something in between, which I repeatedly challenged). This is a subject better suited to inclusion in the article on race, or in an article treating the Ethiopian people, rather than here. There is no discussion of any other population in this article in genetic terms -- because genetics can't determine who is black, or white, or yellow. It has no proper place in the article.deeceevoice 04:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice the reason the article discusses the genetics of Ethiopians is because only the Blackness of Ethiopians has been denied by geneticists. The subject of the article is Black people so any note worthy opinions of who is and isn't Black are appropriate. The scientists clearly stated that clustering Ethiopians with Blacks is inconsistent with genetic structure. Further, there's no credible up to date research that denies a genetic link between Ethiopians and caucasoids. The only debate is whether the link is caused primarily by admixture or whether the link is caused primarily by proto-Caucasoid mutations first occuring in Ethiopia. The article in no way implies that it's primarily admixture, and if anything implies just the opposite. Most of the sources you added to the article fringe political fanatics, and you consider them reliable sources on who is black, but the world's greatest geneticists are not? And btw it's very hypocritical and dishonest of you to claim that only Ethiopian genetics is discussed and that genetics is not relevant, since you appear to have added uncited genetic claims about tamils to the article___ Whatdoyou 18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I have fully protected the article so users may engage in discussion as a means of resolving disputes. Joelito (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is you guys never keep it protected long enough. I say lock it for a solid year and by October 2007 people will be able to look back at these silly disputes with a new sense of perspective. And hopefully by then we'll have new editors who can bring fresh perspectives, and some of the old trouble makers will have moved on. Editingoprah 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One year is extremely excessive and would go against one of the foundations of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Joelito (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it's up to you guys, but keep in mind this article is a pretty extreme case Editingoprah 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can this be fixed?

I've been watching this for a while, unsure what can be done about it. Obviously, a large central problem is that there's no real agreement on what a "Black person" is, other than maybe a couple unhelpful definitions, namely 1) anyone who's called a black person by themselves or others or 2) anyone who's skin is sufficiently dark. I'm tempted to suggest this is just a dictionary definition and not encyclopedia material, but the regional and historical differences in who's considered "black" is a sufficiently large topic that a proper article could in theory exist. Part of the problem we have is people lumping vastly different groups together based on skin color alone, which isn't very helpful. Others insist that "Black person" means all kinds of things other than skin color, but again there's no agreement. People point to biological factors, but I'm not convinced of the usefulness of that either- "race" in humans is a social concept, not particularly a biological concept. If we make this article shorter, would this help? It's going to be far easier to cover particular ethnic groups in their own articles rather than trying to lump them together because they're "black". Anyway, I'm not sure I have solid suggestions yet, but can we at least start trying to define the specific problems? I'd also like to draw people's attention to the articles Human skin color, Color_metaphors_for_race, and Who is a Jew?, maybe there's something to be learned from them. Friday (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the top half of the article is excellent because it presents a wide variety of attempts to define Blackness and then presents all the criticisms people have of those definitions. This is helpful because it's very well balanced, provides interesting definitions, and allows readers to choose the one they like, understand the complexity of the issue, and understand the shifting and subtle changes in this social and biological category. The bottom half might contain useful information, but it's so poorly cited that there's no way to judge. Editingoprah 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

i actually agree, you must keep the def and the crtic of black together---Halaqah 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree because the top half of the article provides a very balanced and thorough overview of all the different ways this category is viewed from a huge variety of perspectives. Editingoprah 18:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A better lead for the article

This is a revision that repeatedly was vandalized (deleted without any attempt at justification) within minutes after it was revamped, with added citations, that I think is more informative and aptly summarizes the article content. (See my remarks above regarding the lead paragraph. The present lead is poorly and somewhat clumsily/colloquially written (subject/verb disagreement, use of contraction, split verb, "The classification of Black has had implications in factors...." -- there's got to be a more direct and less obtuse way of saying that!). It definitely needs work, and I sought to address those problems with the following. Comments?

