Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asian2duracell (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 9 October 2006 (to the LAST TIME TAMILS ARE NOT BLACK, U MORONS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:Todo priority

Archives

September 2003 - July 2006 July 10, 2006 - 19 August 2006

To Do List items

Make a list of what disputes have caused the page to be protected

• Is "black" or being of the "black" race universally accepted by African people (the majority) or is it only a Western view-point. Very few people (especially the culturally independent) rarely refer to themselves as "black"; Ethiopians, Hausa, Wodabee, Somali, Swahili (etc). In South Africa they do, but look at their history with the white world.
• Who outside of Equatorial Africa can be considered Black.
• Are Asians excluded strictly because they are geographically from Asia, even if their phenotype and experiences indicate a black identity?
• Are Black people in America who look very lightskinned more "black" than North Africans who consider themselves to be Black and who are darkerskinned than these lighterskinned black Americans?
• Is the concept of Pan-Africanism only limited to the Western Hemisphere?
• Can definitions be sourced from the people who are actually called black and not some European (again) defining us?

Resolve them

• ] - case closed by the arbitrator. Plese see him regarding the conclusions as well as the case notes.
• again see the link above.
• Obviously not.
• No, that would indicate that blackness outside of Africa is dependant on American heritage and there is no fundamental reason to believe or accept that.

Peer Assessment - Please post a SHORT assessment of the issues and opinion regarding them.

• I Zaphnathpaaneah have interviewed American black people in my area in various walks of life, different classes, different cities, and all unanimously agree that black people in Asia exist, and that being black is more about a shared human blackness than strictly a continental African DNA link. For example, some have pointed out how offensive it would be for a bunch of "high yellow mulattoes in America to be considered more black than black Filipinos, East Indians, or any other person that I can see with my two eyes are obviously black people." Some have also indicated how this "Americanizing of blackness is yet another colonial scheme to divide and conquer and that DNA is another Willie Lynch attempt to pit us against each other." - if another so called black contributor on here wishes to speak personally on the phone with some of these black people, feel free to leave me a message so I can arrange it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Again this is an American study, I work on the African side of the fence and while I accept this is one perspective it is far from the rule. the notion of being black in Africa among the majority of the people in rare to say the lease, see our work at www.halaqah.com we work with one of the broadest spectrum of African people for any organization, it isn’t a local or personal study. It is a body of scholarship working with all the legends of the international African world. All views need to be heard, I believe "blackness" is primarily a Western export and all are forced to dine at this 3-legged table, the discussion and the sitting of these opinions are equally valid and should be reflected in this article. --Halaqah 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation conclusion

The mediator Jon Cates at the Mediation Cabal (see mediation here) recommended the following compromise:

The article should speak to the association of black to skin color with a section devoted to the consideration of 'black' due to lineage. While the U.S. Census does specifically mention Africa, it does not state Sub-Saharan Africa; further, it incorporates non-African examples. As for the British Census, it does not have this same delineation. In particular the British census points only to African-Blacks in one of the 4 subgroups of Black or Black British. It is in my view that this point is paramount, as both Census bodies (which I feel are reliable) include non-Africans in their definitions of Black.

None of those involved in the mediation (except one sockpuppet) refuted this compromise. Including non-Africans in the definitions of Black is also overwhelmingly supported in the discusions on this talk page. This article should now be unprotected. --Ezeu 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unprotected--Arktos 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for reprotection: Minor technical problem needs to be solved

There seems to be a problem. The U.S. census defines Black exclusively in terms of recent sub-Saharan lineage. It states quite clearly that Black refers to “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.” Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. So while I strongly agree with the mediator’s excellent conclusion that we need to be encyclopedic by relying on census definitions, the notion that non-African descended examples were included in the census is categorically false.

Further there’s nothing at all to indicate that the British census includes people of non-African ancestry. It’s sub-divided into Carribean, African, other Black background, and all Black groups but Caribeans are African-diasporas people and other Black groups is for Haitains, and Black immigrants from America who are also of African diasporas ancestry. The other Black groups most certainly does not refer to the extremely dark skinned South Asians of Britain because their classified as Asian in the British census. So if we’re going to be encyclopedic and if we’re going to accept the mediators conclusion that the census of two major countries on two separate continents is reliable, we must adheare to African heritage, and not color, when defining Black.--Editingoprah 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do not see the need for reprotection. There is no edit war. The only 4 edits are vandalism and reversion of vandalism. The frequency of vandalism doesn't warrant protection yet.--Arktos 22:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. No more unilateral control for EditingOprah. You got to be king for a few weeks while I was gone. You'll have to sockpuppet your way back to a protection. Hey here's a thought. Why don't you vandalize the article, then login elsewhere and revert your own vandalism a few times EO? Then you can fool the Wikipeople into granting your wish? --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor technical problem needs to be solved

I disagree. Census "definitions" are not really definitions at all, but categories established for the collection of demographic data. They are erratic, inconsistent and under revision on an ongoing basis. Census population categories are determined not by majority consensus (no pun intended), but by statisticians for political ends. The Bureau of the Census is but one element of the U.S. government -- nothing more. And while some may argue there are wider, even ulterior or sinister motives for the way certain populations are grouped, one of the clearest driving forces is the way government programs are structured, funded and targeted. For example, the U.S. government has seen fit to classify Spanish-speaking people as "Latinos." That can include (improperly) Catalans, but also certain peoples native to, or directly descended from, Latin America or historically Spanish-ruled portions of the U.S. And that group is cross-racial, including blancos, indios, and morenos -- whites, indigenous peoples, and blacks. Census groupings are artificial parameters constructed for political purposes, are specific to (in the case of my examples) the U.S., and often bear little resemblance to real-world conceptions of "race" or color.

Furthermore, sub-Saharan Africa is a geographic term (which also includes Ethiopia and Eritrea) -- not a racial one. That it has become synonymous with "Black Africa" is a misnomer. Sudanese are among the blackest human beings on the planet. Many of them are so black, they're not even blue-black; their skin has a purplish hue. And Sudan is a predominantly black Saharan nation. The same is true for Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Egypt and Libya, with the last three having black populations that have been substantially Arabized ethnically over the centuries. However, much of the population of those three nations, if set down in the U.S. and dressed in Western clothing, would be completely indiscernible from African-Americans. YOur argument makes no sense whatsoever. deeceevoice 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, you are mistaken when you suggest that sub-Saharan is exclusively a geograhic term. It's also a very distinct branch of the genetic tree in Africa, as the following image proves: File:E88vuo.gif

So rather than waste time speculating about who looks Black and who doesn't, and what political motive census makers have, just look at the DNA which settles all of these matters quite objectively. Also the fact that some sub-Saharan DNA exists North of the Sahara and that some populations South of the Sahara may be racially ambiguous in no way refutes the fact that the Sahara desert is a formidable geographic barrier that has more or less genetically isolated those on either side of it into distinct human races. Editingoprah 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Look more closely at your genetic tree. It puts Amhara, Tigray-Tigrinya, Beja, Cushitic, Sudanese, Tuareg, and Barya (!!!) as separate from a putative "Sub-saharan" branch, when all of these populations live south of the Sahara (with some living in the Sahel and a little bit north of the Sahara). The inclusion of "Barya" (a Nilotic population that can be "Blue-black") in this list is even funnier! Clearly "Sub-Saharan" is simply a geographic term. Part of the reason for the above grouping is to define E3b, which originated in Somalia (a Sub-Saharan country) as "North" (the invented "East/North" category above) African to deny the substantial Sub-Saharan (again think of it geographically) genetic influence on North Africa (both Berbers and Arabs of Morocco, e.g., like most of N. Africa, are of the E3b lineage paternally, differing from Horn Africans in their Maternal DNA, with 80+% E3b lineages on the Y Chromosome). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did notice that some Sub-Saharan populations were not group with sub-Saharans. This could be because sub-Sahara proper does not include the horn of Africa, it could be because they're making a distinction between pure Negroids and those who have substantial admixture from the Arab world, or, since all human races come from sub-Saharans, the population may include some transitional ethnicities that blur the line between races. Editingoprah 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously misinformed, then, as Sub-Sahara proper does include the Horn of Africa. Just look at a map. If it doesn't, then Southern Sudan and most Kenya, too cannot be considered south of the Sahara, and neither can all of West Africa, the CAR, Cameroon, Uganda, and northern Congo (Kinshasa). Look at where the Horn of Africa is - the Sahara desert ends right before the top of Eritrea. Secondly, Horn Africans are not mixed with Arabs, and there is no true genetic basis for races, which is why the people living there "blur the line between races" in your view. Arab genetic influence in the region is very minimal (see Semino et al 2004 regarding the J-M172 motif), and foreign genetic lineages are only found in significant numbers in the form of J lineages from the Neolithic, the result of admixture from the Sub-Saharan Africa tied Natufian culture of the Levant (the progenitors of agriculture in Southwest Asia); these paternal lineages are only found in the Semitic groups in significant numbers, while Cushitic groups only have these lineages in small numbers (e.g. <3% in the Oromo). Features simply cannot be used to determine race or genetics, and straight noses and hair is not (necessarily) indicative of Asian admixture (see e.g. the Fulani in Nigeria, whose paternal lineages were found to be 100% E3a, a purely West African lineage, just as E3b is purely East African). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan proper means under the Sahara, not just South of the Sahara, and the horn of Africa extends East of it, so one could make the argument that Ethiopia is technically not a sub-Saharan country if one wanted to exclude Ethiopians from the Black race. Personally I'm agnostic on this issue because both craniofacial and genetic evidence suggest that Ethiopians resemble Caucasoids to a much greater degree than other "sub-Saharans"'''http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:R1fvD9z2NJIJ:scbe.stanford.edu/events/pdfs/genomebio.pdf+Wilson+et+al.,+Nat+Genet,+2001+Ethiopians&hl=fr&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=7. Now this doesn't mean they genetically mixed with Arabs (though the historical record, their proximity to Yemen, and recent DNA research all suggests they did so); it could simply mean that Ethiopians were the branch of the Black race that began the great exodus out of Africa, mutating into Caucasoids in the process. But clearly, for whatever reason, they're on the racial borderline. Editingoprah 08:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we have a contradiction by EO. EO... here is a secret for you. Not all Africans who left Africa became Caucasoid or Sinoid. Many retained their Negroid appearance and simply genetic diversity allowed them to differentiate. That does not make them descendants of Caucasoids. Why not put a Caucasoid branch tree out here and show where the Caucasoid progenator created all of the races of India and Africa. (I bet you there will be along line from this Caucasoid progenator, which would be in Ethiopia, to the Australian and most black Indians.... ). Remember, Caucasoids were not the original inhabitents of Earth. Black people were. :) The first "Caucasoid" is likely one of these so-called transitional groups in this chart above. Oh I'm gonna have so much fun now! --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you read I said, but, first of all, I did not say "sub-Saharan Africa" is a racial term; I said exactly the opposite; it is a geographic term. It erroneously has been construed to be synonymous with "black Africa" -- which is a geopolitical myth concocted in the service of white supremacy and Western imperialism. And, yes Ethiopia and Eritrea are located in the Horn, but they are (sometimes) considered geographically part of North Africa. While I do not consider Misplaced Pages an authoritative source, for the sake of convenience, let me refer you to the Misplaced Pages article "North Africa".

And it's ridiculous that nowadays people are trying to say Ethiopians aren't black people. In the ancient world, the very word "Ethiopian" used to be synonymous with "black." And DNA has absolutely nothing to do with it. Black people were classified as black before DNA studies. Racial classification has absolutely nothing to do with DNA. I don't give a flying fig about genetics; it means nothing when it comes to racial determinations. If that were the case, then likely a surprising number of African-Americans probably wouldn't be black, either. It's a wholly irrelevant discussion. Finally, Ethiopia is comprised of a number of indigenous ethnic peoples, many of whom have all of the classic "Negroid" phenotypical characteristics. Others have equally Africoid characteristics, but of a different kind. This is merely an expression of the naturally occurring biodiversity among indigenous (read "black") African peoples. There are pure, blue-black Nubians with nappy hair and straight hair, Nubians with little prognathism and those who conform to the classic Negroid phenotype. The same can be said of other peoples of the region, including the people of Ethiopia. If you approached any of the Ethiopians I know and even dared to suggest they weren't black, you'd be laughed out of the room. deeceevoice 08:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one who is arguing sub-Saharans are a race, and I didn't mean to imply you were (I corrected my typo above). I don't think this notion is based on Western imperialism, but rather it's evident that not all of Africa is Black and so you have to draw the line somewhere, and the Sahara desert seemed a logical place to do so, especially since geographic barriers produce the level of isolation that causes races to form in the fist place. Most people believe Ethiopians are Black because they're a dark skinned group that comes from Africa but at the same time they exhibit a lot of traits that are clearly Caucasiod which may not be evident to the untrained eye. And just because racial taxonomy predated DNA, doesn't mean we have to rigidly adheare to the same archaic ideas in the face of new evidence. People at one time classified Black people as monkeys but we were able to let that racist myth go based on anatomical studies, so there's no reason why current racial classifications can't be reevaluated by the science of today. DNA is very much relevant because the ancient racial classifications were crude attempts to group human-kind based on inherrent biologicla similarities caused by shared ancestry, and now we have the objective tools to thest their validity. How Ethiopians self-identify is of only anecdotal interest, since race has a biological reality independent of cultural trends (I think you'd be surprised by how many Ethiopians don't consider themselves Black). Now African-Americans are very different from Ethiopians in that they are typically only 13% Caucasoid, while Ethiopians are anywhere from 77% to 40% Caucasoid depeneding on what study you choose to cite. Second, the cause of the Caucasoid like traits may be different for African-Americans than Ethiopians. While African-Americans acquired their Caucasoid traits by mixing with whites, Ethiopians may have been the genetic group from which Caucasoids mutated into existence in the first place, in which case they're not just some hybrids that must be categorized as Black based on the outdate and U.S. centric one drop rule but rather they could be the original Caucasoids and thus still retain some Black traits. But anyway you look at it, they're part way between Blacks and Caucasoids. Whether you want to classify them or Black or Caucasoid really depends on where in the continuum you choose to draw the line. They're certainly a lot more related to Blacks than Australoids and negritoes are, populations that have nothing to do with Blacks and are only labled as such by a small and ignorant group of people. Editingoprah 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your ignorance is showing, Editingoprah. And it's pretty unforgivable, given the assertions you've made. Established, stable human populations predate the formation of the Sahara, which used to be heavily forested. The only line to draw is a continental one. Blacks are indigenous to Africa. There isn't anyone else indigenous to the continent. (Some people want to say the Maghreb Berbers are -- but their language originated among the true, original Berbers of East Africa, who are black. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the "non-black" element of the Maghreb is heavily suffused with European blood.)

And your reasoning with regard to Ethiopians is deeply flawed. They aren't Caucasoids; they're Africoid. They originated in Africa -- not the Caucasus region of Europe. If anything, so-called "Caucasians" are Ethiopioid. You do not say the father has the eyes of the son. You do not name the progenitor after his offspring. There is a racist agenda afoot in the attempt to single out part of the indigenous Ethiopian/Eritrean population from the rest of black Africa and rename them with a European term, a term associated with whites. It not only is counterintuitive; it is unacceptable. All indigenous Ethiopians are as black as the Nuba, as black as the Dinka, as black as the Karo -- you get the idea. Here are a couple of links to photos of Ethiopians, whom people like you would dare to try to classify as "Caucasoid.",. It makes about as much sense as segregating out some Senegalese (many of whom lack pronounced prognathism), or the gracile Nilotics of the region on the basis of their strikingly slender, elongated bodily proportions and pronouncing them "Martians." deeceevoice 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, your contention that Australoids aren't related to blacks is absurd on its face. They are black -- and beyond their phenotypical similarities. Presumably, you are unfamiliar with the work of geneticist Spencer Wells, who, utilizing DNA research, in 2002 or 2003 (I forget) traced the migration of San bushmen from Africa to Tamil province (the Dravidians/Tamils) in southern India, to Australia -- which bears out the contentions of pan-Africanists and Afrocentrist historians. In fact, the Tamil people themselves identify with black people and with the African-American struggle for self-determination. And many historians, mainstream and Afrocentrist, have long contended that the Dravidians are a black/Africoid/Negroid people. Even today, the Tamil people are classified as "Negroid" -- as are many of the peoples of India. They aren't all highly miscegenated, like the Hindus to the north, with Persian and Asian bloodlines. What you are referring to is the relatedness of Australoids and Negritos with other, Afro-Asian populations with whom they cohabited and interbred in relative isolation over the millennia to the point that they now share more genetic affinities in common with some Sundadont (Afro-Asian) Asian populations -- not the Sinodont ones (like the mainland Chinese) -- than with continental Africans. Wells' research vis-a-vis the Tamils and the aboriginal peoples of Australia explains the striking phenotypical similarities of those peoples with black Africans; they are still very clearly and closely genetically linked, despite the genetic changes that align the latter group more closely with Sundadont Asians than with their black brethren. So much for "ignorance." deeceevoice 16:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, DNA isn't a means of determining "race" or racial classification; it's a means of, as in the case of the San-Tamil-Australoid-Negrito connection, establishing relatedness. Ethiopians aren't Caucasoid; they could be called proto-Caucasoids, which means they gave came before, and gave rise to, Caucasoid/Caucasian populations. They, however, are Africoid; they are blacks who originated in Africa, just as the Khoisan (believed to be a somewhat older line of humanity who share with Ethiopians a common, earlier African ancestor) are Africoid. What the DNA shows is the degree to which Caucasians/Caucasoid peoples are related to Africoids. It isn't about who is what percentage of what. DNA simply establishes that it was the blacks in the region of ancient Kush who mutated into that branch of humankind we call "Caucasians." And that's all it does. deeceevoice 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, DNA isn't a means of determining "race" or racial classification; it's a means of, as in the case of the San-Tamil-Australoid-Negrito connection, establishing relatedness. Ethiopians aren't Caucasoid; they could be called proto-Caucasoids, which means they gave came before, and gave rise to, Caucasoid/Caucasian populations. But that would be to rob them of their essential identity -- what they are -- in favor of something only some of them later became. More properly, they are Africoid; they are blacks who originated in Africa, just as the Khoisan (believed to be a somewhat older line of humanity who share with Ethiopians a common, earlier African ancestor) are Africoid. What the DNA shows is the degree to which Caucasians/Caucasoid peoples are related to Africoids. It isn't about who is what percentage of what. DNA simply establishes that it was some of the blacks who migrated out of the region of ancient Kush who eventually mutated into that branch of humankind we call "Caucasians." And that's all it does. deeceevoice 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Established human populations predate the Sahara desert? That's interesting considering that Homo S. Sapians is only about 100-200,000 years old and the wikipedia article claims the Sahara is 2.5 million years old. Further, all the races of the world did not become established until about 30-10,000 years ago, by which point all the continents and major island chains were settled by relatively isolated breeding populations. True, the Sahara probably was briefly forested about 10,000 years ago, but this only lasted a few thousand years by which point sub-Saharans had already been genetically isolated since the out of Africa exodus that occured tens of thousands of years earlier. And no, Australoids and Indians are not at all related to Blacks. Skin color means nothing. It's a very superificial trait and evolves so rapidly that all human races could have evolved from dark skin to light skin and then back to dark skin over and over again and we'd have no way of knowing. Yes the out of Africa exodus probably included a migration that cut through India on the way to Australia (which is why there might be some Australoid DNA in India but Black DNA is rare in South Asia and virtually all of it can be traced to the recent African diasporas) and Australoids are so unrelated to Blacks that the two groups are frequently cited by scientists to show how risky it is to infer common ancestry from appearance which is nothing more than a superficial climatic adaptation.

As for Ethiopians, you can call them Black if you want but the fact remains that they are much closer genetically to Caucasoids than other Black groups are, and by some scientific methods, about three quarters of them cluster with Caucasoids and not with Blacks. You can come up with some arbitrary defenition of a Black as anyone from Africa, but genetically they are not the same population as other sub-Saharan Africans, as they mutated into a newer form that dominates the middle East, India, and Europe, and a large fraction of their ancestors may not be from Africa at all but from Yemen. It's easy to go through dozens of photos and pick the ones that look the most Black, but many look Southern European, and even the photos you found revealed Caucasoid features.Editingoprah 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am gratified that Deeceevoice, perhaps the most vocal black Wikipedian, has joined this discussion. Maybe Deeceevoice will be more successfull in pointing out the obvious fallacies in Editingoprah's reasoning. I have more or less given up arguing with Editingoprah. Apparently Editingoprah attends a class on Black studies (together with Whatdoyou) which teaches somewhat outdated, and blatantly ludicrous knowledge. Paradoxically, some people who usually disagree on "black" issues like myself, Deeceevoice, Zaphnathpaaneah, Paul Barlow, Yom etc. are rather in agreement against Editingoprah's fallacious arguments. I have argued before that Editingoprah's point of view, although it borders on the periphery of reality, is not entirely uncommon. The prevailing line of thought, even among African (including diasporan African) scholars, contradict Editingoprah's line of thought, and support the consensus here on Misplaced Pages*, and in general. It annoys me that Editingoprah can disrupt this important article in this manner – but I am also happy that this issue can be discussed, and that all opinions can be taken into account. The only way to go forth with this issue is by letting the article reflect and explain the different points of view (even the fringe views). Editingoprah, you must accept that others (quite may others) disagree with you. I beg you to compromise and allow other views to be represented in the article. --Ezeu 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• By "consensus here on Misplaced Pages" I refer specifically to the the discussions referring specifically to this article.--Ezeu 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ezeu you're the one with outdated and blatantly ludicrous views if you still believe Australoids are Black in any meaningful sense of the term. The label Black was given to them by racist colonizers who had the outdated view that all dark skinned people were related, but this idea was thoroughly discredeted by modern genetic research that showed they were among the most genetically distant from Africans. Of course you can argue that being Black has nothing to do with genetics, but even cultural and political definitions of Black exclude non-Africans (see the census, dictionary) with the exception of the redneck segment of Australia. But of course now people are even trying to argue that census definitions have nothing to do with being Black, so if we can't talk about genetics, and we can't talk about the census, all that's left is just a random pointless article about all the completely different and unrelated ways the term Black has been used in different cultural contexts. I have no intention of disrupting this article. I was quite happy with the version of the article that was protected, which although left out genetic and census information, still did not give undue weight to the views of isolated cultures and movements (i.e. Australia, the untouchables of India). I have no problem with people considering Ethiopians Black (from a cultural perspective they are, from a genetic perspective they might be but it's uncertain, historically and even today most people consider them Black) and I have no intention of pushing the sub-Sahara/supra-Sahara distinction in the article. But trying to argue that people like Australoids and Indians, who are not related to Africans in any shape or form, are all part of the same Black ethnicity because they share dark skin, demonstrates a lack of intelligence. Editingoprah 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your correlation between black and African (you interchangeably and deliberately use the words "African" and "black" to muddle the issue), and your fixation with genetics is inane (that graph you keep invoking is inherently meaningless). Yes, Africans identify with each other, and yes, Black Africans do have a common identity. No one is arguing against that. --Ezeu 22:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even read the article yet. I'll have to see what mischief Editingoprah has been up to and what can be done to correct his utterly irrelevant fixation on genetics. We don't have to convince him of anything; it's apparently been a waste of time for others involved in the article, and I don't expect any interaction I might have with him/her to be any different. My concern is that we simply provide accurate, sourced information. And given the wealth of information available from pan-Africanist and Afrocentrist perspectives, that should not be a problem. I don't try to represent the other side in such matters. There's enough of that on Misplaced Pages already -- and certainly no lack of editors willing to rush in to add their contrarian viewpoints. I'm not certain what the roadblock has been, but if you feel Editingoprah has been disruptive, s/he's easily enough dealt with. Don't focus your efforts on arguing with him/her here. Hell, just write the article! deeceevoice 10:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The article, as it it is now, does not actually reflect what Editingoprah and his alter ego Whatdoyou want to say. They introduced a stange definition of "black" (see this diff), which triggered a dispute that led the article to be protected for almost two months. --Ezeu 10:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't read the article (yet), but if present version of the article hasn't been "polluted" (or whatever term you prefer) by what seems to be the generally refuted, ill-informed additions of others, then why the ongoing dialogue/debate? From my brief time here, it seems to me that Editingoprah is obsessed with the strange notion that DNA can somehow determine someone's race -- and that it has some bearing on who is black and who is not. He's clearly in error. And if these notions haven't withstood the scrutiny of others, then why the ongoing give-and-go? I've lately adopted the posture, that if it's not germane to the article and merely some ancillary notion someone doggedly wants to pursue in discussion, after a point, I simply ignore them. They try to turn the talk pages into debate forums, and I just simply don't play along. It's a distraction and, if you let it get to you (I don't), it can be frustrating and waste huge amounts of time. Why not just leave the guy to talk to himself, continue to edit the article -- and watch him like a hawk? (Or maybe there's something I'm missing.) At any rate, after I get over this hump, I'll get around to reading the piece. Your work/struggle here is appreciated. deeceevoice 11:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In regard to deeceevoice's comments above regarding the tamil people: "In fact, the Tamil people themselves identify with black people and with the African-American struggle for self-determination." This could not be further from the truth. Such statements merely indicate a lack of knowledge regarding India and its racial and historical past. It is in fact the Dalit people who identify with the blacks of america, not the Tamil people. The two are seperate entities. The Dalit people are the lowest group in the ancient caste system of India, and have therefore undergone extreme discrimination in the past. These people are not just found in the southern tamil regions of india, but over the entire country. The Tamil people however are an ethnic group, a small proportion of which are dalits. Tamils of a higher caste level do not identify with the black people of america in terms of struggling for self determination, as they experience no discrimination against which they need to fight. The work of Spencer Wells (The biologist mentioned by deeceevoice) also indicated that the line from Africa to Australia passed through southern india, however the enormous degree of migration within south asia has long since displaced the original inhabitants, beginning with the invasion of india by the "aryan" people of iran (the aryan invasion), continuing until the movement of turks and afghanis to india. These groups have since displaced either completely displaced the original negroid inhabitants, or have to some degree bred with them to the point where few actual negroid descendants remain. An example of these people would be the Veddas of Sri Lanka, who could be considered negroid. The suggestion that the people of a region in which there has been significant migration and interbreeding could maintain their racial identity from the many thousands of years ago when the negroids did pass through southern india. Implying South India is a "tamil province" is also incorrect, as there are many other large non tamil ethnic groups in the region, notably those of the southern state of Kerala.

"the Tamil people are classified as "Negroid" -- as are many of the peoples of India."-deeceevoice This is false. The people of india are considered Caucasoid.

"They aren't all highly miscegenated, like the Hindus to the north, with Persian and Asian bloodlines."-deeceevoice Hinduism is not a purely north indian religion, it is the dominant religion in the south of the nation as well.

I reccomend that references to the Tamils be removed from this page, due to their misleading nature.

- Mboro; 8:48 EST, 24 September 2006

Uninformative and POV

I'm sorry, but I don't think this article is very useful. All I wanted to know was what causes the dark skin color, and its anthropology; e.g. who were the first people with dark-colored skin, where were they, why is their skin dark, why are some Indians very dark and others not, etc. Moreover, the article is most exceedingly political. The vast majority of its text exists solely to preach about how "black" is a stigma and not a race. I thought that was pretty obvious by now, but even so, this kind of agenda-pushing, though well-intentioned, is not encyclopedic. Much could be said about ethnography/anthropology in this article, but information has been forsaken in favor of sermonizing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.95.48.112 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Yeah right! Like we are too stupid to figure out this obvious meatpuppet. Classic trick: when the going gets tough, and you run out of intelligent arguments, try to sidetrack the discussion. What a farce. --Ezeu 09:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to believe that other people actually agree with me, despite all the citations I provide. You're constantly accussing me of using sock puppets and meat puppets, are constantly talking about me to other people, and are generally coming across as paranoid and obsessed. I know I'm sexy and all, but I don't need a stalker. Editingoprah 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a very useful article because it tries to make a coherent discussion about two completely different topics that are best discussed in separate articles. The first topic is peoples of African ancestry, and the second topic is the social stigma of having dark skin regardless of race or ethnicity. These topics have nothing in common other than the fact that they both have been described as black. Now the subjects you're interested are better discussed in an articvle devoted exclusively to skin color, since Blacks are not the only ones to have very dark skin. Indians and Australoids do too. But to answer your questions, the first people to have dark skin were the Blacks from which all humans emerged and they developed dark skin to protect them from the sun which became less imporatnt as humans left Africa and needed lighter skin to absorb vitamin D as they moved to less sunny environments. Some Indians have dark skin because they live in the South while others live up North where lighter skin is required. In addition India was invaded by lighter skinned and the degree of admixture is reflected by skin color. Editingoprah 05:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're conveniently ignoring information already presented. Many Indians are the descendants of black African peoples -- and that's why they're black, many with nappy hair (others with straight hair, like some Nuba, some Ethiopians and others eastern Africa) and very Africoid features. And some of them even self-identify as part of the African diaspora. You're simply misinformed and, apparently, stubborn. Believe what you want. It's not our task here to convince you of anything. deeceevoice 11:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice I would be fascinated to read a genetic study claiming there's a non-trivial amount of Black blood in India but all the research I've read suggests that Indians are Caucasoids. You'll probably find more Black DNA in the Greeks and Arabs than you would in India. Cavalli-Sforza, the most famous genetecist of our time who did the largest most comprehensive genetic study to date wrote on page 119 of 'The great human diasporas': The caucasoids are mainly fair-skinned peoples, but this group also includes the southern Indians(dravidians), who live in tropical areas and show signs of a marked darkening in skin pigmentation, however their facial and body traits are caucasoid rather than african or australoid. If you're aware of more recent genetic information that refutes these claims, then by all means cite it. Contrary to waht you read on Afrocentric web pages, skin color is controlled by very small amounts of DNA and can change rapidly due to natural selection to different climates. Dark skin does not mean Black blood. Editingoprah 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have debated in here, read references and other places where Ethiopians and Rwandans have been called Caucasoids for the same reasons. Skin color may have a small influence on DNA, however DNA itself has historically had a small influence in black identity. Thats whether or not we are in the US, Africa, or Asia. Dark skin sure does not mean black blood. YOu got lightskinned nearly white people in America identified as Black. How ironic, those guys can tell the black Asians "your not black!" Can you imagine that? White looking Arab looking people telling Black looking people "You aren't Black". No one comments on that ironic logical end but I resend it here just to see if anyone has the courage to address it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition Caucasoid is not related to being Black or White. Heck, I am phenotypically Caucasoid, but I am Black! Ancestors were predominantly slaves from Africa. Why do the Caucasoids in America get to still be Black, yet the ones in India aren't? Hint hint, Caucasoid is not the reason. Again, going back to the "African origins only" reason. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, as I explain, below you're confusing 2 completely different definitions of Black. You might as well argue that a full blooded immigrant from India are more native to America than a half-breed native American Indian because the former is a full blooded Indian and the latter is a hybrid. Of course that would be absurd because you're confusing 2 different types of Indian, just as right now you're confusing 2 different types of black. And Caucasoids mutated off of Black people and Ethiopians appear to represent the transitional stage, caught between both races, which gives them a much stronger sub-Saharan connection than Indians who are completely Caucasoid and have no more genetic affinity with Blacks than Europeans do. In fact Indians and Europeans are essentially the same genetic stock, it's just that one migrated North and became White, while the other migrated South and became dark. Editingoprah 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue of magnitudes of misunderstanding on your part. How much more clearly can I explain it to you? I KNOW there is more than ONE KIND OF BLACK PEOPLE in the WORLD. I told YOU that numerous TIMES. My article HAD that fact IN the Article! I said, and I quote "There are at least three distinct black groups in the world". The "Indian" argument is one based purely on a misnaming of one group as another. Not based on a general human concept. "Indian" comes from the word "hindu" which is a religious and strictly ethnic term referring to people of the region India who practice HINDUISM. Now, when I show you pictures of East Indians whose features ARE CERTAINLY NEGROID, you switch and talk about how their DNA (not features) set them apart. You cannot "become" dark. Those East Indians who are dark skinned are dark skinned because their ancestors have always been dark skinned. So that's two false statements that you are speaking that I have to refute. Your not going to do anything to mislead people about the fact that Blackness is a human concept, which has elements (none of which are exclusive) of DNA affinity, regional origins, skin color, ethnic and social experiences. A COMBINATION of these factors have over time created a unique interrelated human experience, which over the past 200 years or so has had a stronger reinforcement due to the social struggles which ALL have faced for the SAME reasons against the SAME pressures. That is NOT a coiencidence. I don't even think you can even understand that. You probably stopped at "social struggles" and think that's all I am talking about. Take your photographs of your "not black, black looking Asians" and go around town and ask somebody. Find out what the black people around you actually think instead of pushing your own opinion as some groups. I did. It was embarrassing when I pretended to hold your position while speaking to them. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Back

I've talked to Black people at every opportunity. All agree that Black people that we are debating are BLACK. Even if I pretend to agree with Editing Oprah, I get a very... how should I say... offended response. There is no Black American I can find who is willing to say that the Asians in question are not Black. The responses usually go something like "I am not stupid, I know what a Black person looks like" or "Don't make up excuses, everybody knows that Black people are always looked down upon and you showing me a picture of a black man and telling me he is not black is just another example of that". I will be a-editing. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph are you not capable of understanding the fact that words can have more than one meaning? The term "black person" can refer to person of African diasporas ethnicity regardless of color, or it can refer to a person who has very dark skin, regardless of race or ethnicity. The problem with the latter definition is that an article that aims to discuss all people with dark skin, regardless of ethnicity is difficult to pull off in a coherent, objective, and encyclopedic way, and an article that aims to mix the first definition with the second creates nothing but confusion. Also, if you focus on the more inclusive deinition of black, you rob people of sub-Saharan ancestry of the term we currently use to describe our ethnicity, and force people to use more offensive terms like Negroid and sub-Saharoid to distinguish African diasporas ethnicity from other dark skinned groups. Also by arguing that groups as genetically unrelated as Australoids and Negritoes are Black, you make it look like Black people don't understand science, and thus we're not taken seriously when we make the much more credible and scientific argument that Ethiopians and ancient Egyptians are related to Blacks. And if you're so obsessed with convincing people that Blacks had great civilizations, why are you so desperate to lump us in with Australoids anyway? With all due to respect to them, theirs was one of the most primitive cultures in recorded history. And the untouchables of India? Let the Caucasians have them because genetically and craniofacially that's what they are, and including them in the Black category only reinforces the stereotype that Blacks are at the bottom of the social ladder, indeed the very fact that the lowest caste in India, the caste that cleans up human waste and is believed to polute all other castes, would see Black as an appropriate self-description means they are redefining Black to mean "stigmatized" and "lowest of the low". In fact so low in the caste system are the untouchables that they're not even part of the caste system but considered beneath it. They gain much more from associating themselves with a race famous for its athleticism, rhythm, and stereotypical sexual potency, then we could ever gain from them. And yet you want to reject science, make Black people look ignorant of science, and reject our genetic connection with ancient Egypt and Ethiopia, rob African diasporas ethnicity of its name, rob this article of encyclopedic status, and all so you can invite the most stigmatized members of other races into the "Black" category? I don't get it. Editingoprah 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention to what in your paragraph I highlighted above , so that my response to you will be clarity in your ear. The fact that the word has more than one meaning is why I am putting and restoring and fighting to keep the information I put in there. You seem to fail to acknowledge the other meanings for which you have continued to suppress in this article. Are YOU incapable of understanding the very fact you ask of me? I do not discuss everyone of dark color. For example I do not mention the unmixed native Americans whose skin color is dark to jet black. What I am seeing is your further attempts to sound objective, using the clever wording that masks your own bias. You fail to explain how acknowledging (you say including) the ones you do not want to have acknowledged, how that would rob you of the ethnicity you know of as black. Every Black person I talk to sees it the other way around, where the diminishing perception creates an artifically isolated heritage which is not based on facts. "Ethnicity" is not the issue here. It would be like Jews saying that Jewishness is endangered when they acknowledge the Jewishness of the Lembe Africans and the Ethiopian Jews. You can't make a credible point in any event when you argue that "Negritos" are not "Black". You're literally saying "the little black people in the Phillippines are not black", yet you then go on and on about science. Which leads me to the next point. There is no scientific basis for our ethnicity. YOu cannot scientifically make black people into a group. You EditingOprah want, and believe there is a scientific basis, but your reasoning is contradictory. Octoroons are considered black, even though they have less "black" genes (whatever that is) than the Negritoes. Then you talk about the Australoids, and how "primitive" they are. Sounds familiar. "African negroes are the most primitive race of mankind". How many darwinists like yourself have made that kind of comment? Plenty. Furthermore, the genetic arguement you pose works against you in regards to the Egyptians and Ethiopians, who, on your silly charts are always shown much closer to the Caucasoid Whites than to the Black Africans. But my argument isn't about how primitive or advanced one thinks one is. Thats not relevant to my position. What is relevant is that Blackness is a human, earthwide, social and cultural group more than a biological race (as the whole one drop rule has proven, as our affinity for Egypt and Ethiopia has proven, and as the fact that just within Africa the DNA of black people is more diverse than with any other group). So what is silly of you at this point (and was annoying to me, but now is just funny to watch) is your fear mongering. "Oh don't lump them in with us, they are too primitive", "Don't lump them with us, they will rob us of our ethnicity". Racism and paranoia, that's your position. You cannot rob black people of who they are EditingOprah unless they are already so weak as to lose their identity over the slightest revelation of history. There's no robbery occurring. Again you are thinking and comparing yourself to white people, wanting to be viewed as they are, having the kind of "racial" prestigue you believe they have. Genetically and craniomorphologicaly the mixed black people of america are closer to the Europeans than the people of India whom are untouchable. Black may be seen as "lowest" of the low by ignorant whites in India (just as ignorant whites in America see it), but that's not because it's "black", its because, like you, they perceive "good" as "white", and the further from "white" one is, the further from "good" one is. You have used all of the arguments that white racist darwinists use against black people in general. You also are so delusional, that you fail to recognize that the "DNA" argument, as you interpret it (which is just like how the whites do) works against you for Egypt. So you keep using the word "rob"... rob this, rob that. Rob rob rob, how are you doing Rob? I'll just call you "Rob" from now on. You don't get it Rob because you want it your way. You want black people to think like you do, and we don't. I show pictures of those Black filipinos and Indians to black people here in America, i tell them where they are from, and I devil's advocate, use YOUR arguements to say "they aren't black". I get a lot of unpleasant responses, and a lot of it is accusatory, of how I am brainwashed and how I am so ignorant. This is when I use YOUR position. So yes, obviously YOU DONT GET IT. Why don't you stop trying your lone-star position and wake up and figure it out. Take those pictures, walk around your city ask black people and see what they say? This isn't rocket science, this is human perceptions. Thats probably why you dont get it. See you on the next edit/revert ROB. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To the readers. Who here remembers EditingOprah's chart where he showed the vast DNA difference between Black Africans and Black Aboriginals and Filipinos. That same chart has the Egyptians (near Eastern) way up there with the Europeans, but here he is, contradicting himself again. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here it is, here's that stupid chart. ]. Where is the Egyptian? Where is the East Indian? "Gee Zaph, you make it look like black people don't understand sciiiiiiiience". No, EditingOprah, you yourself make yourself look like a fool. You see how Danish people are slightly closer to black Africans than ITALIANS? Oh thats really a reliable scientific source (sarcasm!) .You have no hindsight and seem to lack the ability to reason to a logical conclusion. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, why don't you read RAFONDA.COM's insight on this topic? http://www.rafonda.com/html/genetic_reality_of_race.html, same source as your chart. I find the racist implications on their site fascinating, and more fascinating that EditingOprah would run to them for some kind of validiation... but no, I am not surprised. After All I been saying that EditingOprah's reasoning mirrors that of the white racist darwin-o-supremacists. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing. I've been meaning to address your cheesy tactics to the audience. When EO makes a revert or edit, he tries to put compelling statements in the summary. For example "revert to last version by jpgordan, please don't remove needed info". I notice the "please" and the "needed info" part. Makes him look really objective doesn't it audience? Makes him look like he is working on a little project there. "needed info". EditingOprah, spare yourself the waste of time. I alomst felt guilty when I pressed the "save page" button. A single tear went down my cheek. You better start providing some kind of backbone to your arguements and stop with the rhetoric. Oh and please, don't remove anything I have posted, the inforamtion is absolutely essential for the continued existence of humanity. LOL --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Phony War begins