Black is a racial, ethnic, social and political classification that has been applied to various non-white groups in different ways. There are no universally agreed-upon criteria for determining who is or is not black. As a result, the use of the term has varied, depending on prevailing societal norms over time. Most often and consistently, black has been used to identify most dark-skinned, indigenous peoples of Africa, including their descendants in the African diaspora. A diversity of non-African peoples either have been or currently are considered black by some, and others self-identify as black people. They include, but are not necessarily limited to, peoples inhabiting Asia, the coasts of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Rim

A person's designation as black often has been determined by colloquial, social, political, scientific or legal understandings. Factors such as censuses, anti-miscegenation laws, racial segregation, affirmative action, racial marginalization, slavery, apartheid and racial quotas all have functioned historically to define and mediate color identity.

More broadly, blackness also may be a group identity assumed for political ends, the result of cultural and political forces at work often in a fragmented, polarized or stratified societal framework.

deeceevoice 04:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your lead is way too long. There's no need to try to define who is and isn't Black in the intro since we have a definition section that does an excellent job showing the complexity of the issue and actually sources precise and fascinating definitions (along with detailed criticism of those definitions) that reflect the diverse views. It's much better to keep the lead open ended rather than try to single out any groups because that will only create edit wars. We can avoid a lot of edit wars by not saying anything controversial in the lead, since a lot of people only read the lead. __Whatdoyou 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't seem to be a problem with singling out Africans and their progeny, and not all black Africans self-identify as black. Further, the other references in the text are to broad geographic areas, rather than specific peoples. Further, the information adequately qualified with terms that are not overly broad, and the information is supported and explained later in the text. So, what's the problem? deeceevoice 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

TAMILS ARE NOT BLACK FOR THE LAST TIME

i dont know how many times we have to explain it to u people. But u still wont understand, that there is no relationship in any sense between Africans (blacks) and Tamils (brown).

TAMILS ARE **** CAUCASOID, putting pictures of kids whith dark skin (which is still way fairer than that of an african) wont change anything. I can post pics of fair skinned kids aswell, but it wont help the situation. Please dont believe everything u see or read in the internet, go out and talk to the people. At least take a look at them to judge, and not pictures u see in Websites.

the informations u bring to clarify tamils as black , is very low. Someones own oppinion is not a serious proof. If one tamil guy thinks he is black, than its his own oppinion, most dont agree whith him. Believe me i know what I m talkin about because I'M TAMIL.

And dont come with genetic evedinces, all genetic test show that tamils cluster with other East Indians. THATS FACT!!!

I think about writing to the ADMIN of this site, if this nonesense wont stop. I wouldn't care much, if this site wasnt a free source for people, who are actually interested in getting true informations.

So please kick the Tamil part out of it.. or we gonna see whats gonna happen next. Asian2duracell

It's Zaph and Deeceevoice that insist on putting them in. I personally don't feel any non-negroids are Black, but if they can cite sources for such groups historically being viewed as Black I wont remove it. But they're certainly not Black by the most common definitions of the term. Of course Deeceevoice feels they are negroid/africoid, but I disagree. Editingoprah 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

brother u, me and everyone else know, that claiming tamils as blacks is afroncentric BS. They dont have any sources. I think its a bad think for U'r people, try to associate with us than being proud of what u are.Asian2duracell

Most of us are proud of what we are. A few of the editors feel the need to replace the most negroid looking photos with Caucasoid looking Africans, but apparently even the Ethiopians are too negroid so they're latching on to the tamils. Editingoprah 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of us have too much common sense and respect for the other editors in this effort to make such statements as that of the above editor. Keep it up, Editingoprah. There's an RfA in your future. deeceevoice 04:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

thats why I think, we should remove the tamil part. Its nonsense, the black people thread should be for black people. Not for tamils or any other indians. I would delete the Tamil part myself, I cant because its blocked. i cant edit myself, so I ask u guys to remove it. Asian2duracell