THank you AntiVandalBot and RebornSentinal for restoring my changes from EditingOprah's unwarranted reverts. And I am here, so EditingOprah, you looking for some consensus? You got it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

EditingOprah stated "Too many edits to quickly, and POV comments about Indians. Please use the preview function as multiple edits are hard to follow." Here is how you solve that. Since my edits are in an unbroken cluster/group. You take the LAST edit I made (in that group of edits) and compare it to the last edit made before I began the cluster of editing. Duh. What? You think you will silence me through some kind of procedural move or technicality? Do whatever it takes to win your way huh EO? There's that "please" crap again. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. EO is actually taking my sarcastic advice. He is signing on from different locations and reverting back to the revision that he wants. I'll just list his IPs and sockpuppets --Zaphnathpaaneah 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• 69.156.83.143 - never edited on Misplaced Pages before until about 10 minutes prior to 6:04EST Sept 8th.
• 64.230.79.79 - never edited on Misplaced Pages before until about a few minutes before 9:45EST Sept 8th. This edit however is the classic "take the oppositions most extreme viewpoint to discredit their entire position".
• 69.182.135.112 - never edited on Misplaced Pages before until about 2:30AM Sept 10th EST. Seems this user's only purpose was to flame. Who was it? the world will never know.

Notice a pattern so far. WHen I make edits on the talk page then someone wants to vandalize the article. Coiencidence?

• 172.203.28.27 - AOL user
• 195.93.21.103 - Another AOL user

(I wonder if these AOL users are also from the Ottawa Canada area)

EditingOpr... I mean Anon's addition of Black Irish/Dutch

Black Dutch/Irish are not considered distinctly seperate socially, culturally, or ethnically from Dutch and Irish in general. The term "black" Dutch, or "black" Irish is a very relative term that is extremly subjective and relative. But guess what, i won't remove it, because it actually is a relevant addition. Placing them at the TOP of the list of groups is disingenious and certainly suspicious and misleads the reader. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing Oprah has contradicted himself

From the "Black Billionaires" article EO says:

• Yom I already explained to you on the other board that Ethiopians are in between Blacks and Caucasoids, some argue that they're the first Caucasoids, or that Caucasoids are Ethiopoids if you prefer, but for now it doesn't matter since the fact that Forbes (the bible of the financial world) does not list them as billionaires is a reliable source that they are NOT billionaires. Many times people are described as billionaires simply because they own a billion dollar business, and people are incorrectly described as billionaires all the time. Editingoprah 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now can someone explain to me how he can one hand insist on black people being people from Africa with the US census as the strong reason to back it up? Ethiopians are IN Africa, and are certainly considered Black in the Census. Since when are Caucasoid shaped skulls important in deciding if one person is or is not Black... IN AFRICA? I am telling you, EO is a white Eurocentricist poser. Now for him the Ethiopians are just "inbetween" being Black and Caucasoid (read: white). And he responds with such a calm yet authoratitiveness. I mean come on Yom I already explained to you. Hey Yom, here's a suggestion, don't trust his conclusions and don't rely on his articulation to be reliable. So what if he says whatever he says, he's one misinformed individual, whose been arguing the same refuted points for months now. I'm going to enjoy participating in the Black Billionaire's article, and I'm starting to take an interest in editing Oprah's article while I'm at it... but I will wait and see what happens first. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. census describes Blacks as a person originating in any of the Black races of Africa, not just anyone originating from Africa. Egyptians are African but they're not considered Black in the census. Ethiopians would be considered Black by most people, but the only Ethiopian I know considers herself Arab. Genetically they are in between sub-Saharans and Caucasoids with some studies claiming they are are closer to Blacks and other studies claiming they are closer to Caucasoids. Editingoprah 11:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit, EO. No offense, but that's what that is. No Ethiopian would call herself Arab, whether she be Christian or Muslim. A descendent of the prophet (i.e. having an ancient Arab lineage) maybe, but not Arab. Ethiopians are not considered to be Arabs by anyone, and especially not by Arabs. Stop pushing your POV, EO. Consider the wide group of people who disagree with you, people who usually disagree with each other on these issues. I don't deny that Ethiopian skulls are craniofacially "Caucasoid," an invented race category, but at the same time, then you have to ask what weight to give it, as Horn Africans are described as Super-negroid in limb-proportions (along with Ancient Egyptians, e.g.). Moreover, the genetics of Ethiopians clearly show mainly native lineages (with J lineages occuring in the Semitic-Speaking population at about 30% for Y chromosomes, but themselves passed on to Ethiopians in the Neolithic by the agricultural and Sub-Saharan tied culture, the Natufians). The figures you are coming up with are by deciding that E3b is Caucasoid (it arose originally 20,000 years ago in the Horn of Africa, probably in a proto-Somali male), so as to remove non-Caucasoid influences from Iberia, Sicily, SE Europe and the whole North Africa and Middle East, where high levels of E3b are found. Also, you create a false dichotomy between the terms "black" and Caucasoid. Even genetically, "Caucasoid," is merely a comment on facial features, that are not necessarily connected to genetics. Consider the 100% E3a (a West African lineage) Fulani, who are often of the so-called "Elongated East African" type (i.e. long nose and face, with little prognathism, what you would falsely label "Caucasoid"). You can be black and still have facial features that qualify you for the contrived "Caucasoid" in-group, but that doesn't mean that the latter group is accurate in describing your genetics. You also ignore the fact that "black" is a social, not genetic, classification (consider Alicia Keys or Halle Berry, e.g., who is half-white, but still considered "black" or "African-American"). Your definition would be that black people have to have a majority of ancestors that stayed in Africa after the first exit Out of Africa. Given that most blacks have some little white DNA, both Alicia Keys and Halle Berry would have <50% African DNA, and not black by your standards. Please reconsider — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And in America there are many black people who genetically are closer to Europeans than they are to Africans, yet we call them black don't we. Where is the scientific basis in that EO? Scientifically explain how black Americans who are genetically far from the African are scientifically more black than the Ethiopian friend that calls herself Arab. I'm just beyond anticipation for the science behind this one. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not trying to push any POV about Ethiopians. People keep asking me about my opinion on the subject and all I'm doing is responding honestly. And the only Ethiopian I know does self-identify as Arab. I know this because to me she looked Ethiopian so I asked her what her ethnic background was. She replied that she was Arab. I then asked where in the Arab world she was from (because she looked so Ethiopian) and she then explained that she was Ethiopian. And btw Caucasoid is a racial group that correlates with certain facial traits, but it's genetics, not phenotype that decides what race people are from a scientific perspective(phenotype was simply used historically as a crude proxy for genetics before the state of the art developed). If you want to define Black as a social group, then I would say that socially Ethiopians are percieved as Black by people outside the scientific community, however I'm not sure if the Ethiopians themselves self-identiy as Black. And the genetic studies classifying Ethiopians as Caucasoidish are not based on E3b or the fact that the genetic father of all Eurasians lived in Ethiopia, but are based on much more comprehensive measures of total genetic distance. Cavalli-Sforza describes Ethiopians as genetically African, but describes them as "special Africans" with about 40% Caucasoid genes. Another study went further claiming that 77% cluster with Caucasoids and so calling them Black is inconsistent with genetic structure. And I'm not sure if the analogy with hybridized African-Americans is applicable. The average African-American is only 17% Caucasoid genetically, though some who are more than half Caucasoid still sel-identify as African-American for cultural reasons related to the one drop rule and hypodescent. Note that these people would not be considered Black if they lived in Brazil (where only 6% of the population defines themselves as Black despite a gene pool that's 33% sub-Saharan), and genetically they would not be considered Black either though culturally they are African-American. But I'm not sure if you can compare recent genetic hybrids, with ancient genetic distances. For examples, on the genetic level, according to Cavalli-Sforza, all Europeans are genetically 66% East Asian and 33% African. But this is probably because the Caucasoid race mutated off of Africans, and by the time it reached Europe, the mongoloid race mutated off Caucasoids. And yet I don't think anyone would argue that Europeans are Black or Asian. Similarly, the Ethiopian propinquity with both Blacks and Caucasoids may simply be because the Caucasoid race mutated off of those Africans who happedned to be in Ethiopia. So Ethiopians are in between. If the majority of studies find they are closer to Blacks I will consider them Black. If the majority find they are closer to Caucasoid, I will consider them Caucasoid. If they are exactly in between I will consider them Ethiopoid. For now the scientific verdict is still out, on both what they are and how they got to be that way. Editingoprah 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Yom and Zaph, here are some articles you may find of interest if you doubt there is any ambiguity about the race of Ethiopians. This] article claims:

The basic ancestry of the Amhara is Semitic, as is their language. But they intermarried and absorbed some of the Cushitic peoples who preceded them in this area. There was a strong Oromo strain in the royal family and nobles. The Amhara features are similar to the southern Arabs, olive to brown skin, with Caucasian features and dark circles around the eyes. The name comes from the word amari, meaning "pleasing, agreeable, beautiful and gracious."

And this ] informal online discussion claims (press "show quoted text" to see the full discussion:

the Amhara are prejudiced against black people in general because they consider themselves Semitic without a single drop of Negro blood. He said the testimony to this fact was that the Amharas used to own SLAVES ( whom they called Baria ), like their white counterparts here in the U.S before emancipation. He said even after slavery was abolished by law in Ethiopia, intermarriages between "Semitic" Amharas and the Cushitic/ Negroid people in Ethiopia were a taboo until very recently. The black people in Ethiopia were dehumanized and ostracized under Amhara rule.

None of these sources are scientific so they're of no interest to me, but for people like yourselves who define race culturally, you may find them informative. Editingoprah 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He talks to one ethiopian. As if we don't have access to many others. Go to Washington DC and Arlington Virginia. Ask an Ethiopian. YOu cannot tell the difference unless they dress differently or unless you hear their voice... you cannot tell the difference between them and the Black African-Americans living there. No matter if they are jet black, very "negroid" or Caucasoid. When has anyone been able to get a white European mixed up with an Ethiopian? When have you looked at an Italian or German and got them confused with an Ethiopian? This whole discussion is such nonsense EO. IF you are going to go on and on about them being Caucasoid, well who cares. Caucasoid doesn't have any worthwhile meaning. Its another political routine. Get off it. And the funniest part is, the really REALLY black Ethiopians aren't the ones that come to America usually. Those don't get counted in this silly tabulation do they? Nope. BUt what do you do? Oh if they were in BRazil... oh I guess Brazil is more objective? Oh if they were in Brazil... oh that changes everything! Get it understod EO, the whole thing about Ethiopians, East Indian Blacks, Aeta, and others, its an issue about whose doing the talking. Your article is not convincing me of anything. Its an article written by a white guy who wants to follow the same retarded reasoning. The Amhara aren't Black, your just slowly trying to take the white racist position. You're not Black EO, you're not fooling anybody. The next step is for you to explain how the Tutsi are not Black, because they are "caucasoids" too. So come on cut to the chase. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And as far as this goes with comparing them to Yemeni. Thats a matter of where the line is drawn, like I said a million times. You accept it when AFRICANS, and BLACK africans renounce being black IN AFRICA. But when people outside Africa want to claim their blackness, oh my god you start having seizures. And you are so afraid of the black race being robbed. Hey, guess what your Amhara robbed you buddy, according to your analysis, you been robbed! --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the picture you paint of the Amhara with your comments , yet this is the picture I seee when i do searches for Amharic people online . Do you see how your words distort the facts? The first pic is an Amharic and European kid (His mother is a white Israeli), the second pic is the AVERAGE look. And just as I already knew the Amhara, despite being "caucasoid" when you put a ruler to their foreheads, and down their nose, look far more black then they do Arab or White. I told everybody else you would go there, I told yall. Next up, the Caucasoid Tutsis. What about theM? --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, all I'm saying is that I look at race from a genetic perspective and since the genetic studies contradict themselves, I am simply undecided about whether Ethiopians are Black or Caucasoid or their own distinct race.

Keep in mind that Blacks were the first human race, and it was only through genetic mutations that Caucasoids came into exstence. Given this fact, it is not surprising that we should see an intermediate race that shows signs of becoming Caucasoid while still retaining Black characteristics as well. I have no problem with you calling Ethiopians Black in the article because they're a hell of a lot more Black than most of the people you want to include. I disagree however that you can't tell the difference between Ethiopians and African-Americans, even African-Americans with substantial amounts of Caucasoid blood. The difference is when you mix a Black with a Caucasoid you usually get someone who is in between on all measures, that is their skin color is in between, their facial features are in between etc. But Ethiopians are very different. With them the skin color and hair texture is often that of someone who is 100% Black, but their features and skulls are that of someone who is 100% Caucasoid. This leads me to think that unlike the most hybridized African Americans, who get both lighter skin and more narrow features from Caucasoid admixture, the Ethiopians may in fact be the original Caucasoids, who simply never ventured to the cooler climates where light skin and wavy hair evolved. This is just my personal opinion and I don't have research to back it up, but they look as though they are 100% Black on the outside and 100% Caucasoid beneath the skin. People like Halle Berry and other African-American mulattoes do not have such a uniform split between internal structure and outside covering. Editingoprah 20:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Edintingoprah, your assertions are absurd on their face. Skin color and hair texture are defining elements of blackness. They are not the only ones, however. I'm am confident a good forensic anthropologist could determine from the skulls of this group of Ethiopian children (skin and hair removed) that they were, indeed, black. There's not a whole lot to go on with just a frontal view, but a couple of glaring things: the enlarged incisors. That's a hallmark of Africoid peoples -- and the extent to which that is the case here would point to a Nilotic or Cushitic people -- in a word: black East Africans. Secondly, there is no bilobate chin -- a Caucasoid characteristic. Thirdly, there is likely some degree of facial prognathism --perhaps not pronounced and perhaps not alveolar, but very likely maxillary -- again, another hallmark of Africoid peoples. The skulls of some of them are likely dolichocephalic -- another Africoid characteristic -- and I'm confident that their eye sockets are likely very clearly rounded (as in the case of King Tut) -- again, an Africoid characteristic. And that's just for starters. So, you see, your "100% Black on the outside and 100% Caucasoid beneath the skin" is absurd -- and quite simply incorrect. 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you edit those pictures in photoshop and do your little experiment.

Compare your 50 cent to our Filipino

Here are more examples:

- Filipino - Ethiopian - African American (the average African Americans you see on TV) - MLK and Coretta (notice how "arab" King looks now in light of EO's comments. Dennis Archer, former Mayor of Detroit (another Caucasoid!) His SON (a negroid)

Anyone else in here tell me, if you feel like throwing up after reading EditingOprah's comments here. Just read the highlighted part. Editing Oprah, if you are that silly to think that your reasoning is sufficient, your really out of your mind. Those Ethiopians are not caucasoid first of all, secondly, the range of features on a person's face does not lend itself to concluding that they are "caucasoid". What you are relying on is called the "classical negro" philosophy. I and one other person had created and edited that article, but Misplaced Pages removed it. The classical negro philosophy is one where people insist on portraying a quintessential definition of blackness based on very narrow criteria. Where other groups are reasonably varied, the classical negro is made to be a small narrowly defined group of people. It ultimately leads to the Negro-phobia philosophy that insists that black people are incapable of having a natural diversity within the human experience and that they are just a "specialized" and inherently seperate (due to the way the group is classified) sub group of humans. The Classical Negro philosophy entertains the nottion that true black people could not have ventured out of Africa and any variation from the classical negro is a testament of outside influence or upward evolution. Bear in mind the 'evolving' is where the classical negro becomes seperate from their 'evolved' cousins... which are the Ethiopians, Egyptians, East Indians and others whom are thus lumped together as the "broadly defined Caucasoids". Despite the fact that these caucasoids share much less in common with the Northeast Europeans (considered a primary branch of Caucasoid), these "intermediates" who fail to meet the criteria of being the classical negro (aka purely or truely black) eventually are robbed from their true identity as black people, and black people are robbed of their true diversity as a people. --Zaphnathpaaneah 22:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you with your lack of research. The Ethiopians that you selectively choose are not the typical Ethiopian. yes they look cute with their bright wide eyes and narrow noses, however, they are not representative of the very diverse Ethiopian country. The more "negroid" looking Ethiopians are not included in the kind of insight you are proporting. No, they are added into the conversation as an afterthought, and rarely are their pictures used as examples, as representative examples of the true heritage of Ethiopia. Ethiopia also has gone through (like much of E. Africa) post Islamic invasions and what not. Muhammad himself had migrated there to hide out from some of the people persuing him. The Abassyd Caliphate and the Mamelukes also had invaded at various times into Sudan. So this "proto-Caucasoid" nonsense is certainly unsubstantiated. The "skull" shape of Ethiopians are in part due to natural human diversity and to much more RECENT intermixing with Arabs. REMEMBER, you consider ANY variation from the narrow classical negro to be automatically Caucasoid (so a negroid skull with brown to light skin = Caucasoid,), but you fail to allow those who fit the description to be Negroid (like our Filipino) because they are living outside the continent of Africa (you then abandon your skulls and noses for DNA, which obviously will be different). You might be black EO, but you follow the philosophy of white Eurocentricts like Dienekes Pontikos. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it to you in real simple terms. You for some reason do not want anyone else to be 'tainted' with the label of Black or Negroid except the West African so called "bantu" groups. If we take a measuring tape or whatever, and measure the dimentions of the skull of the Filipino above and compare that to the measurements of a 'typical' Black person of your choice. Our Filipino will fit nicely in that. Secondly he has the hair and the skin color of a 'typical' (read: classical negro). Yet STILL you will deny him his blackness, because he is not from Africa. There you abandon your scientific objectivity for a social and unscientific bias. be glad that I cannot post many other pictures of people on here.

Yet another contradiction on your part. You speak of how the Ethiopians may be the first Caucasoids, yet you earlier spoke of the importance of linking the Ancient Egyptians to the Black people of our present day. How can this be? The Ancient (so called Caucasoid) Ethiopians according to DNA, Ancient Egyptian legends, settlement patterns, and any other archaeological evidence, they are the ANCESTORS of the Ancient Egyptians. How then can they be linked to the Africans you consider Black? THIS blunder on your part is the WHOLE reason I got into this kind of topic. It became obvious to me that some short sighted "afrocentricists' play right into the hands of Eurocentricists, because they adopt the silly Classical Negro notion of blackness. I should not have to paint someone's skin, cut their hair and whatever else to convince you of anything. Blackness is not based on the nose and the shape of the skull. Half the Black people in America would be out of the running EO. How much more do you want to humilate black people with your talk? --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My God now Ethiopians are not African, what is that? If you shave they hair and paint them they would be white. You know what if you straighten 50 cents nose and paint him and shave his hair he would be white too. leave his nose and paint him yellow he would be chinese. How about Jackie Chan, if you paint him and jerry curl his hair he would be "black". My God this is a joke show. I cannot believe 2006 people could talk this madness. Fight on Zaphnathpaaneah!!! (that 50 cent thing is dead on point) Man I am just an African full stop. --81.157.230.225 11:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If we let some people have their way, there would be NO black people on Earth. We would be analyzed out of existence. But black...er "dark skinned non black humans" would still effectively be kept from competing for the coveted jobs of relevance that white people fear us "taking" from them through fair educational advancement... that policy wouldn't change. Remember all of you, all of this nonsense, from this article to the ultra consrvative white-ring pundits to the crazyness of the Bush administration, it all comes down to an equation like Einsteins theory of relativity. Make choices and policies that ultimately prevent black kids from growing up to compete fairly for high paying and influential jobs in America and across the world. And I swear this comfy-wumfy racist policy will not continue. It ends now, it ends here the line is drawn, no further! --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The True Bottom Line

This is what I feel is truly the bottom line in regards to this issue of classifying black people or Caucasoids or Negroids. This has nothing to do with political manauvering on my part. This has to do with a deep psychological issue in Americans and to a lesser degree throughout the world. People, ask yourselves, why is skull shapes so significant of all things? Why would EO declare that deep down underneath the skin is a Caucasoid? And after all no matter how much we say, we know deep down we look at Caucasoids as inherently white oriented people, distinct and seperate from black people. Here is the reason why. Racism has taught us that black people are inferior, but over time it has been placated with "different". Ok, but the underlining issue is still that Black people are fundamentally different than everyone else. This alleged difference comes from our mental capacity and how that capacity apparently differs from whites (and Caucasoids). This is further postulated to be from the shape and size of our brains. So the caucasoid brains share a similarity in shape and thus all people considered Caucasoid share a common capacity towards some greater or more respectable goal. The negroid people do not. That's how the story goes. The Ethiopians, Egyptians and other "caucasoids with dark skin" all share a historical legacy that is appreciated by white people. They also share a Christian history. But the Negroids apparently do not. (yes I know all about the great west african civilizations, but I am not supporting the racist notion, I am conveying to you all why this stupidity about Caucasoids and straining out blackness in others is happening) So I see time and time again an attempt to fulfill this disgusting argument against Black people by artifically creating this "caucasoid" division based on skull shapes and sizes which for the past 200 years has been a fundamental racist method of justifying black inferiority. Now we abandon the word "inferiority" but still hold up it's implications. Instead of recognizing that Black and Negroid people vary greatly, and vary widely across the Earth (just like Caucasoids and Sinoid people do), we follow a pre-determined philosophy that places Black people narrowly in a group, stuck within Africa, and limits our capacities in history. People will go on and on about the remaining accomplishments, but in the end, the quesiton remains.... why couldn't we also venture beyond barriers that others could overcome? Since some are destined to ignore the implications and sidestep the issue, they never look at thie issue the right way. We did venture out, we did found great civilizations in and outside of Africa. Our Black ancestors ventured out, established civilizations throughout the world. But now modern racists and fools will simply say "they aren't black because they aren't in Africa". EO feels offended to include Aboriginals because he feels they are too primitive. That's not scientific, that's just prejudice. This ultimately goes to intellect and our alleged lack thereof. IF you disagree, then tell me, why is "race and intelligence" constantly found on these articles? I myself did not put them there and at some point I took them off. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The truer bottom line? BULL

Yes, I read your classical Negro article and thought it was quite good. It was unfortunate that Ezeu nominated it for deletion, and that they deleted it after only 2 votes. Ezeu had never heard of the classical negro theory and thus felt it wasn't noteable enough for wikipedia but in fact the theory was constructed by Seligman and is very well known in the anthropological community as the "true negro" theory. Now all I'm saying is that racial differences exist on a continuum and Ethiopians (for whatever reason) are genetically and craniofacially in between to Europeans/Arabs and other soc-called Black Africans. That's an indisputable fact of science. Now you're arguing that it's arbitrary where on the genetic continuum one draws the line between Negroids and Caucasoids, and that Caucasoids are simply expanding their racial category to including more diversity, and robbing Negroids of their diversity in the process. This may have been true in the past, but the scientists of today are much more sophisticated and now can build objective genetic trees and perform genetic cluster analysis where computers group populations in the most objective way possible. The fact of the matter is that when genetic trees are created, 4 main brainches emerge. The first includes the peoples of sub-Saharan ancestry. he second includes South East Asians and Pacific islanders. The third includes Arabs, Europeans, and East Indians, and the fourth includes North East Asians, native Americans, and Inuits. Now objectively each of these branches corresponds to a human race, and since the human category Black is most often used to describe African diasporas ethnicity, it's only natural that scientists view the first branch as Blacks. Now what you're trying to do is extend the definition of Black to include not only the first branch, but much of the second (Oceanic people, aeta), and tiny parts of the third (Southern Indians). All you are doing is redefining Blackness as a transracial category based on one tiny aspect of phenotype (skin color) but this in no way changes the fact that sub-Saharans all form a unique branch of the human tree and thus qualify as their own separate race. If you redefine Black, people will just use other words to define African diasporas ethnicity (i.e. Negroid) because we are an objective race separate from other dark skinned people whether you like it or not. Some Aetas may look Negroid, and some African-Americans may look Arab (though the ones you showed had light skin but braod features) but the appearance of Oceanic people is nothing more than an evolutionary coincedence. As for Ethiopians being the ancestors of Egyptians, as I said many times I am agnostic about whether or not they are Black or Caucasoid. The tree I will show below does classify them with other sub-Saharans so if they are Caucasoid, they are the breed of Caucasoids that is most closely related to Negroids so one can argue that ancient Egypt was created by Negroid-like Caucasoids. But don't get too excite about them being lumped in with Negroids, because they are the one group that is so ambiguous that they bounce from one branch to the other, despending on the study.

File:DNAtree.gif

So these are the genetic branches of the human tree objectively generated by computer. These are the major racial groups. Sub-Saharans are indeed a separate branch whether you allow us exclusive rights to the term Black or not, or force us to adopt more achaic terms like Negroid to describe our uniqueness. And I'm not sure why you are so ashamed of sub-Saharans never leaving Africa. In fact Africa is where modern humans evolved in the first place and those that left prematurely became Neandertals and were eventually killed off by Homo S. Sapians which continued to evolve in Africa before branching out. Editingoprah 01:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Another slight of the hand. No one is relating any part of this conversation to neanderthals. We are talking about people who left Africa AFTER modern humans evolved and then AFTER (not before) established civilizations throughout Asia. I am not interested in the region where Africans evolved. I don't care if it's Africa, Asia, or Jupiter. The thing I am addressing is the notion that BLACK people did not have the ability to expand themselves to other areas outside of a continent and a small isthmus. You're not black EO. I don't know what they teach you in Canada, but your being mislead. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You already MADE this arguement above. Why are you repeating the same nonsense. More importantly why are you putting an image of a black woman on here and saying that she doesn't look black? Are you really out of your flipping MIND? There are black women that live in my NEIGHBORHOOD that look like this lady! EO you are not black, there is no way. You're a white guy or something else. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to your argument above. You were going well until you made a boo-boo "objectively each of these branches corresponds to a human race,". No, not objectively. Those groups you are speaking of correspond to regional associations of people through common descent. In other words, the people didn't travel between the groups after they settled in their respective areas. This does not constitute race, because the concept of race goes deeper than regional affiliation, but goes to a supposed fundamental human division, which EACH group tends to "violate" through intermarriage and through natural human diversity. You just posted an ASIAN (of one of your races) which shares similarities in her features to San people of South Africa, and some Native Americans, and African Americans. She does not share much cultural or physical similarity to Japanese. She does not LOOK like a Japanese person (of the same race right?), but she looks more like a "Khoi" than a Japanese. In the same manner, her cultural and social structure is not like the Japanese, it is more like people of India, and some people of Africa. In addition you pluck her picture from the same group of people where I get the Black Filipino man, showing the similarities in diversities between the Filipinos and Black Africans! Yet you say "Zaph wants you to think she looks black". Your the only person in here who would say she doesn't. And thats a dead giveaway that you yourself, oh my Ottawan Canadian friend, are NOT Black. Get out of here EO, your making more and more of a fool of yourself. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Another mistake on your part, you say "the appearance of Oceanic people is nothing more than a coiencidence". The implication in your sentance is that the Oceanic people were not originally black looking, but evolved to look black later. THAT is the fundamental mistake you make that totally distorts ALL of your reasoning and logic on this subject. it is also why i am almost convinced you are white. There is no "evolutionary coiencidence" because the Oceanic people started off AS black looking people and RETAINED their blackness. They never lost it, and your continual denial or avoidance of this fact underlines your fear of losing this discussion. Slight of hand on your part. I saw it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Whats really insane on your part is that you actually think you are convincing people that other black people are in agreement with you. EVERY BLACK PERSON I KNOW OF THAT SEES THIS PICTURE UNANIMOUSLY SAYS "THIS IS A BLACK WOMAN". Maybe in Ottawa Canada they see blackness differently, but this isn't EO's Canada-Black page now is it? --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, you clearly have no interest in science or objectivity and wish to just cling to your own subjective and meaningless impressions of who looks Black and who doesn't. You also have no understanding of the concept of race because if you did you'd realize that races are people with certain genetic traits in common that are correlated through common ancestry. Races are not unrelated people who happened to live in the same climate and developed the same skin color as a result. If I've made a fool of myslef it was only in foolishly overestimating your ability to listen to reason, when clearly you are far too emotional. Editingoprah 01:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

THE PICTURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES EO. I GET EMOTIONAL WHEN SOMEONE TELLS ME THAT WHAT I SEE ISN'T OBVIOUSLY WHAT I SEE. THESE ARE BLACK PEOPLE, I DONT EVEN HAVE TO TRY TO LOOK ONLINE FOR ANY SIMILARITIES, YOU JUST TYPE IN THEIR NAME "AETA" AND BOOM. YOU ARE LIKE AWW SHUCKS GOLLY GEES DONALD RUMSFELD "WE KNOW THERE ARE WEAPONS IN IRAQ, THEY ARE IN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH AND IN BAGHDAD." WE KNOW THEY ARE NOT BLACK "THEY ARENT DARK ENOUGH, THEIR SKULLS AREN'T NEGROID ENOUGH, THEIR HAIR ISNT KINKY ENOUGH". STOP TELLING ME THAT ITS RAINING WHEN ITS URINE EO.

More Aeta Filipino people who just don't look Black to EO, BUT DO LOOK BLACK TO THE PEOPLE OF EARTH. - Tell me the ones in this last one looks more like Japanese or Chinese people than Black Africans. Just tell me so I can call you insane EO. Some of the pictures have people whose dress and other characteristics are almost identical to some people in Africa. If you notice our last picture, the people are dressed oddly similar to the

One more time. I am not going to even ask. You know you see a similarity to the Maasai women of Africa (who look obviously NEGROID) and our Filipino women here . I am not even going to play dumb with you EO. This is DONE! The more you talk, the worse off you look. Why don't you plop up some more DNA nonsense logic so you will feel better. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This conversation really ended here

Anyone who is going to argue that EITHER of these two men are not black in any sense needs to get off the computer and get their head examined. A whole group of black people here are laughing their butts off after EO posted that DNA chart. EO, you got slammed. (Sorry for the move, someone else posted this section in the wrong area. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He looks like Tyrese with hair.

Zaph nobody intelligent considers native Filipinos to be Black in any meanigful sense of the term. Yes they look like Black people, but looking and being are two different things. That's obvioulsy too difficult a concept for you to grasp. Deep down you know I'm right, otherwise you would just laugh me off and move on. The fact that you devote so much time and energy ranting and raving about me on this talk page tells me that my arguments really bother you, and they wouldn't bother you unless deep down you know that I'm right. Editingoprah 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

EO the ONLY thing that bothers me is that the moderators will give you leverage. If I knew that the Misplaced Pages moderators would ignore you, then you can totally own this talk page while I do my editing with out your interference. So I continue to slam you so that there will be NO QUESTION. The concept of BEING black as you see it is a concept that goes beyond any scientific or objectivity. It's a psychological and social concept. You merely try to force some scientific basis on it, and you fail each and every time. The fact that I cant even FIND a black soul to agree with you further proves my point. Deep down, your jealous, and you are insecure. You're stuck in the 80s when upper middle class black people in America thought that being black meant Kwanzaa, Dashikis on holloween, African friends and imitating a Jewish sense of belonging to a group. You come on here with your silly attempts to change the talk page with various IP addresses, and sockpuppets. You see me arguing with the other people on here who have said dumb crap? No, because they didnt interfere with the editing. You however don't know when to admit when you are wrong. And Misplaced Pages seems to think this is a 50-50 argument. It's a 99 to one and your the sole holdout. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph you simply do not understand the concept of race as its viewed by modern biologists and the arguments you make are on a very low level. But I have no intention of pushing my genetic views in the article. All I ask is that you not give your views on Blackness too much weight and respect the fact that African diasporas people often use the term Black exclusively to describe ourselves. Editingoprah 02:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And all I am trying to do is to explain that other people who resemble African diasporas also use balck to describe themselves too and they have been doing so long before your biologists came along. Why don't you stop dancing around with your intentions and just admit that you don't know enough about things to form such a conclusion? You are not going to get what you want here, now more than ever you've isolated yourself even further. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And the last thing, the part that you think rings in my soul against you. What you see actually is my devotion to uniting black people. I cherish the day when black people all over the world understand each other and people like you are looking from the outside, running to hip-hop gangsta rap for some kind of security blanket since you'll be the one left out in the cold. You try to sound all matter of fact, but the fact is your lost. You hold on to a colloquial view of blackness. And you try to insist on a deeper "being" black. That deeper BEING black, the very thing YOU talk about, is that essence of being black that I have been saying all along, it's stronger than DNA, regional origin, and stronger than any of that field-negro/house-negro mentality you keep spouting. Don't worry you can get the last word. Just watch the article as it goes through more changes you won't like. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'm done here.

I felt good letting my friends here see this conversation live. There's about 8 of us here now, but a few were on here earlier helping me out, and I got to entertain them with my skills on here. EO, hey buddy thanks. Some of these cats here would love to meet you and ask you why you are such a sellout. For some reason they all think you are black, but that you got a case of the Clarence Thomasitis. Seriously though, it's not personal, but you are an embarrassment to black people. You wonder why we would be ashamed of not leaving Africa, and all you do is twist it around, any example of our ancestors leaving the continent automatically means they aren't black. That's stupid. You really shouldn't be on here saying this kind of thing because you just make yourself look bad, and you make people think you weren't raised right. You may have grown up ashamed of being black, but don't try to put that on anyone else, that's your problem. I'm not going to waste anymore of my finger energy debating with you. That picture with 50cent was the hiroshima bomb. You keep on bringing your DNA charts. Eventually more black contributors are gonna slam you on here. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, you're the one who is ashamed of having sub-Saharan ancestry, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to expand the Black race to include non-subSaharans. So you think staying in Africa makes you primitive, and thus identify with dark skinned people who left Africa. Have you any idea what an insult that is to all the descendanst of the recent African diasporas including yourself and your friends? Even if you believe aetas are Black, it still doesn't change the fact that you are ashamed of those who are genetically related to you, whether you consider them the only Blacks or not. Editingoprah 02:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See there you go. You can't see the front from the back can you. You don't find shame by being inclusive. You find shame through exclusion. When you exclude others, your doing so because you are insecure. Aren't YOU the one that keeps editing crap about Black Billionaires and Oprah? I edit and contribute to African articles like Yoruba and Ife. We are right here reading your article. One of my friends is FROM AFRICA. Hi, EO. You are very ignorant and you have never seen Africa. Africans do not seperate into Caucasians and Negroids. You go to Ethiopia or Kenya and you will see that for yourself. I know that that Filipino man is black, I can see a black man and I know I could talk to him and he understands that. You give me a call if you want to dicuss this with an African. I'm from Ghana and I have friends from Ethiopia, Senegal, Eritrea and Kenya. The only Ethiopians that call themselves Caucasians are the ones that want Islam to rule the country. Zaph's relatives are from Aburi, I am from Kumasi. You may know Kumasi, but do you know Aburi? You look it up, and I will help you understand how much you do not know brother. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC) and friends.