Please sign your comments with ~~~~ (that's four tildes) so we know who is writing what. Now, what do you mean by, "we gonna see whats gonna happen next"? Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's expectations and requirements regarding civility; language such as "you morons" is not acceptable here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not about what you think. There are numerous examples of Tamils on record self-identifying as black. Citations have been provided. Your argument is with them. The information presented in the article is accurate and entirely appropriate. deeceevoice 04:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

black is so not limited to African people, how can it be limited? on what grounds? opinion? Indians and Tamils are called black, they are darker than Africans for heaven sake, Even Arabs are called black you ever heard the term Sand Nigg&(&(, if you are not White or Chinese and live among White people you are black. Just look at the UK black history month do you know it even includes Jews in that definition--the site must reflect this. Basically if you are not white or from Asia you are black. Don’t say Tamils aren’t black because Africans just like Tamils don’t really call themselves black (AND I AGREE), they are African not black. But this article is about "black people" so we have to include them all, but most Africans never call themselves black they are CALLED black by people outside of Africa, or in countries re South Africa where they have been "trained" to accept the term. I have never heard a Hausa in Nigeria say "yeah I am black and proud, they say I am Hausa, I am Nigerian or we are African people"?--Halaqah 08:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically if you are not white or from Asia you are black --Halaqah

This may be your opinion, Halaqh, but it is not widely held. British do not call Jews Black (they call them Jews), and they don't call Tamils Black (they call them Asians). In the past British did call many peoples black, but that doesn't belong in this article except in a section labeled "Who the British called Black last century". Consider where your statement leads:

• Tamils are from Asia. So they are not Black?
• Under your definition, are Mexicans Black or are they either White or from Asia?

CarlosRodriguez 15:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Halaqah's argument is fallacious. But, again, there are plenty of examples where Tamils are noted as blacks, some reproduced in the text -- and certainly self-referentially. Agree or not, the argument about the Tamils is settled by those references. The material on the Tamils is properly sourced; it stays. deeceevoice 17:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is one citation that refers to "Dalit" people. This article (Black people) includes a paragraph about Tamils that doesn't appear to have any citations that refer to Tamils as Black, and definitely nothing notable enough to declare Tamils "Black". Justforasecond 18:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Most people don't consider anyone of non-African ancestry to be Black, not tamils only. But the tamil section is especially poorly cited. Who are the people they are quoting? None of them appear to be professors at actual universities, but rather self-proclaimed historians writing self-published books or writing for fringe journals. The only credible source is the geneticist claiming tamils are related to bushmen but this is not cited and I get the feeling that they're taking it out of context. The claim relates to the original out of africa migrations, but all humans originally came from Africa, so why would the tamils be more related to Africans than anyone else? If anything, since they are supposedly related to an earlier out of Africa migration, then they should be less related to Africans than most people, since they've spent more generations outside of Africa.__Whatdoyou 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesnt make sense what ur talking about. BTW sorry for my language. First of ALL. TAMIL is not a race. SO TAMILS cant be black people, Tamil is language, Tamils are people who speak the language Tamil. Just because White people call anyone else Black, doesnt make anyone else black. I first thought u were afrocentric, but now I think ur eurocentric. I know there is "Sand-Nigg3r", but that doesnt make them black. Tehy just want to insult Arab/Indian people. If they think Black and Arab/Indian were the same, they wouldnt use "Sand" infront of it. Just because some Tamils think are, black dosent make the hole population Black. THATS WHAT THEY ARE THINKING!!, NOT A EVIDENCE, OR A SCIENTIFICAL PROOF. They aint gods, to say the truth. People believe what they want to believe. It applies for me and you aswell. If I would think I'm white, it wont make all of us Tamils White, thats nonesense. Or if I write a book about it, its not gonna proof anything. I dont even know why u want US to be black, does it make ur life better or what? Like I said the average human being use the term "Black people" for people of African origin. And guess what, South Asia is not in Africa.We are ASIANS. Dont come with "Asian" is a term for East Asians, actually it first was used for Turks. Tamils are not more or less related to African people, than anyone else on this planet.