Also in Nigeria are the IGBO people. They "look" more Caucasian than your Ethiopians. But they do not do this silly game. You say you know what it is like to BE Black. Then if you know that, how can you talk about high yellow Ethiopians being white underneath their skin? How can you talk about DNA having anything to do with this when DNA only became a commodity in the last twenty or so years? All of our parents were not relying on DNA to tell us if we are black or not. Now you want every black to take a DNA exam. Zaph may be bold in thinking that Black people should know each other all over the world, but he is right in that you cannot be in charge of being black just because you come from America, or Africa. Thats what causes the wars in Africa, being tribal. We are one group and I do not find myself lessened or any shame in seeing someone from Asia being black. It is what it is. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly was it that caused the early Europeans to label Africans “black” when they first saw them? Was it DNA evidence that gave these early Europeans their insight into what is to be considered "black" and what is not? Or was it the obvious appearance of the various Negroid phenotypes that dictated the use of the "black" label?

What then, (since there really is no such thing as race) makes Africa's blacks "black" while other equally Negroid none-Africans are considered none-black? I mean really! All this effort to determine "blackness" by citing genetic similarities between this group or that group is a fallacy. It seems to be nothing more than an on-going effort to deny blacks their presence in history. --Arumeas 03:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly who cares what caused early European settlers to label people Black. The term in the modern world refers to African diasporas ancestry. If you feel African diasporas people contributed nothing to history and the only way the Black race can be redeemed is to look to dark skinned Asians to prop it up, then at least be honest enough to say so. Editingoprah 04:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats not what the term refers to. They've been saying this for quite a while. You're the only one who refuses to accept that. Also, you continue to project a notion that by recognizing the blackness of some Asians, people are automatically saying that black Africans contribute inadequately in history. That would be comparable to me recognizing the blackness of lighterskinned African-Americans and hearing someone saying that I am ashamed of the contributions of darkerskinned Af-Americans. In fact it appears that people are simply becoming more aware of the worldwide similarities between various peoples due to the fact that whites no longer have complete control of information flow. Recognizing the blackness of others has nothing to do with recognizing the achievements of Africans. You were dismayed by the inclusion of the Aboriginals for being too primitive. That's in opposition to your reasoning now as the Aboriginals do not prop up any kind of redeemable qualities as they also were too primitive in your eyes and they were wiped out and enslaved! I for one see nothing to redeem. But in any event, I don't see Zaph or anyone else reluctantly including them. They seem to be enthuasitcally including them. As far as them being really black, I've met some Aboriginals, they are like Black and Native American people, very calm people, but also very sure of the fact they are black. --Osirica 20:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph if you have something to say please be brave enough to say under your own name. You've made it very clear from your article on classical negro that any attempt to limit the defintion of Black people to sub-Saharans dehumanizes black people because apparently you don't believe sub-Saharans are human. Anyway this discussion is idiotic because Negritoes and Australoids are black in skin color but not black in race. We're talking about two different things, just like Native American Indians and India's Indians. That's why I prefer to call black as defined by skin color "dark people" and limit the term Black to African diasporas ethnicity. Otherwise you force African diasporas people to be described by more archaic sounding terms like Negroid and sub-Saharoid, to distinguish us from the other ethnicities that also have dark skin. Editingoprah 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Read my statements below if you still have a problem seeing bravery on my part. I have chased you all over Misplaced Pages, and i cannot go past a certain point as I will simply find myself being put out of the process by the moderators. Now, the issue about "naming conventions". The word is "EQUATORIAL". YOu can call us Equatorial people. or Black Africans. Equatorial Africans. I prefer that than that nasty word "SUB" Saharan. I don't like the idea of my people being defined by being beneath a desert. Thats IDIOTIC. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's one more thing I'd like to say. The ways ome people on this board are so ashamed of sub-Saharans that they spend their life researching ways to argue that native tribes from Southern Asia and the Pacific Islands are Black. Some here are so desperate to associate themselves with anything non-African that they're even willing to accept the untouchables of India, the most primitive tribes of Australia, and the short-statured Negritoes. I guess anything is better than African in the minds of people who claim fixating on Sub-Sahara dehumanizes Blacks, and so apparently, sub-Saharans are so low on the totempole in the minds of some Blacks that even the most dehumanized people in Asia and the Pacific Islands are considered a step up. I think it is PATHETIC and EMBARASSING to spend your life trying to associate yourself with unrelated people because you're ashamed of the people who actually are, and all because they never left Africa, and you need to post some photo of an aeta man to save face with white people. Pathetic. Editingoprah 20:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That last response was nothing more than a desperate and manipulative tirade. Those are your thoughts and ideas, and yours alone. Trying to force a sense of shame on black people who are intelligent enough to recognize likenesses of themselves through-out the globe is nothing more than a feeble-minded defeatist racist attack. I wish you would just say what you mean and stop beating around the bush. You despise black people. Try coming up for a little air. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you have nothing meaningful to contribute to this issue. If Europeans had discovered the blacks of Asia first they would have initially labeled them "black Negroes:" then you would be arguing that only Asian Negroids are black while trying to find a none-Negroid classification for African blacks. Give it up.--[[User:)Arumeas 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC

It doesn't take any intelligence to mindlessly lump all dark skinned people together because you're desperate for a non-African connection. It takes intelligence to understand that skin color adapts rapidly to climate, and just because some people look a bit like Africans, does not mean there's a blood connection, and trying to form a global identity based on trivial external appearance reveals a shallow and superficial mind. Editingoprah 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an exercise of using intelligence. This is an exercise of observation. This article is called "black people", not "African-Americans" or "African-Diaspora". This isn't called "blood relationships among black people". This is called "black people" which clearly implies black people throughout the entire world. You definition of Black is not objective, but instead is based on YOUR experiences in YOUR environment. That is not a responsible way to investigate anything. That is a prejudiced way of handling things. it's ethno centric and a part of the concept of American exceptionalism. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

EditingHypocrite - If me calling you a sellout isn't brave enough, and if me directly challenging you on your talk page and my own isn't brave enough and direct enough, then I don't know what is. How about this. You are fake. (is that brave enough?). Your brainwashed and you follow a Uncle Tom philosophy. I told you I would get other people involved in this discussion. And believe me you will find even MORE screen names linking in. If you think they are all me playing alias then that's your problem. I've exhausted all the thoughts and direct talk I can to you. I'm not going to physically fight you over it and I'm not going to do anything illegal or immoral to get my point across to you, so this is as far up the line this issue can go between you and me. If you find it embarrassing to recognize people outside of Africa as legitimately black, then thats your own insecurity, little Canadian. I can't be more direct and brave with you. If I do, I violate Misplaced Pages policy. Why don't you go and edit some more Black Billionaire articles so you can find some redeeming values in green money. I'm sure in your mind, black people aren't worth anything unless they sell out to massa and own a lotta money. Hey, here's another black billionaire to add to your silly article. Mobutu Sese Seko. Why isn't he on your silly page? --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

it didn't take me looking for black people. I came across the truth by my own studies of history. And I asked myself a simple question. Why does history teach that black people were the only people that couldn't explore and establish civilizations outside of their original "homeland"? People like you assured me that was the case. But when i look at history I see that you are wrong. Any philosophy that reinforces an artificially created limitation on a people is a philosophy that merits scrutiny. Your philosophy simply fails the scrutinizing. Get over it. Your so racist its disgusting. "even willing to accept the untouchables?". Oh you give yourself away. You look down on them with contempt. I look at them as my brothers and sisters. (See here is where I would curse you out but I can't, violates the policy). You keep brining up Indians and Native Americans, because you are too stupid to see the difference between a mistaken NAME of a RELIGIOUS group (HINDU) and a name applied regardless of ethnicity (black). Lets see if you can understand as I explain it again. INDIAN comes from the word HINDI a word that originated from HINDU a religious name that goes back EONS. Christopher Columbus mistakenly thought the Native Americans were Hindus beecause they look the same. Black people however were labeled strictly BECAUSE their skin was dark. There was no unified black african culture or religion or ethnic identity at any point in these periods of history. This whole converseation about Black people being the original people is nothing when you erase the blackness of some of their descendants who retained the distinctive qualitites that make them black, JUST because they physically live in another part of the planet. How many centuries for African Americans before we too are no longer black? Why do you also reject the blackness of the Black middle easternerrs who ALSO were brought there during the past 500 years! So the Siddi in India are black, but the untouchable (whose experiences are the same, who looks the same, and probably who lives the same) is not? Thats flipping retarded. Firstly Black identity has been a work in progress, it is one of the youngest ethnicities out there! You want to project it back to ancient Egypt fine, but you can't fabricate an ethnic front going back that far and at the same time reject the very qualities found in others throughout the world. No my white Canadian friend, it doesnt work that way. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is talking about a blood connection, this article is called "black people", and the world is going to know about all the different kinds of black people in the world. Finding links where there are links, parallels where there are parallels, similarities where they exist. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Dishonesty of EditingOprah

EO's sarcastically comments "I guess anything is better than African in the minds of people who claim fixating on Sub-Sahara dehumanizes Blacks, and so apparently, sub-Saharans are so low on the totempole in the minds of some Blacks that even the most dehumanized people in Asia and the Pacific Islands are considered a step up."

Basically he has been saying that my real reason for wanting to acknowledge some Asians as black is because I dislike my Equatorial African heritage. Let me educate EO on this. EO, when you discover that there are other people like you in the world, who share your own experiences, you find yourself connected to them. If I knew I had a long lost brother, I would not look at the brothers and sisters I already have with any less love and closeness. No, all of us would be happy to know we have found our sibling. You however would be the jaded sibling, feeling left out and jealous because another has been recognized and added to the family. Unity comes from mutual respect and an open mind. Black unity especially has been sustained in this manner. Up until the late 90s most black people throughout the world were not able to directly communicate with each other, so all of the knowledge we could get without too much effort was through TV which whitewashed the blackness of many people (Indians, Cubans, Samoans, Australians, etc). You are still believing what you were told by white media producers over the past 50 years or so. Me, I actually talk, email, chat, meet, and interact with these people directly. What they share with me totally and utterly destroys your idiotic narrow minded rediculouseness. When I talk with other Black people from Africa and America, they also agree with my position. It is this universal agreement that makes me take the position I have. Sure, there are a few once in a while who think like you do. Mostly they are the kind of people that don't even know where the philippines are, or are aware of anything about other cultures but the humiliating stereotypes. You, with your talk of too primitive Aboriginals and even the lowly untouchables... you continue to perpetuate racism. I do not include the untouchables or aboriginals because they seem to be primitive compared to us, nor because I think they enhance us to the eyes of others. I include them because thay have been known in history as black, they have had universal human experiences that are peculiar to other unquestionably black people, and they, like black people everywhere else have experienced the same modern across the board issues that black people everywhere else have experienced. You should be grateful that most of the people I come in contact with do not even know what Misplaced Pages is or do not have the time to come here. You should be grateful that only a small handful of friends of mine are willing to post on here. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I respect Zaph's opinion

Zaph essentially what you're saying is that being Black is simply a pattern of physical traits including including dark skin especially, but often also kinky hair, broad features or some combination of the above. Although these traits evolved in Africa (the birth place of all humans) you feel that some of the people that left Africa tens of thousands of years ago retained these traits and can still be considered Black. You do not view genetic distance as relevant, because you see this only as a measure of how genetically isolated groups are from one another, and even genetically isolated groups can retain similar physical traits. I've reconsidered and now view this as a valid point of view. I still prefer my definition of being Black but presenting diverse view points will make for a more interesting article, and I've been impressed by the flexibility you've shown while editing the article, in that you've allowed my views to be well represented too. Thanks for the fun debate! Editingoprah 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a long reply, but I will not give more reason to activate this debate. Black is more than a pattern of physical traits, however I will delve into that more as we get more information about the Asians and Pacific peoples. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I will say this though. I could meet a black person whose DNA is as far different from mine as humanly possible. he could be WAY on the "other side" of the DNA spectrum. I do not see how that will make me see him as being any less black than I am. Also, I could meet this person, and he could spend time as a friend with me, and as I got to know him I could see he may be different in some ways, but again, as he gives me his experiences growing up, family, his experiences in his home country (which 9 times out of 10 are going to have similar peculiarities to my own due to our dark skin or social position relating to that dark skin.). Now, he may meet black American friends, and barring the hip-hop ignorance, white prejudice and anti-black stereotypes, he would likely bond or form some kind of connection with other black people. Now at the end of our encoutner, he may say he was an African, or Filipino, or Indian, or whatever. If he can relate, he can relate. All I am going to think is "oh ok, this is another black experience to add to the various black experiences around the world". I cannot look at him or her and say "you're just not really black to me". Yes, certainly his appearance plays a part, but also seeing how his experiences and the way he interacts will play a very imporatant role. To me, this is the bottom line of what it really means to be black. From what I have seen the majority of black people I talk to tend to agree. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm no longer interested in debating, I'm interested in understanding. And I realize I can not do justice to your entire position with just a brief summary. I get that there is much more to your perspective on Blackness including but not limited to a feeling of being oppressed based on skin color and many of the other things you've described and will hopefully continue to describe in the article. Editingoprah 05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Truly. In all sincerity I have learned much from this quarrel. I now understand that there are other points of view, points of view that I have to acknowledge (however peculiar they may seem to to me). Let this article allow for, and reflect the different points of view. --Ezeu 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

References

This article has quite a few references. We are going to need to list or put ((fact)) next to areas that we feel need more citation. The article needs to be cleaned up and the grammar needs to be more sophisticated, but that's not my department. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopeans are not white blacks

I have been thinking about the claims made by EditingOprah and others that Ethiopians are not black. I am a Ugandan, and according to ethnologists, linguists and traditional oral history, the Iteso (my grandmothers people are Teso, and I have curly hair texture like Somali and Ethiopians), the Karamojong of Uganda, and the Turkana, Jie and others in Kenya and Ethiopia, who are related to the the Kalenjin group and Maasai cluster – all originate from, and are closely related to the tribes of Ethiopia. In Africa we are black, and we acknowledge that there are other black people who are not Africans. My people do not identify primarily as black, but with their specific clans and tribes. Some diasporan Africans have an identity issue (because they do not belong to a clan or a tribe), which makes them somewhat protective of the term "black". Editingoprah, allowing non-African black people who self refer as black to use the term "black" is not a weakness but a strength. Anyway, we have our own word. We are Black Africans. Don't tell me you are ashamed of being called a Black African!--Ezeu 09:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is about what is considered "caucasoid". For some reason people think that the shape of the skull can determine if one is black or not. Even if classify Ethiopians as "Caucasoids" based on their skulls, the fact is they are still black. You just have some "Black" caucasoids. But now thats not what they are doing is it. No, Ethiopia is a great legacy... can't be black now can it. OH noooooo! --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people equate Black with Negroid, and Negroid-Caucasoid is a contradiction in terms, unless you're talking about a hybrid or some other kind of genetic intermediate. The article has really become about who is regarded as Black, since it depends on the definition. Thus if we do mention Ethiopians simply say that most people consider Ethiopians Black, with the exception of some scientists and possibly some Ethiopians themselves. Editingoprah 00:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing, thats true, but do you know why? That was a deliberate manipulation of public opinion in the 50s and 60s. Like tobacco or something. The people who had the influence abused it by misappropriating the concept of Caucasoid (a person with a skull shaped a certain way) to mean not Black (a person of a particular racial/social background whose skull can be shaped any way). There are certainly some white people with "negroid" skulls, but that is not respected in the scientific community. No instead, what happened was that the Caucasoid definition was expanded way beyond its meeaningful origin in order to insure that all whites are classified as Caucasoids. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish comparison

Coiencidentally this goes to the recent reverts by some who dont like my statment that blackness is like Jewry an identity that one cannot scientifically lock down and that there is disagreeement on it. The referts are done out of a panic by those who dislike the idea of black people even being spoken of in the same breath as jews. Its not NPOV, its an obvious fact that blackness is far from unanimously agreed upon and LIKE JEWISHNESS there are differences across the world as to who considers who Jewish OR BLACK. Get off it with that NPOV crap. <--Zaphnathpaaneah 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In otherwords Jpgordon and Morgan Wick are doing the knee-jerk panic reaction. Perhaps they think im trying to say that Jews are really black, who knows. But their REAONS for the revert are illogical. There is no issue of a NPOV in making the comparison. Its a comparative observation which has no bias to stand on. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't even particularly notice the Jewish comparison, and you're right, the definition problems are similar. However, the part I was referring to as "unsourced POV" is: The insistance on DNA is perceived by many Black people as a means to divide and diminish the worldwide black population, and to reinforce a form of negrophobia. DNA in itself has never been a meaningful articulation between black people over the centuries, and in itself has not been a factor in uniting black people throughout the world. Provide some sources, or it's just your personal opinion. It might be right -- but we don't get to plant our personal opinions in articles. --jpgordon 21:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But that is not the part that you cut out. You cut out the Jewish part, and made your comments for that. --68.60.55.162 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Jewish part went out also, but comments weren't for that. --jpgordon 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiger Woods

This statement has been taken out:

• Although Cablinasian Tiger Woods has visible Black ancestry, he's not considered Black because both his parents are non-white so hypodescent does not apply. He is however African-American]]

There are multiple reasons

• The word "although" is used, which pretends that "cablinasian" does not already incorporate the fact that TIger acknowledges his black heritage, which he does.
• He is considered black by many prominent people. There is no "consensus" other than "white only" consensus that he is "not black". We do not live in the 50s anymore people. White only consensus is not "consensus enuogh". He is at least 1/4th Black and that is historically (despite any objections) been considered black, whether in Asia, America or otherwise. It certainly is enough of a background that one cannot say "he is not black".
• not considered black because both his parents are non-white is a... non-sequitor? There is no way that non-white heritage automatically makes one not-black. 1. Blackness is a non-white group, and 2. there is no mutually exclusive history, and certainly not in America, of non-white mixed people being "not black"
• To say "Hypdescent does not apply" is false. Hypodescent certainly does apply. If the contributor says that "hypdescent does not necessarily determine" or something like that, is fine. But Tiger Woods has represented himself as a black person. He certainly has the option to be considered black if he choose to on his own accord.

I sense anti-black sentiment in this, but I am reserving my reaction to that impression until I see how the consensus really goes. Keep in mind, I didn't remove Tiger's picture, nor did I replace the comments with my own opinion, I merely left it blank. Respond in kind to the good natured intention on my part. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

--Zaphnathpaaneah 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Myth I am destroying

I took this statement out

• White racial traits however are genetically recessive, so mulattos are typically regarded Black

Why? because it is false. White racial traits incorporate themselves into a mixed person at just the same capacity. What happens is that SOCIALLLY people are predisposed to NOTICE the Black/African traits, and thus they stand out with more obviousness to the observer due to the socialization of white people as a strictly endogamous group. Halle Berry exhibits variation from her white mother AND black father to such a degree that the differences are noticeable. But again, as it has always been, the white social group renounces, or disavows their relationship to mixed people as being part of their identity. So the blackness that shows in mixed people is socially more apparent only because it deviates (only slightly if you look objectively)from the "pure" White models. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see bias at this point. All of the mixed examples are examples geared to "unanimously" say that mixed people do not consider or are not considered black. Need I myself post examples of technicially mixed people who consider themselves unquestionably black? Need I present examples of black people who appear mixed but who are not? Or mixed people who actually DO exhibit the strictly "negroid" traits that our contributor seems to contradict himself on assuming naturally occurs? If the negroid traits are so dominant, why are all of the xamples lacking the overly dominant expressions? This article is starting to contradict itself on this topic. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Admixture in Brazil

"Emmy, Golden Globe and Oscar-winning actress and ex-model Halle Berry, the first black woman to win the prestigious Academy Award for Best Actress, is of paternal African American and maternal Caucasian descent. If she lived in Brazil however, she'd be considered White" This is not true. Black + White people are called Mulatto, or Moreno. However, Latino people are in fact called White and there are no distinctions between Latino and White in brazil. There are also people with light skin and some black ancestry called white, but that's not the case. -- Unsigned!

Brazil has it's own racial issues. Firstly they still associate "blackness" with "poverty", and that affects how one is classified. Secondly, the society has a historical habit of trying to classify as white as possible for the goodies that one gets for doing so. I hardly find Brazilian racial categories objective or reflective of reality. They base their terms strictly on skin color and nothing else. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true which make the whole "black" thing very silly because you cant say someone isnt here but is there. This is why African makes more sense. I am of African descent now i dont care where i live this is either true or false. I guess the issue is having African ancestry and looking like a European (thats another case) but who invented race? and what was race in 300 AD? is it science? How different the people of Ethiopia look from one another? Look at Sudan, look at the people in the congo; the Bantu verses the so-called pygmy. We could say they are different races of people--but they are not! they belong to the African family, and just like our very own blood familes people often dont always look the same.--81.157.230.225 11:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, but we still have to expand our understanding to recognize the human quality of being Black. Black people did not lose their identity just by leaving Africa. I am totally comfortable with making an Africana based article, but the foundation, the fundamntal issue comes down to clearly describing black people so that there will be no doubt, no ambiguity. These are Black, it's nothing to hate, nothing to disdain, nothing to make a big deal about. They are just black. Whether Australian, Polynesian, Filipino, JEWISH, African, Latino, OR African. This recognition will make a fundamental difference. Remember up until the internet, we had no way of seeing what life is like in the Phlippines without it being edited for whiteness and Eurocentric bias. Now I can talk to people all over the world. There we are, my African friend and brother, and there we are again. This isn't a call to unity, this is a wake up call to accept the reality of things. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Youth Culture

I took this out

• ==Youth Culture==

Black youth culture typified by rappers has become mainstream among youths of many backgrounds. Dress, language is copied in possibly an attempt to be perceived as "cool". This poses a delimna as whether to integrate and lose a distinctiveness or retain an separate identity and alienate some sections of society.

because this slowly degenerates the article into one about the perception viewed by some regarding black american youth. This has nothing to do with describing what black people are or their unified experiences. I could see this "black youth & rapper" nonsense reinforcing the myth (that becomes a self-fulfulling prophecy) that black youth are primarily of the rapper hip-hop mindset. Black youth identify with hip-hop culture just as white youth have and had identified with heavy metal culture and 'alternative' and so forth. You can certainly put in the American section of this article the prevalence of hip-hop culture among the youth of black americans (and even mention it's influence around the world). But a seperate section fulfills a stereotypical expectation and assumption by certain non-blacks who have a narrow view of black youth. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian not accurate term for whites

I changed Caucasian to white in a caption. Although the term is commonly used in the United States, Caucasian is not an accurate word to describe all White people. If you click on the Caucasian link, you will see various definitions with precise meanings (including people from the Caucasus region).Spylab 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Removed the racial disclaimer

I removed

• Black is a form of ethno-racial classification, and is not dependent on national identity nor regional ethnicity. Though literally implying dark-skinned, black has been used in different ways at different times and places. Although most Africans consider themselves blacks, many have limited or no cultural relatedness to, and, thus, feel little or no kinship with, one another.

Because it's not really saying anything but to "disclaim" some idiotic notion or other. Also the fact is, Black people feel kindship with one another when there is a greater threat, that is racism, discrimination. We are like the human race when aliens seek to invade and conquer us. We will unite and ignore our differences, even if some are stupid and short sighted enough to side with the aliens. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

then you should just delete the bit that is incorrect, because the first line is accurate---Halaqah 19:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But it is an unecessary use of the disclaimer. it tries to POV the reader before giving them a chance to determine themselves if it's ethno-racial or not. The first line is only accurate to those who wish to make it so. I do not agree. "Ethno-racial"... means what? --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

problem with black

this is not an honest discussion, i noticed in write up on African-American a section discussing the problem with the term. Now who really has a problem with that term? The "coconuts of America." okay now how many people in Africa and the diaspora hate this word, or even if they don’t hate it politely say "i prefer African American" (out of respect to those who used it in the past). truth doesn’t have a personal agenda. plurality means state the truth. Many people and the list is long are trying to get away from shallow color labels. So why ignore this in the article? Only two groups call themselves by a color, African people and the people that invented the system Europeans. And guess what everything white is alright. Why fight to clean up someone else’s definition of you? Imagine a term like "black Africa" so now where do "blacks" come from Blackia, or Blackistan. imagine an alien coming down to earth trying to figure it out: okay Chinese are from China, Indians from India...blacks????? And on another note some of you write good stuff and fight the fight but that doesnt make your agendas okay, because this is about accuracy and anyone with an open case file with Muslim, Africans should not be allowed because people will always bring their nonsense with them. If someone is from the KKK they shouldnt be allowed to contribute to "the history of Africa" and the same goes for these Christian/Islamic black national radicals.----Halaqah 20:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then let us discuss the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is that in common usage across the country, and in Africa, and in parts of asia the word "black" is used by people who have dark skin, and by people who do not in reference to people with dark skin. That's the nitty gritty truth. The truth is in America (and growing elsewhere) the acknowledgement of one's black skin, or family with black skin, or ancestors with black skin (whether froM Africa, Asia, Latin America, or Australia) is made with pride and cherished. That's the nitty gritty trurth. You say "where do blacks come from" Blackia or Blackistan? I remember making that same complaint against people who want to call themselves "mixed" (where do they come from, Mixalia or Multiraciostan?). Yet let me clarify for you. Nigeria, Niger, Sudan, Guinee, New Guinea, Guyana, TanZania, Zanzibar, Ethiopia are all countries where the words are based on a description of people as "black". Now is that a bad thing? Is that a good thing? I do not know. One can see it either way. However it's a nitty gritty fact. Finally I fail to even really understand your "shouldn't be allowed statement". I am a Black Christian with very strong opinions. Do you say that I shouldn't allowed to contribute here? Should the Muslims be allowed instead? Who should then? Should only those who agree with a certain POV be allowed? (Usually it's a center-conservative white American POV that's considered "most" acceptable). Are you stating that? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

white people

i would advise everyone to go and look at the white people article and then come back to this. It has its faults but starts accurately. black, white are social terms ignorant of true culture and linguistics. and if "black people" and "white people" is to be discussed i think the articles should bear some similarity. As opposed to overstate some pan-American opinion of what we African people are.

No, my unsigned person. First of all, we need to stop believing that black people are just the "opposite" or "parallel" to whites. Black people existed first as the first people, and from them came (of many) one group of people, known as 'white'. There is no "comparison". There is no relationship between the Pan-African opinion and the "black" article here which requires further scrutiny. Also, this article does not propose that black people are based on a genetic disposition (where-as the white article erroneously insists on a genetic link to base whiteness on). No, I do not agree with you that we should go to the white people article for any kind of guidance. In fact, I implore us to avoid looking to the white people article for any kind of sense of balance. Black people does not mean "white people, only their opposite". --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Afro-Arabs

— Various people of the Middle east whose ancestors were also brought during the colonial slave trade period (1500-1850) excuse me is this the only type of Afro-Arab?? Africans have lived in "Arab" countries for 1000's of years. Slavery is not the only way they got there, how about trade and immigration? Next thing any African that speaks Arabic as a first language can be considered Afro-Arab. Like Sudan. These are not solid terms and have no foundation in scholarship so who is writting this material and limiting it like this. It is biased and not universal.--Halaqah 20:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, which makes me wonder how you seemed to have missed these statements.

• The earliest mention of people described as black can be found in Ancient Egyptian writing and Bible. Biblical references of the dark-skinned people in Sudan and parts of Arabia known as the Kushites.

• In all cases, the words were applied to various peoples, ethnic origins and skin color. Although the word Kush itself originally may have referred to particular ethnic groups or empires in the Sudan, throughout antiquity in the Near East, this word became the most commonly used word (as black is today in the English-speaking world) to describe African peoples with dark complexions. . In Ancient India, the Sanskrit name of Krishna literally meant black or dark-skinned person. Throughout India, other references to black people in the Rig Veda scriptures indicate their presence in that region.

• 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.

(I removed the Afro-Arab example because thats what your complaint centers around). In any event, I certainly show examples of Black people in the middle east prior to the Arab slave trade. You feel free to add even MORE to that. But do not put a POV up because you find the information lacking. A POV is used when You and others dispute something, not when you initiate a conversation about a topic. I agree with you, so add more examples.

I am removing the POV tag, because it was placed prematurely. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify. If you have content to add (which you obviously seem to), then add it. Don't put a POV tag up just because others failed to find detail that you see. The whole point is to contribute, not to create controversy. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I placed the tag up there not because of the Afro-Arab thing but because of the general slant of the entire article. Which I feel is not very universal. It is almost incomplete work, primarily because many people in Africa don’t call themselves "black" the article doesn’t deal with this. Many historians Clarke, Karenga, Asante, Kohin Halavi do not (to varying degrees) do not support this word. Malcolm x said move to African. Yet this article is about "black" and fails to discuss these critical issues. When did the African world stand up and agree to being black? In Ethiopia very few people say we are "black" people. In many parts of Africa especially the more culturally secure. The Wodabee, the Fulani don’t rush to this word. There are 60 million people in Ethiopia alone, they all call themselves Ethiopian and African...they don’t call themselves black. How many millions in Nigeria, Niger? The Somali? the list is long! Even those that say "yes we are black people do it from a political stand-point one that isn’t racial." Where is this discussed in the article? The pan-American voice is not the final chapter on the issue of "blackness" a minority cannot issue all the definitions. The "black" experience of America is a minority experience it is not universal. The export of these post slavery concepts doesn’t validate them just because James Brown Said “I am black and I am proud”. Never do you hear anyone in many countries saying we are "black" it is only in the setting of a white majority that these terms come into their own, so it is an externalize view of a people as a result of their lack of self-determination—where is this discussed. Every time “the problem with black” is posted here it is deleted—why?.--Halaqah 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well right off the back I can say that's not a good reason. We are not disputing much yet. You feel it's not universal because more empathsis was not put on the middle east? then add it. And I do not know why you say that Africans do not call themselves black. I have African relatives, we are black, end of story. This political correctness is not a substitute for reality. Maybe you think that Africans "shouldn't" call themselves black, but this article isn't called "what people should call themslves". You and I differ about why people avoid calling themselves black. I feel its a case of self-hatred. You feel its a case of avoiding being mentally controlled by white racism. My son's grandmother is Fulani, and she knows herself as being undeniably black. It's not something that creates this issue you bring up. I neither state that it's political nor racial. I just state what it is. YOU can determine why people say they are black, but I am not here to justify it. In fact, I need no justification. You can elaborate on the "whys" in the article, in fact that has been in the article already. Your "problem" with black is deleted because there is no problem. WHy is black a problem? That's the problem itself.... to say that acknowleding your black is a problem. You create a problem, then try to attack a problem YOU made up! You ever hear Jewish or White or any other group say problem? Heck, what is the "Jewish Problem" hmmm? That's a NAZI thing. Since we know that the word Black was used prior to European colonization, there is no reason to justify striking it from the record. Secondly, since black is used today (whether you like it or not) and is and has been used widespread, that is why this article exists. If you are trying to socially engineer the annhiliation of black, then start from the beginning. You be the first to join the Eurocentrics in saying "The Egyptians were not black". Because eventually that's where this will lead, no matter how noble you spin your case, the end result is to seperate the people today from the accomplishments of their ancestors in history. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But let me give you more info as to why black is "ok" and nothing needing to be avoided. Firstly, black is a word, not made up by anyone. It's found in every language. Are you arabic Halaqah? If so, then you are familiar with the word they use, it's not "Ayn"... It's "abed"... slave. That's the common everyday use in social settings that Arabs (who do not consider themselves black) use for black people, whether African, Indian, or whatever. Period. Secondly, a big chunk of people of African descent living in American do not agree with you. They do not find themselves related closely to Africans that they would substitute being "black" for being "African". No, it's as absurd to them as it is for white American people to call themselves Europeans. That's the REALITY of the situation, and it makes sense. I personally find African to be a "politically correct" way for some to say "black" because they are ashamed of being known as black (why? I have no idea). The momentum of our society will determine in the future if "black" is an offensive or colloquial term or not. Just like the momentum determined that it was the word to use after the 1950s. But there is no obejetive way possible to say that it's wrong or offensive. Black relates to a dark color, that's it. You put meanings behind it: Black is evil, black is bad, black is all this negative stuff YOU associate with it. I don't do that. Black was a word used prior to colonialism, just as i said before, used IN Egypt prior to Roman, Islamic, or Greek occupation, so this argument you make against it, it's absurd to me. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Terms no longer in use

I had to move and greatly shorten the "Terms no longer in use" for two reasons. Firstly, the placement of it unduly deflects the readers' attention away from the information about BLACK PEOPLE. Here is why. Black people certainly have been called various things by white people, things that confused people among other things. Those terms have their OWN articles (which I wikied them to) and all of the detail in THIS talk page about THOSE terms should instead go to THOSE pages. So for example, the long detail about Mulatto and it's origin and what not, that goes to the MULATTO article (and not be explained here). This section seemed to try to empathize white divisions of black people during the Jim Crow era in America at the expense of clarifying the 21st century reality of black people all over the world. I could even see an article entitled "Jim Crow notions of race" or "Colonial racial divisions among black people". However, here, that will only confuse the article and bring in so many diversionary and oppositional viewpoints, it will be mired in controversy. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV statement

I removed

• At one extreme, in the United States it is relatively easy to tell who has such ancestry.

Because it's a weasely statement. It's a matter of one's POV and the statement itself predisposes the viewer to take a perspective that they may not have. Many people do not see it being so easy as many African Americans are viewed as Arabs by Continental Africans. This article is here to clarify who has such ancestry, so let the article speak for itself. Words like "it's relatively easy" and "obviously" and what not only serve to manipulate the reader to "following along" a prejudice or stereotype. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation

I got this from the Madagascar article

• Madagascar's population is predominantly of mixed Austronesian and African origin, though those who are visibly Austronesian in appearance and culture are the minority, found in the highland regions. Recent research suggests that the island was uninhabited until Malay seafarers arrived between about 2,000 to 1,500 years ago. Recent DNA research shows that the Malagasy are approximately of half Malay and half East African stock, although some Arab, Indian and European influence is present along the coast

I wonder, does it ever cross people's minds that the "visibly Austronesian" people have a substantial similarity to the "African" people, and that it is the "Sinoid" or "Mongoloid" appearance that is actually which is "minority"? I ask because I indended on finding pics of Madascar people and Borneo people where you can see their obvious similarities and their black features. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Example of the political nature of denying black identity

If you read the St. Maurice article, you will see that I had to correct something. The article describes the sculptures of Maurice as being that of a Moor. Yet earlier (in this article, and in others) you will see me disputing others in regards to what Moors look like. The Wikipedian majority concluded that Moors don't look like Black Africans. Ok fine. I acquiesce. Here is the funny thing. When a sculpture represents a Black African looking man from Egypt in an article... a black african looking man who had nothing but an honorable history as St. Maurice did (read it). Why is this man then described as "represented in his sculptures as a MOOR"? He is represented as a Black African. We can certainly argue again that Moors ALSO look like Black Africans. But this triangulation of Moors is once again a Eurocentric bias that implies that even if one looks like a black african if they come from Egypt and did great things, we only see a non-black Moor! This nonsense (literally this makes no sense either way you try to think of it) is Eurocentric bias and should indicate to you all how arbitrary Eurocentric notions and complaints about Blackness truly are. I can't wait for someone to yell out against having the Sri Lankan kids on this article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Man you put yourself in their trap when you use the term "black African" there is no yellow Chinese or brown Indian. The people are called Africans, that is the rule in language. The majority are Africans so why use a color label to describe the majority case? I saying this to help your strong argument--trust me. We are losing our terms, like the South Africans have it so White people are now African (reasons are all economic) but the point is why are we giving away ground. Egypt was African full stop. Travel to Africa and see. And they play these games "ohh the people of Kemet were African but not black African" what the hell is that? 100 years ago Moor was another way of saying "black" but now that we know the full history of the moors includes the conquest of Spain they realize it is better to separate the two words, so now we hear about the black Africa, to separate African people again from known history.--Halaqah 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My friend, if you prefer a better term then use it. I use "equatorial African" as that correctly refers to the relationship between the people and the world. Equatorial peoples are "black" people, or at least people with darker skin and so-called "negroid" features. Since White people hijack African (Afrikaaner, Berbers, Arabs, etc), why would I continue to use "African" indiscriminately, especially since that word comes from a European (Roman) province near Cyrene, which was applied to the whole landmass by white colonizers centuries later? I keep hearing how "Africa" wasn't a colonizer's name, but it was! This is totally unrelated to Kemet and Moors. The first term is relating to a physical landmass, the second refers to a country's name and it's people, the third to a group of people whose relationship was as diverse as black people are now. I am not going to argue about which term to use, but I will say this, when you replace "black" with "African" you actually limit the scope of things. African intellectuals makes me think we are talking about Wole Soyinka or someone born and raised in the continent. Black intellectuals makes me think we are talking about people all over the world. So you see what limits what. I am not going to revert and counter this point on the article unless it goes overboard (where you put "African" everywhere, turning this article into another black means Afriacan-only Article, like EditingOprah tried to do) --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact let me give you the ultimate reason why "black" is the preferential word, and why, even if my logical reasons for the article existence were not valid (and they certainly are), why morally, identifying yourself as black is ok, and in fact should be embrased. Black kids in America and all over the world. Among them are many who hate themselves and self-destruct from that self-hatred. What do they hate about themselves? Audience? All together "they hate themselves because they are told that they are black and that black is a bad thing." That's the cold hard truth. It is why hip-hop is bound towards bitches, hoes, pimps, niggas, gangstas, and thugs. It is why black children perform inconsistently in school and why black families struggle with so many emotional problems. Black people esp in America, Brazil, AND Africa fail to respect each other, because we are told and taught ever so slightly that black means primitive, sub-standard, inferior, and so forth. Every nationalistic, regional, and social name (Whether African, Nigerian, Berber, Arab, or whatever) will have their darker skinned (black) people and their ligherskinned (whiter or non-black people), thats a fact of life. Fighting for the exclusive legitimate use of the name is a silly game (forcing African to be a word only used for dark skinned people is silly). But socially speaking, people are predisposed to recognize the "whiter" counterparts as the more "legitimate" counterparts. So back to the ultimate reason. Black kids who hate themselves do not hate themselves because they refuse or fail to call themselves African. The "American" gang in South Africa, the most notorious street gang in S. Africa, do not do what they do because they hate being African, they do it because they know they are black and their society has equated black with "bad". American rappers do not rap about having sex with their b--ches because they aren't African, it's because they equate black with sexual animal with no morals. I do not agree that we should abandon black and let it shrivel and die, because children grow up regardless linking "black" with "themselves" and will still link "black" with "bad". it is the "bad" part has to go. Not the "self" part. You are not going to convince dark skinned African, Asian, and Australian children to abandon identifying themselves as black. But you can get them to abandon calling themselves "bad because I am black". And that is the ulterior motive I have for this article. You got me red handed. Notice in this article whose pictures I put in it, each one was very deliberate on my part. Notice who I did not put (no sports, rappers, entertainers, criminals, or any slaves). We have had enough of that, it's saturated in our lives every day. I stand corrected, I did put Samuel Jackson in there, as entertainers (actors and what not) that is one component that is popularized among black people, however Sam Jackson is a better role model than 50Cent, for the very least that he plays his roles with a lot of dignity and he does a lot to positively inspire BLACK children. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