Indians and Tamils are called black, they are darker than Africans for heaven sake, Okay out of this statement, I notice. U never ever met any Indian ( Tamils are Indians/ ("Indians and Tamils" doesnt make sense)) in your life. In which world are Indians darker than African? In your own? Indians are called Brown or Asian in some countries. In Africa most people refer to them as Asians or INDIANS. And not Black.

Asian2duracell

Confused

I am definitely confused about what the problem is here. Why are people arguing? From my observations:

1. the label "black" means different things depending on location
2. the label "black" means different things at different times
3. the label "black", at least in the USA, is more of a political and cultural label than a label of skin color because there are many contradictions
4. the term "black", like the terms "colored" and "negro" and "Afro-American" and similar terms before it, has suffered from the linguistic process known as "pejorization", so it is not universally accepted as politically correct in all circles, including circles where it was previously accepted.

Surely we can make this clear. If some people believe that Tamils are black and they are called black by some people in some places at some time, then this should be noted. If they are not regarded as black by other people in other places and at other times, then this should also be noted. Why is this a reason to get upset?--Filll 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your view is entirely reasonable. It has been expressed several times before, but some contributors seem so obsessed with their almost metaphyical view that some groups objectively are or not "black" that this obvious solution is impiossible to implement. Paul B 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to separate out the issue of who calls who "black" and where and when, from more intricate questions of migrations, genetics, and so on. This is a huge area and it cannot be all covered in one article. There are just too many aspects to this question.--Filll 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems entirely reasonable to me. I would really suggest as a possibility that Black people might be turned into a disambiguation page leading at least to two separate, new articles: Black Africans (Black African is currently a redirerect to this page) and Black people (term). It could also link to other relevant articles to link, such as African American. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

this is a unacceptable solution because you fail to understand the issue, by creating that you are imposing the problem you are suppose to fix. What is a Black African? the article is called black people. I think the diverse views can be accommodated on this single page. Many Africans do not consider themselves black, it is a pan-Western reality, this has been discussed. So the issue of What Indians think has no more weight than what Africans think since both groups have elements which do not adhere to the "black identity", so African people is different to black people, just like Indian People is separate to black people. Black people is all inclusive of people who are called "black." If in history Europeans called Tamils black then they are black by that assertion, just like the decided to call Africans black (so they became black), Anyone they call/called black is black. So they are all black. I have made my point very vocal on calling anyone by a stupid color, hence i am enjoying watching this discussion unfold. Because no one needs to tell a Chinese who is chinese or who isnt.--Halaqah 10:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Halaqh, I am confused by what you are upset about. Let me try to examine your points carefully:

1. What is a Black African?

Perhaps "Black African" is not a reasonable term; I do not know. However, I would suggest that it could be noted that the term "black" was and is used by some as a term to refer to some Africans as black, at some times. Surely you agree that some people have called some Africans black? Some European Caucasians, for example, have often classified most African people as black, and I would claim that many European Caucasians still classify most African people as black. These same Africans may or may not classify themselves as black at the moment. These both could be noted. In the Republic of South Africa, for example, there were people classified as white, colored and black, if I remember correctly. In some parts of Africa, populated by people with different skin tones and different characteristics, other terms and distinctions might have been used and might still be used. Some groups will self-identify themselves in one way, while outsiders might label them in different ways. This could all be made clear.

2. the article is called black people. I think the diverse views can be accommodated on this single page.

Possibly, although as the article grows and becomes more unwieldy, it becomes harder to read. It is already much longer than the suggested length for an article.

3. Many Africans do not consider themselves black, it is a pan-Western reality, this has been discussed.

That is fine. I am sure that there are many cases where the application of the term is very confused. For example, in New York City it is common for there to be tension between "blacks" and immigrant Jamaicans, who call the native-born African Americans "blacks". This is inspite of the fact that Jamaicans are typically a much darker color than the "blacks". In this case, black has very little to do with color.

I have also met numerous people in the USA with much paler skin than me (and I am of Scandavian descent) who identified themselves as "black" or who were deemed "black" by others. In these cases, "black" has nothing to do with skin color at all. They might have a racial background that is 1% African and have a few characteristics that are reminiscent of "a negro" (whatever that is) like the ability to get a better tan or dark hair, and have had a grandfather with very curly dark hair and thicker lips than the average caucasian.

In the USA, albinos or people suffering from vitiligo born to "blacks" do not have dark colored skin although they might share some of the other characteristics that some people like to label as "black". However, they will often self-identify themselves as "black" and others might call them "black". However, in these cases, their skin color has nothing to do with them being "black".

4.What Indians think has no more weight than what Africans think since both groups have elements which do not adhere to the "black identity", so African people is different to black people, just like Indian People is separate to black people

I have no idea what a black identity is. As I stated before, There are groups that have been called black or self-identifed as black. This should be noted. There is often disagreement about who is black or what the term means. This should be noted. So what? The term is ambiguous, as I stated. And I can give many examples and cite references to demonstrate it. The term "black" is not particularly useful as a label. Particularly as the science of genetics has advanced, it has been discarded in scientific circles. Possibly a separate article on the black identity would be helpful. You could start one.

5.Black people is all inclusive of people who are called "black." If in history Europeans called Tamils black then they are black by that assertion, just like the decided to call Africans black (so they became black), Anyone they call/called black is black.

I have said as much. If anyone has called a group black, it should be noted. If the group itself or others do not consider this group black, it should be noted. What is so hard about that? I have personally never heard of the Tamils being called black, but I can imagine some Europeans or others might have called the Tamils black or might call them black currently. The Tamils themselves or some of the Tamils may or may not call themselves black. This should all be catalogued and noted.

The situation is more complicated than you suggest. For example, it is or was typical in the UK to call people of East Indian descent "black" regardless of skin color. In the USA, one would not typically call people of East Indian descent "black", regardless of skin color. So are East Indians "black" or not? Well some say they are, and some say they are not. All points of view should be noted and references provided.

6 I have made my point very vocal on calling anyone by a stupid color, hence i am enjoying watching this discussion unfold. Because no one needs to tell a Chinese who is chinese or who isnt.

I agree that the colors are stupid because they do not correspond to reality. Are East Asians really yellow? Are American Indians really red? Are European Caucasians really white? Of course not. These are all sort of ridiculous. This should all be calmly and rationally analyzed, described and references provided.

I do respectfully disagree with your statement about "Chinese". There is a huge ambiguity about who is "Chinese" or called "Chinese", or its color counterpart, "yellow". There are many nations in East Asia, and there has been a lot of migration. What about the "Chinese" who have lived in Vietnam or Indonesia for generations but who still self-identify as "Chinese"? What about the Mongolians or Tibetans or other peoples who live in China? What about the Ainu of Japan? Are they Japanese? Chinese? Other?

This is all much more complicated than you are trying to suggest, and you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Lets just note that some people are or have been called black by others, or have self-identified as black. And then catalog this, with references. Why so much rancor? As I said before, black really has very little to do with color, and has different meanings in different places at different times to different people. "Black" is more of a cultural and political construct than a set collection of physical characteristics. I for one would suggest in this regard that references to Bill Clinton as the "first black president" by some prominent African Americans be included, as well as references to the "Black Irish" and Moors and Melungeons and Falashas and the Lemba and others. For example. it is interesting that there are "Moors" heads on the flags of Sardinia and Corsica, and on the current Pope's coat of arms. These are all interesting twists on the story. If you want a pure "black identity" page, go ahead and make one.

--Filll 14:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you really have to write all of the above to make points which i do not contest. I agree with most. My personal view is not what i am stating. The article cannot only focus on African people, not all African people see themselves as black. It is a Western concept, exported etc. If the article reflects this then i am quite. i retract the chinese statement but it is there to show the difference between a label like black and Chinese, black has very little meaning in identifying African people. It is a loose term. yeah and black African is out of order --Halaqah 15:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still confused. What is wrong with the term "Black African"? I have heard that phrase often. A google search on "black African" yields more than 3 million hits. It might be ambiguous phrase, but it is a phrase that has often been used by Africans (black, white, South Asian, East Asian, etc) to refer to their own groups or other groups. It is used by outsiders to refer to certain groups in Africa. These groups might agree with this term, or they might not. This should all be catalogued and references provided. All that was suggested was a way to try to divide up this very long article so it would be easier to read and understand. Do you have any suggestions for better ways to divide it up?

The term "Chinese" is more akin to the term "Ghanaian" than the term "black". I think the term "yellow" is more analogous to the term "black"; both colors, both encompassing many different cultural and linguistic groups from a wide geographic area, both somewhat ambiguous and contradictory, and both with negative connotations in some contexts. What is different is that there has been no large "yellow pride" movement, as far as I know, as opposed to the "black pride" movement in the US and possibly other places.--Filll 15:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that tension within the African American community and prejudice and discrimination against those with darker skin color should be noted; for example, consider this article. The existence of various terms for different shades of color of African American should also be noted; for example, the phrase high yellow is often used by African Americans. There are many skin lightening products sold in the US in stores frequented by African Americans. In South America, the same sort of culture exists, where the darker skinned are looked down on by those who are lighter skinned. I would like to see a return to the description of some of the people of the Caucasus as "black" by their neighbors. One might even broach the use of the "N" word by African Americans and others by giving a reference to the appropriate Wikipedia page. This is a very complicated subject, and it should be explored carefully and rationally with references.--Filll 15:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Its easy. Black people are found in Africa (and their diasporas), New Guinea, Australia and Torres Strait Islands, the Andaman Islands as well as in some isolated areas of India, the Philipines and other parts of Asia. This is well documented. --Ezeu 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is well-documented, then please present some sources so they can be included in the article to support that point of view.--Filll 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you google NIGGER and Coon and Gigaboo and see the hit rate on them, they popular terms as well. If you dont understand the issue--its okay. But dont deny there is an issue. The term is offensive. Because Africans are Africans, do you get brown Indians, or Yellow Chinese? ---Halaqah 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, that is really uncalled for. I will point out that the "N" word does appear in Wikipedia. These terms are worthy of scholarly documentation, along with the "F" word and the "C" word and other profanities. Just as "black African" and "black" are worthy of documentation, even if they are profanities, which I do not believe thay are. I have NEVER heard that the term "black African" is offensive to anyone. However, I am willing to take your word for it. So then is the term "black" in itself offensive? Maybe if the word "black" is so offensive, you would favor deleting this article and other "offensive" articles in Wikipedia? (This is exactly the process of "pejorization" that I referred to earlier).

Ok so what do you think about Caucasian Africans? What do you think about Africans of South Asian descent? What do you think about Africans of East Asian descent? What should we call them? I have heard the terms Indian African and White African and Chinese African before, just as I have heard the terms Chinese American and African American and German American and White American. Are those offensive? If not, why not? And if only some are, which ones? --Filll 00:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Black People - A Descriptive Term

Please try to avoid political diatribes and soap box speeches. You are free to write these in a blog if you want. However, effort here should be expended towards making a useful coherent encyclopedia article.--Filll 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Aggression Diatribe and Soapbox are ugly, brutal terms. I don't know what your problem is, but his is NOT the article, this is the TALK page. So, I will express myself freely as this is a democratic process and not an autocratic one. If this were an autocratic process, I doubt that your leadership would be required, so back off. I don't know what your origins are, but I mine are such that cause me to wish to see an article that creates value. I have glanced at one of your comments and noticed that you are quite verbose. So please, cease to address me on this page. Do not contact me again. I have no idea what your motivations are, but if you attempt to manipulate my expression here again, I will interpret it as an aggressive act of censorship.--VaniNY 22:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --Filll 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)