i would just like to add this is an American perspective, of what black means to you. Say black in Africa and it doesnt mean what it means to you. Say "black" in Somalia, or in parts of Mali, this is the majority of people do not identify with the word. Just like African causes confusion black causes more, Indians are black, people from Austrailia are called Black. So which word is wider? which word is less specific? thats why the picture of the children from Asia should stay because it further proves the word is practically useless in racial identificationj. Like it said in one country black means one thing in another something else. Of African decent means what it means. By the way there is no blatent evidence to support African is a Roman word, where are you getting this from? The majority of scholars say "they dont know" but it is more likely a berber word. Either way black is a color so why no go back to Negro (i think they are laughing-Dont call me Negro call me black- uhh). Someone wrote a black comedy, what does that mean, what black is it? People dont even have the respect to capitalize the thing. The American perspective is the standarization for all things and this form of intellectual globalization needs to change. I dont want to start cleaning up dirty words, or words that actually dont describe us very well. accurately black people means NOT EUROPEAN. now whoes perspective is that, it is theres no ours. defining what isnt them as an opposite. Why dont chinese and indians etc continue to call themselves yellow and brown? i just think the article needs to reflect that people (esp on the continent) dont see themselves as black. I know this first hand. And yes they are taking our words and we are giving it to them hence White SA are now African and claiming equal share of every economic benifit Africa has to offer. We need to be proud of our mother land!

Why is Black Pride somehow disparaging to African pride? When did this phenomonon begin? Many people who do not identify in Africa with black are among those who still engage in "I hate darkerskinned" social politics. You know, the ones in Mauritania who still have dark skinned slaves. The ones who supported the deportation of Wolof from the Mauritanian side of the Senegambia river. Or the ones in Somalia who regard themselves as ARABS (which is insane). The word Africa was used as a word by Romans to describe people you call Berbers (neither of which represented the identity of those south of the Sahara! The reason I won't go back to Negro is because I don't speak Spanish, Portuguese, or Latin here in the USA. Black is the proper word if you want to choose between the non-english Negro and the english Black. Your experiences on your part of the continent differ from the experiences of my family on another part of the continent. So be proud of our mother land and be proud of who you are. Be Black and African and don't do the silly "black is bad" routine. And for god's sake if you are going to stand up for your beliefs, have the courage to SIGN your comments! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures uploaded

Apologies for the long list of edits. Since I cannot adequately meet the copywright requirements yet, I decided to just pull pictures already uploaded. Feel free to move them around, but please do not unilaterally take them off without discussing first. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppession?

shouldn't there oppession in the article? - Another unsigned

Well, Mr. Unknown. I would imagine the shared experiences of black people around the world include a particular and peculiar form of marginalization based on prejudice against their skin color. I certainly think oppression, exploitation, and discrimination should be included. You wanna sign in and contribute? --208.254.174.148 02:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

EO you're weaseling again!

I took out:

• in part because they have Africoid looking phenotypes causing some to promote the controversial view that they are part of the global African community

Because the statement implies and POV's the reader to believe that their phenotype which is not just Africoid LOOKING, but obviously is Africoid, ( as a phenotype is based on how one looks anyway), that this phenotype is not reason enough to accept them as black (without the controversial). In addition, the notion that they are a part of the global African community is an issue not appropriate to be indicated in the top paragraph. Again your placing a box, or quantifying the legitimacy of what black means based on your POV, and you use the word "African" instead of the word "black" which misleads the reader. Let the reader judge for themselves if they are part or not part of the African community. Do not ease the reader one way or another. This is the "black people" article, not the "people who look like Africans" article (even if we conclude that being black means you look like africans). --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Placing Black Dutch and Irish at the top of the section is done in order to misinform the reader of the neutrality of the article. In essence, one reads the "Black Irish/Dutch" at the top of the section and after they are done, are already seeing the obviously small relevance it has... thus wondering why the article would put it at such prominence at the top of the section, the readers would logically conclude that the writers are misinformed and out of touch with reality. Black Dutch and Irish are terms given to people who show absolutely no relationship to black people elsewhere, whether in appearance or shared origins. They are relational terms, subjective between people of the same ethnic background. (black Irish are still white looking to black Africans, Black Indians, Filipinos, and Aboriginals). It refers to the possessing of dark hair and eyes as opposed to the caricature of Irish people with red hair, pale skin, and blue or green eyes. This has nothing to do with Irish people having distinctive cultural, social, or relational difference across the lines between the so-called black Irish and the Irish who are not black. EO it looks like your bad side is starting to come back again, are you going to cause artifical controversy? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph I tried very hard not to edit this article for a very long time, but you're giving far too much weight to your POV that South Asians and Pacific Islanders are Black. In fact, based on verifiable and referenced dictionary definitions and common useage, they have no more right to be in this article than the Black Irish. The only way we can justify the prominence you're giving them is to invoke the Afrocentric theory that they are part of the global African community. But you're trying to have it both ways. Hyping up non-African dark skinned people who look like Aficans as Black, but censoring any actual references explaining why they are viewed as Black. If you want to argue that they're only Black because they have dark skin, then you must give equal weight to ALL ethnicities who fit that broader definition, and that includes the Black Irish. Editingoprah 07:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given... no WE have given you plenty of opportunity to voice your views in the appropriate sections. You choose instead to roll your dice and do a kamikaze attack. Negrito and Aeta are black, the words mean black, they've been known as such for centuries before Europeans. That subject is closed. The Black Irish are and have remained in this article (i never took them out), their relevance however is certainly minimal in comparison to the blackness which you yourself show in the Runoko photo of the Black looking person from Thailand. Why not show a picture of your black Irish and quit trying to marionette this article. You know I am not going to let you have black irish be viewed as more representative of objectively black than people who look LIKE black Africans. You're waffling, and of course that's where you say "But you're trying to have it both ways." No one else in here will mistake an Irishman with black hair for a black man. Most people in here will mistake the Asians and Australians for black people. Period. YOu falsely accuse me of censoring, yet I do not censure your points, they have been and still are in there. Read the sections about the Black Irish, I have edited little or nothing of those sections. I will not give equal weight however to a fringe interpretation of people who have absolutely no physical, social, or ethnic similarities to the other broader groups which among themselves you admit show similarities. So your insitgating an edit war already, with only yourself, with false premises, and with false accusations (censorship and hyping). --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is something called consensus in Misplaced Pages, and another thing about the obviousness of certain conclusions. It is obvious that the worldwide population at large will see a so-called black irish (including the Irish themselves) and recognize him as white. It is also obvioius that the worldwide population at large will see the Aeta, the Semang, the Australians, and so forth (including themselves) and recognize them as black. None of these black-irish will call themselves black. The word "black-irish" is a compound word whose meaning is entirely detached from the human concept of black. And because EO, you wish to make black mean "of African descent only", your kamikaze attempt to add poision to the balance by adding a colloquial in prominence over a more consistent addition (which you simply disagree with) is a weasel tactic. You can forget about it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph it's your own fault for making the article so POV. By not providing any clear referenced definition of Black and including anyone you want, you're inviting others to do the same. The fact of the matter is that Black Irish is an extremely common and well documented term, so if the article is about how the term is used, then Black Irish have more of a right to be there than South Asians. Being a compound word means nothing. That's just to distinguish the Black Irish from the Irish people who aren't swarthy. So please provide a referenced definition of Black that is broad enough to include South Asians, but narrow enough to exclude the Black Irish? Editingoprah 07:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the only person who argues this point. You think the Aeta Filipino looks less black than the black-irish guy? Your alone in that regard. Just like you were alone in saying that the Aeta Filipino lady and man didn't look black. Black-Irish is a well known documented term, but the meaning of 'black' in the compound word changes, and becomes what's called a false positive or a false-friend when translated. It creates a secondary meaning. Black-Irish do not socially, or ethnically share the universal human relationship that other black people share. They do not share the historical continuity outside of their greater identity (that being Irish). --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, who looks Black is not relevant. And stop using my Black race to describe the psychic bond you have with South Asians. Misplaced Pages can only include that which you can verify, so stop aguing and start providing sources. Editingoprah 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What good does it do, when they are ignored and/or removed?

• <ref>]</ref>.

was removed by EditingOprah and replaced with

• ((fact})

You just keep providing more evidence to block you. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Who looks black is certainly relevant. That's another point you miss. Who looks black and has been historically CALLED black is even more relevant. Another valid point you also miss. Aeta (means black in tagalog for thousands of years before Africans were collectively called black by Europeans), Negrito (means black person of small height for as long as negro has meant black person in spanish) are part of some psychic bond that existed long before I was born. Verification is shown in the articles themselves. The sources are already in the article. You want me to source my sources, and source those sources (citational red tape). The legitimacy of your positions weaken everytime you comment in the talk page. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph who cares that Aeta means Black in tagalog? Black Irish means Black Irish in English and they've historically been called Black too and were called Black because their appearance is swarthy and believe it or not, they were even discriminated against. My point is you are selectively cherry picking from the historical record just the groups that you want to include as Black, and are arbitrarily marginalizing the Black Irish because they exposes the absurdity of your methodology. Yes they may not be as dark as the other groups, but it's a matter of degree and it's all relative and where you draw the line is POV. You have no coherent referenced definition of a Black person, and are redrawing the racial line to suit whatever agenda you are masterminding. The only notable sources that define Black people exactly as you do are Afrocentric theorists who argue that South Asians & Pacific Islanders are in fact Africoid. But you stubornly refuse to allow these people in the article because you don't wish to empower the perspective that Black=African. As I said, you're trying to have it both ways and its creating an article unreflective of reality. Editingoprah 08:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? The Aeta do, the Filipinos do, the Spanish and American anthropologists do. The Wikipedian contributors who wrote the Aeta article does. My Filipino coworker does, filipinos that I talk to in the Phillippines do. African American relatives and friends I speak with do. The CIA does, many writers of various articles online do. Runoko Rashidi does, and the list goes on. Black-Irish is a compound word, meaning "comparitively darker than the more common lighter skinned Irish of which they slightly differ from". They were not discriminated against by OTHER Irish. The IRISH collectively (light and dark) were discriminated against by NON Irish. YOU need to start putting evidence to support your vague unclear claims. And again, I did not and never removed the Black Irish from this article, so I am obviously not cherry picking. I contribute what I believe is relevant, others do the same. This article has gone through major changes from my first contributions last year. Black Irish are not viewed as Black in any sense, The word Black takes on a different meaning and loses its relationship to other black human group (who by the way each group is majority wise black). Again, the pictures speak for themselves. You are going further into rediculous obscurity. Groups who have universally been described as black, who physically resemble black africans, and who experienced the same social issues as black africans... you say are irrelevant and not "really" black. Yet your Black Irish routine... which is funny, because those so-called black irish would still have generally discriminated against black Africans, black Indians, black Filipinos, Black Australians because of THEIR TRUE blackness... those black Irish you insist on putting in here in a PROMINENT sense, and not in the appropriate side note manner which i believe they should be. You need to start getting some heavy duty citations. the only picture in this article that lacks any Equatorial phenotype is yours. No Africoid appearance, no Austronesian nor African anything. YOu go ahead and gamble, see what happens. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, in all due respect to your Filipino coworker, he's not a notable enough source for a wikipidea article. And yes the Black Irish probably did discriminate against Africans, but South Asians have done so also, and for that matter Africans discriminate against other Africans so what's your point? Yes I agree that the Black Irish lack a an Equatorial phenotype, but that's a definition of Black that you made up. The dictionary cites 2 definitions of Black: A) a member of a dark skinned African ethnicity, and B) a member of any dark skinned ethnicity at all. The Black Irish fit the second definition because they were historically labled Black by lighter skinned members of their community. You can arbitrary say they're not Black because they're members of the White or Caucasoid race, but then your equating Black with Negroid, which means South Asians aren't Black either. You can say they're not Black because they're just not dark enough, but again, that's POV and totally arbitrary. The only objective reason to include South Asians but not irish, is that the former are mistakenly viewed as Africoid. Editingoprah 09:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Too bad he has a lot of others who agree with him. It's called common sense. You see the picture of the Filipino. Your the only one who wants the white human you call black irish to figure more prominently than the black guy everyone recognizes as a real black human! The black irish are not a member of any dark skinned ethnicity, they are not objectively dark. They are relatively dark compared to other irish people. To ignore that (which you are doing over and over) is irresponsible and shows signs of a malignant agenda. I reject the notion that black irish are black, not because they are members of the caucasoid race, but because they themselves do not historically exist as a 'ethnic, social, or racial group' distinct or seperate from other Irish people. I am not equating black with Negroid, because "negroid" is an anthropological term desrcibing people with specific phenotypes and/or skull shapes. It's not POV to say they aren't "black enough" when they themsleves will reject the notion they are black in an objective way... in fact, if you see for yourself, youll know that historically Irish people were treated like shit by whites in America, but also they held slaves in the south. Hmm.. Also, Irish people (the black irish included) were identified and self identified in America as white... not as black. But most imporantly, and you will see my consistency real clear here, they are indistinguishable from other indisputable white people, just in the same sense the black people you reject are indistinguishable from other indisputable black people. And that is the end of that! --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, read some first hand accounts on Answer.com. Irish people can tell you what the word means, and why it obviously does not fit here in this article. (but remember, I do not advocate and never have tried to remove your black irish from this article now have I?) --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC) http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_does_'Black_Irish'_mean

Other comments about Black Irish --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC) http://www.darkfiber.com/blackirish/ http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_does_'Black_Irish'_mean

YOu have a serious problem with arguing with people. You also show a lack of common sense. You also either pretend or lack a competency with the english language. Do you know what a colloquialism, homogram, homonym, and a compound word is? Do you understand the difference? If I call someone a black-irish, I am explaining that they only differ in a specific way from other Irish not called black. I do not make any claim that they are similar in any way to Black Africans! You remind me of the guy that debated that in the Book of Job, when Job describes himself as black from the sores on his body, the guy debated that was an example of God cursing Job with blackness, and thus black skin is shown to be a curse in the bible. (Yet he ignored that the hebrew word for black person "kush" and job's skin "hivar" have specifically different meanings. So too here, Black-Irish and Black human take different meanings. YET I STILL RETAIN THEM IN THE ARTICLE. You're DONE! Go to bed. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes reiterated in the first paragraph

I took out sometimes from the first paragraph because it is illustrated in the last sentance already. Reiteration is a POVing of the readers.

Black (noun, black or blacks; adjective, black people) is a term that commonly refers to the indigenous peoples of Africa (with the exception of Maghreb Berbers) and their diasporic populations throughout the world. Black sometimes also refers to various non-African, dark-skinned peoples who inhabit Asia and the Pacific.. Blackness is not dependent on national identity nor regional ethnicity. Though literally implying dark-skinned, black has been used in different ways at different times and places. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of how to see a contributor's intent.

You guys see all the pictures I added (and here is where I totally am cool with us changing some, adding, removing, moving them around). The only contribution Editingoprah makes is one of a white man from Ireland in order to incite some readers to backlash against any non-africans being included as black. So you all see for yourselves, the spirit of the different positons. They speak for themselves. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, if you want to include unofficial definitions of Black, then include ALL the most notable ones, and Black irish are at the top of that list. Either Black means African or Black means any ethnic group that's been historically called Black. Make up your mind. But don't arbitrarily decide that Asians who've been called Black are Black but Irish who have been called Black are not. Either you respect official definitions from the census and anthropology, or you accept any and everything that can be referenced. You can't have it both ways. Editingoprah 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

YAWN. Black Irish are at the bottom of the list. They do not resemble any other group of black people. I leave it in the article because you are right, technically theya re historically called black for about 75 years in middle America. Now, you and the other guy (the one adding nonsense on my talk page) are both following a parallel procedure, using the same methods, same tactics, at the same time to get the same result. You need to understand, firstly I can outtype you both in my sleep. Secondly, I can see your tactics with my eyes closed. Referencing everything is one choice, accepting official definitons is another. Using good judgement, consensus, consistency, first hand knowledge, and common sense is the third. I choose the third. You are alone here Editingoprah. YOu will not build a consensus with ghosts and obscure legends. YOu will not find one black-irish in the world who will identify themselves as "black", anymore than you will find a grapefruit that is identifiable as a grape. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph using first hand knowledge is not allowed in wikipedia, as everything we add must be verifiable. Second, good judgement is in the eye of the beholder and wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. And third, consistency means including EVERYONE who has been historically recognized as Black, not arbitrarily giving undue weight to South Asians to support your personal agenda. Editingoprah 10:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL who has the greater amount of stamina? Who will get sleepy first. Who has the ability to type in their sleep. Ok, my first hand knowledge is verifiable by the other things I also mentioned. It all works together. Good judgement certainly is in the eye of the beholder, and as I have shown you, the Wikipdeia cabal has shown you, Wiki moderators have shown you, your judgement on this matter is just not good. For example, the Runoko rashidi reference which you (with your bad judgement) keep relating to, uses African in the diffusionist or humanist sense (in that all people came from Africa in pre-history, and that because the Aeta retain their physical resemblence to African people, thus they are regarded also as Africans). Now I don't oppose this interpretation. But that does not detract from the fact (whether I opposed or not) that the Aeta ALSO look BLACK. You can argue all day that they are no african, you can't credibly argue that they do not look black. And by the way, the South Asian thing is not arbitrary. Many other users have supported me, and i've wiki-crossed referenced to the links. AETA is a pre-colonial, pre-white-man word that means literally BLACK! --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet ANOTHEr mistake on Editingoprah's part. The Runoko article, which he tries to use as a bridge to justify the statement:

• Dark-skinned peoples who inhabit Southern Asia and the Pacific are sometimes viewed as Black by those who believe they are part of the global African community.

He erroneously assumes that Runoko describes the Aeta in the article as part of the global African community. Runoko does no such thing. He describes them as BLACK (with the same reasons I have), and does not try to push any social or historical relationship to black Africans. He only recognizes the ultimate human relationship between the Aeta and Africans in pre-historical times. Never does Runoko assert that the Aeta are part of any Pan-African, Afrocentric, or Kemetic relationship. The "global African community" that EO is relating to is Runoko's theme on his website, which relates the concept of human blackness with "global African community". In effect, it goes over EO's head that Runoko is articulating the humanistic concept of blackness in this article with Runoko's research showing that the Africoid phenotype of the Aeta ultimately comes directly from their ancestors in Africa. --Zaphnathpaaneah 11:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, you're making my point. He calls them Black because they come from Africa and retained an African looking phenotype. I realize he's not saying their part of the recent African diasporas but at least he's articulating their unique connection to Africans in whatever form that takes. That's all I've been arguing for all along. A coherent theme to the article. Editingoprah 11:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Runoko clearly tells you why he calls them black:

• In regards to phenotype, broadly speaking, the Agta can be described as physically small and unusually short in stature, dark-skinned, spiral-haired and broad-nosed. They are an extremely ancient people and, I believe, close representatives of the world's earliest modern humans.

• The presence of diminutive Africoids (whom Chinese historians called "Black Dwarfs") in early southern China during the period of the Three Kingdoms (ca. 250 C.E.) is recorded in the book of the Official of the Liang Dynasty (502-556 C.E.). In Taiwan there are recollections of a group of people now said to be extinct called "Little Black Man."

• Similar groups of Black people have been identified in Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia, and it seems almost certain that at one time a belt of Black populations of this type covered much of Asia.

Whatever point it is you think I'm making in your favor, it's lost in the complications of your endless bounds and leaps. The theme in this article is very coherent. You are THE only one who makes such a fuss, and no one as of yet has supported you, let alone COHERENTLY! --Zaphnathpaaneah 11:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaph why do you care so much why they are called Black. Just be happy I'm allowing them in the article at all. I thought you wanted all Black people to have a connection? If so, why are you against them being described as Africoid. and btw, the reference is called GLOBAL AFRICAN COMMUNITY so pretty much everything discussed there relates to that Editingoprah 11:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You also said "I mention their history, but their place in contemporary black culture deserves equal wieght since that's what's relevant now) "

Firstly, I care, because that's what they are called. We are going in a cirle at this point. Secondly, you want to assert dominance, and so I saw that ahead of time. Just be happy I'm allowing them in the article at all., EO, I know your pride prevents you from recognizing what's really happening. What I am against is your slick attempt to delegitimize their blackness by citing them in ways that stir up the narrow minded objections of Eurocentricists. They are not black because of Afrocentricism, or Africoids, or any of that. They are black because they are black. Their name means black, they look black, they are consistently identified as black by all. Be glad that I let you keep your Irish nonsense in the article. The reference is not called "global african community" the reference is called "THE BLACK PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES". The WEBSITE (not the reference itself) is called "Global African Presence". If i properly CITE the article, I would not title the article "Global African Presence" i would title it "Black people of the Philippines". See? You can't properly identify the title of the article because you're so hell bent on pushing your POV. In any event, like I say, your attempt to gloss this Afrocentric rationale at the top of the article comes from the same vein you try to put the Irish in the top. Let me telephathicly extract the thoughts from your brain:

• If I put something or word something that seems rediculous to the reader at the top of the article, then Zaph's credibility will be shot and he will lose control of the article. Then I can remove all Asian, Pacific, and Australian references in the article and he won't be able to do a thing about it. But I have to try to make it appear to be something he will agree with as to avoid his detection. So it must be something that appears agreeable to him, but is actually inconsistent and outrageous to the rest of the readers.

Editingoprah. I know your tactics before you even finish typing them. --Zaphnathpaaneah 11:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

--Halaqah 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)==problem with black added== See previous comments. Many times this section has been deleted, now it has been written in a very honest and open way. Unless you dispute that these people John Henrick CLarke and Malcolm X, Maulana Karenga have these opinions i see no reason why it should be removed (again). It is a valid perspective and it is a growing opinion, even the documentary 500 years later (see Amazon.co.uk 500 years later) has a massive disclaimer regarding the usage of the word "black" as an ethnic classification. Also www.africancode.org its not a limited opinion. Most progressive scholars in Africa and the Diaspora refrain from using black. respect plurality and expand it rather than be academic communist.--Halaqah 14:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

halaquah you are so backwards. I am not going to African articles and trying to delete them or refrain them from referring to black Africans. This article obviously has more significance to you than the African articles do, despite your insistance that African is the real word that matters to you. Black certainly has meaning to you and it's not a negative one. You just want (like EO) to control it. You say 'respect plurality and expand it' lol but your way of doing that is by restricting it. It's like a racist person saying that they are discriminated against for being a racist. Or a bully threatening to beat up their classmates if they don't call him a nice guy. But LIke i say, as long as you dont interfer in the other sections with this nonsense, I am totally willing to see how your section develops logically. You have your complaint (black shouldnt be used at all), and EO has his complaint (black shouldnt be used for anyone outside of an African context)... and these two opinions are supposed to be represented equitably in an article titled "black people". That's like people asking holocaust denial to be represented equitably in the Holocaust article. Watch and see the absurdum infinitium for yourself. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am laughting at the above discussion. You see the problem with black? If we want to talk about black then you have to let in the non-African blacks. Their skin is darker than most Africans. What then does it mean to be black. People in Ethiopia have different hair to people in South Africa, people in South Africa are far lighter in color than most Arabs--so what is this black thing? I know what African means, native of Africa--that is clear. not immigrants, not migrants or settlers. native people of Africa, just like to be English or Indian.--Halaqah 14:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen this section before. But here is the funny thing. I didnt delete it, I clarified it and of course revealed the glaring contradictions. Now it's up to you to clear up those contradictions in a reasonable manner. For example. Black became widely used for only five to 10 years? (Black was pushed by Malcolm X over negro), yet you have him going for African instead. You don't know what this black thing is and that's ok. It's something that a lot of people don't understand. A lot of people hate being black and want to make it go away and dissappear. I see your article and it does just that. You don't want black people from Africa to be black (but be African instead), and you don't like the idea of people outside of an African context to be called black either. I am going to just let you see for yourself how useless this is. Your very own "I hate being black" section. I am certainly NOT going to delete it. Just don't let it bleed all over the other sections. No matter how much you think black SHOULDN'T exist, it DOES and I have very accurately described it in the article. Don't "shouldn't" it away. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that this whole concept of blackness is supposed to be a figment of my imagination. You got blackplanet.com, black entertainment television, Kanye West saying "George Bush doesnt like black people", blackprof.com, AOL black voices, Black history month, Black Nationalism. And apparently this black thing is something I am fabricating and exaggerating. I actually want you to see how you can clear up this section of yours. I'm just going to point out the contradictions and obvious nonsense. I am not going to try to gut it. Kush, Aethiop, Sudan (all words that mean black people in languages predating English and Spanish and Latin) apparently don't count to you because you insist that black came from Negro and both came from the creation of a colonization period. Fascinating logic. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not in your imagination (i wish it was) but everything you listed is from your country. The media powerful America. Go to Africa and find "black" anything. I have noticed a relationship between the self identifying with the word black and the subsequent legacy of racial domination by Europeans, calling themselves white, in absents of the more culturally penetration aspects of this oppression we find no kinship to this word; (re the peoples i have listed previously). Negro was the first word used to classify us, dont forget it was the Portuguese that first landed in Africa and the word they used was Negro (which means black). Even in Brazil you hear the term Les Negres when they talk about black people. In Cuba Negro stands because it is black in Spanish (see the documentary Hasta Siempre www.ricenpeas.com) people call themselves Negro. Why would they say black it is a color and the name for that color is Negro. I am glad you guys haven’t deleted the addition. Because despite our opinions we need to be diverse in our understanding because I blatantly deny being black, and i am so proud to be African. It isn’t my imagination that where i come from in Africa many share this view too---Halaqah 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I will not go over all the comments while I was away, I will respond to the few I feel i need to. Firstly, I have black relatives FROM africa, IN Africa. The word "black" as in the people who are not arab, who are not magrheb. You Halaqah share a belief that is shared by other Africans who deny being Black, the ruling classes of Sudan deny being black and they also justify the actions to exterminate the... "Other" Africans (the ones they CALL Black) in Sudan. Again in Mauritania, again in Nigeria, again in Egypt... the ones like you who "deny" being Black seem to have a problem with the darker skinned (usually not muslim) ones that accept being Black. Amazing. I am proud to be black, and proud to be African American. It's no imagination that many share MY view (much more than your own) as well!

Malcolm went from Negro, then pushed for black and then when he got back from the beautiful motherland said quoteing now: X had favored the descriptive term "African American" as more historically and culturally defining over either prior term, and used the term at an OAAU (Organization of Afro American Unity) meeting in the mid-1960s, saying, "Twenty-two million African Americans - that's what we are - Africans who are in America." This man is a king among kings. lets follow him. --Halaqah 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

African-American and Black both have a valid use here in America (and in other areas). I have no problem with using one or the other. However, I do have a problem with those who promote one while insisting that we not use the other. Here is why. For both, there is a valid argument that colonialism and white supremacy imposed the terms on us. For African-American it is a stronger argument that it was created by whites (no african group or nation ever called themselves African). Black has been a term used to describe the same group of people prior to any white supremacy or colonialism (Kushites, Aethiopians, etc). So I have not seen a good reason to justify one term over another. I also know of many Black Americans who renounce "african-american" because they are not related to Africans anymore over the generations, they regard the fact they were sold to whites by Africans as the breaking point of their relatedness, they have no affinity. I personally do not like that attitude, however I understand that. So in all due honesty it is unfair to choose one term and impose it on all of us over another. So you can quote Malcolm X and whomever else you wish. This isn't about how to justify not using black people. This article is CALLED "black people", and I am going to make sure that people throughout the world who have and are regarded as black, will be described in THIS article. You and EO both need to get over your "I don't think black should be used" trip, because it's YOUR trip. I know many more people who argue against African-American. For both sides of this "exclusive identity" issue, my response is this: WHATEVERRRRRR. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

There are several images on this page which are copyrighted and for which there's no fair use argument for using them on this article. In keeping with our policies I'm going to remove them. Unfortunately these cover virtually all the images of high profile people. I'll take a look on Commons for some Free images of similar personalities, but they're unlikely to be of equal quality. If anyone has good photos they've taken themselves - uploading them to Commons license would be great.... The images I'm removing are:

• Oluchi for Victoria's Secret.jpg
• Blasianbusinessman.jpg
• Rock_wcw_champion.jpg
• Swat14.jpg

--Siobhan Hansa 11:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not EditingOprah's comments, or his interference that really bites me in here. It's this. this is the kind of thing that happens in Misplaced Pages that annoys me. I kept my self away from the article to see what would happen and here we are. Once again, The Wiki-nistas are going to gut the article with copywright paranoia. If you guys would help us secure copywright through a easily understood process, this would be a no-brainer. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So let me make sure I understand, the image of the Rock was removed from the Black People article because it's not fair use for THIS article, but it remains on the Rock article because it's fair use for THAT article. You sure this has nothing to do with a possible desire to prevent the public from realizing that the Rock is black? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is very "American" and far from reality

This article is very "American" and far from reality.

In the US, you have the tendency to divide people in White/Black.

This is not the case abroad, where culture(Language, religion, etc.) is much more important. Therefore it does not make much sense to put Africans from different parts of a continent into one group if you want to describe them, as there are many, many differences(Culture, language, religion, food, clothes, the way life is organised, the status of women, etc.). As these people in daily life don't usually see themeselves as members of one group(Remember Rouanda?).

Actually the same is true in Europe, where nobody would dare to ignore the massive differences between the different European Nations, which led to many wars and millions of death. And which are still of huge importance(In polls, most Europeans indicate they fear the European Union).

From my own experience I can tell you that people there don't classify themselves as whites, but first and foremost as Germans, French, Dutch, English, Irish, Russians, etc.

And it also doesn't make much sense to pretend that there would be one European/White culture, linked to the people of white skin. As the differences between lowerclass whites living in Britain and lowerclass whites living in Russia, or lowerclass whites living in Greece and loweclass whites living in Norway might be bigger as the cultural differences of upperclass Blacks in South Africa and upperclass Whites in Britain.

Once again, another UNSIGNED person is confusing the explanation of a term with a division between racial lines. And once again, the comparision is made between "European nations" and "American". Guess what unsigned, most of the commentary is regarding NON-European, NON-American people! --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) It is even more questionable to put "Blacks" from the US with Blacks in Africa, the Pacific, South America etc. in one group.

Though it is true that the culture in the US is so simplistic that everybody who looks "Black" is treated like a "Black".

I guess that many Americans(Not just Blacks) are having huge problems because they yearn for their origins but they don't find them.

But the "Black/White stuff is totally artificial and doesn't make much sense outside the US(Own experience in Africa, Europe, etc.).

Please

Stop the personal attacks or else you will be blocked. Btw, "darkie" was indeed a commonly used racial slur. It is mentioned in the Darlie article and also in many other places on the 'net. My point is that you need to try to be a little more patient with people before assuming bad faith. Take a breath, calm down and try to stay cool. --Woohookitty 11:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I already went past that point with some people. Listen, using the racial slurs in the page (especially at the TOP) is inappropriate and inexcusable. You do not see that in the other pages for other ethnic groups and so therefore I am rejecting your response as hypocritical, double-standard, and inconsistently applied. Please feel free to request any action to be taken against me. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the pecker-wood, honky at the top of the white people article? Where is the Kike on the top of the Jew article, where is the ethnic slurs in the first paragraph (or in some other clear prominent fashion) in the other articles? Does anyone else in here not see Woohookitty's inconsistency here? Where is woohookitty's insistence on using ethnic slurs in the SAME manner on the other articles. Kitty, push your views on those other articles and when you get a consensus there then come back and talk. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To both of you Wl219 and Woohookitty, consider yourselves also warned. Firstly you do not put ethnic slurs at the top of ethnic pages. No where else is this done. Secondly, as nicely as you try to put it, I do not come in here trying to strong arm any of you into anything stupid. I have participated aggressively on this page because... well look at what im dealing with from you. Ethnic slurs at the TOP of a ethnic page? You dont see that on the other pages. Yet you guys think you "dealt" with me. No you have only aggrivated me further, and caused me to be even more deliberate in my intensity. If you think that will work to your advantage, then bring it on. Cite me, refer me, whatever else you wanna do. No, ethnic slurs will not be permitted, certainly not at the top of the page and certainly not until the other pages show their ethnic slurs in the same manner FIRST. Deal with THAT. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fed up with EO's crap

You guys want to help EO justify putting a white man's face ahead of the faces of other people of color in an article entitled "black People" (a man who by the way is called black only in the context of him having dark hair, and not being in any way shape or form similar in any way to any other group called black in the world). I don't care if EO disagrees with my position about the Asians and Aboriginals, this issue is to be handled appropriately. YOu have one group of people who only RELATIVELY refer to each other as black (black-irish), they do not absolutely refer to them, nor to each other as black people in any way. The Negritos have referred to themselves, and by others as black people not just "black-aeta". And I am not going to allow this silliness to continue any further. I let the subject stay in the article despite my objections, but he has continuously tried to meander it to the top (as to incur the readers' backlash against all the groups). I will not stand for it and I am removing it from here on out. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, these claims made by EO are not even found on the articles from which the subjects are primarily discussed. Black Irish have no meaning relating their identity as "black people". Let me break it down so that a baby can understand it.

One person in here disliked using the term "black african" in that the Africans of the continent are primarily of dark complexion and to add "black" is redundant. Ok I agree with that. The Africans themselves were never known colloquialy as "black Africans". Black Irish on the other hand were known only colloquially as "Black-Irish", and never were known as black people. In every other context these "black irish" (the ones not mixed with African, or non-European) were known strictly as white people. They were never identifiable in any other context by any other group of people as "black people". Therefore the word "black" in front of the word "irish" took on an unrelated meaning to the use of word black used in this article. In fact if you read the article Black Irish you will see more than one group which share fundamentally different meanings. One group is a mixed-black people in Jamaica, and another group is a not-black people in Ireland. Now, EditingOprah, I can certainly beat you at your own game. If you feel the need to continue pushing for your black-white people (black irish, black dutch, etc), I will merely add the mixed groups with black in them (I.E. the Afro-Irish, Afro-Dutch, etc) and use pictures of THOSE people in place of your silly non-black person. Either that or you can stop trying to put your "non-black black-irish" nonsense at the top of sections. because as I said a million times, the only reason you want "black-irish" to figure so prominently on the article is so the reader will reject the entire article's inclusion of ANY non-African as black based on a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" reaction. Or in other words you hope the narrowminded ignorance of Americans will be crystalized in their reactions when they see something that almost universally is considered untenable in the article. So you play your game and I will beat you at it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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." 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's Village Pump. A request for comments might be the best way to go with this. Please check out the following essay Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages articles

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/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/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/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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages 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."- "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.
• Another.
• Another (an unabashedly learned Afrocentrist perspective).
• Another (an unabashedly learned Afrocentrist perspective).
• Another ("A Native's Perspective").
• Another: "A Family Tree in Every Gene" - an op-ed, The New York Times.
• Another: "Notes from a Brother in India: History and Heritage."
• Another: "Looking at India through African Eyes."
• Another: "Blacks Around the World Must Unite."
• Another: "Understanding Australia's Black Uprising."
• Another: "Heroic Resistance: The Black Presence in Australia."
• Another. "Blacks for Australian Independence."
• Another: "Melanesia: The Struggle Continues!"

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....

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. . 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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)

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 ]

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

]

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.

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)

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)

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)

to the LAST TIME TAMILS ARE NOT BLACK, U MORONS

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 FU-KIN 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.

1. Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
2. Jimmy Wales (2006-05-19). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" (followup post clarifying intent)". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
3. ]
4. ]
5. ]
6. ]
7. ]

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics