Talk:African diaspora/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about African diaspora. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

Does the diaspora include only the descendants of slaves? What about the Africans who left and are stil leaving voluntarily? Also is this a term in use outside the U.S.? Rmhermen 14:42 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

African Immigrants

African Immigrants:

In an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Journal of Blacks in higher education (and several other sources using similar data), African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group. African immigrants to the U.S. are also more highly educated than any other native-born ethnic group including white Americans (Logan & Deane, 2003; Dixon, 2006; Journal of Blacks in higher education, 1999-2000; Onwudiwe, 2006; Otiso and Smith, 2005; The Economist, 1996: Shobo). Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61).

In 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a graduate degree, compared to 8.1 percent of adult whites and 3.8 percent of adult blacks in the United States, respectively (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61). This information suggests that America has an equally large achievement gap between whites and African/Asian immigrants as they do between white and black Americans.

The Canadian sociological literature on immigrants also paints a similar picture, however, less stark. All visible-minority immigrant groups whether from the Caribbean or India do better academically than their native born (non-visible) cohorts, on average. Both foreign-born and Canadian-born blacks have graduation rates that exceed those of other Canadians. Similar patters of educational over-achievements are reached with years of schooling and with data from the 1994 Statistics Canada survey. (Guppy and Davies, 1998; Boyd, 2002).

In the UK, 1988, the Commission for Racial Equality conducted an investigation on the admissions practices of St. George's, and other medical colleges, who set aside a certain number of places for minority students. This informal quota system reflected the percentage of minorities in the general population. However, minority students with Chinese, Indian, or black African heritage had higher academic qualifications for university admission than did whites (Blacks in Britain from the West Indies had far lower academic credentials than did whites). In fact, blacks with African origins over the age of 30 had the highest educational qualifications of any ethnic group in the British Isles. Thus, the evidence pointed to the fact that minority quotas for University admissions were actually working against students from these ethnic groups who were on average more qualified for higher education than their white peers (Cross, 1994).

According to the report The State of Working Britain, published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the highly regarded London School of Economics, 21 % of adult blacks in Britain with African origins have a university degree. Only 14 percent of adult white Britons are college educated.

Of the African-born population in the United States age 25 and older 86.4% reported having a high school degree or higher, compared with 78. 9% of Asian born immigrants and 76.5% of European born immigrants, respectively. These figures contrast with 61.8% percent of the total foreign-born population. Immigrants groups in general tend to have higher high school graduation rates than the native-born general American population.

Those Africans born from Zimbabwe (96.7 percent), Botswana (95.5 percent), and Malawi (95 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Cape Verde (44.8 percent), Mauritania (60.8 percent), and Somalia (63.3 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006)..

Of the European born those born in Bulgaria (92.6 percent), Switzerland (90.5 percent), and Ireland (90.4 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Portugal (42.9 percent), Italy (53.7 percent), and Greece (59.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006).

Of the Asian born Mongolia (94.8 percent), Kuwait (94.7 percent), the United Arab Emirates (94.5 percent), and Qatar (94.3 percent) were most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Laos (48.1 percent), Cambodia (48.4 percent), and Yemen (49.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006).. (Most people think the Asian group includes Orientals exclusively, this is not true)

While African immigrants are indeed the most educated of black groups in the U.S., he finds a negative return on African immigrants’ education attainment for diplomas obtained outside the United States. However, the same does not hold true for Caribbean immigrants. Although he finds that among blacks – native and immigrants – Africans earn the most, when earning-related endowments such as educational attainments are included in the analysis, this expected African advantage disappears (Dodoo, 1997).

Distortion and Group Differences:

In the United States researchers often muddle group difference data by aggregating divergent geographical, historical, cultural and ethic groups into crude and arbitrary categories with whom they then compare with the general population. This in practice misleads unwary readers into the false belief that those aggregated group mean scores objectively characterize the individual groups who have contributed to the overall figures. Take for example: Only 5.3 percent of Central American immigrants have earned a bachelor’s degree, and only 19.5% percent have graduated from high school (Davy, M. 2006). This difference is often coupled with data relating to South American immigrants who, according to the Migration Policy Institute (Dixon, D., and Gelatt J., 2006) 23.4 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher and 74.3 percent reported having a high school degree. These skewed grouping methods; the Hispanic category in this case, creates the false impression in the minds of readers that South American immigrants are poor students based on the fact that they speak Spanish or Portuguese, alone.

The African born and Employment:

The African born are concentrated in management or professional and sales or office-related occupations. Of the employed population age 16 and older in the civilian labor force, the African born were much more likely than the foreign born in general to work in management and professional occupations as well as sales and office occupations. Additionally, the African born were less likely to work in service, production, transportation, material moving, construction, and maintenance occupations than the foreign born in general.

Ethiopians, Sudanese and Somalis, who mostly immigrate as refugees, do not do as well as their counterparts from English speaking African countries such as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya. The reason was because most people from the three countries immigrate to the United States as refugees and asylum seekers, following crises in their home countries (Otiso and Smith, 2005).

Source Materials:

African Immigrants in the United States are the Nation's Most Highly Educated Group. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61doi:10.2307/2999156

African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31 doi:10.2307/3134095

African-Born U.S. Residents are the Most Highly Educated Group in American Society The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 13 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 33-34 doi:10.2307/2963153

Boyd, M. (2002). Educational Attainments of Immigrant Offspring: Success or Segmented Assimlation?

Cross, T. (1994). Black Africans Now the Most Educated Group in British Society. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 3 (spring, 1994), pp.92-93

Davy, M. (2006). The Central American Foreign Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. April 2006

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the European Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. February, 2005

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the African Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. January, 2006

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the Asian Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. April 2006 Dodoo, F. N-A (1997). Assimilation differences among Africans in America. Social Forces 76: 527-46

Gelatt, J. and Dixon, D. (2006). Detailed Characteristics of the Caribbean Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. July 2006.

Gelatt, J. and Dixon, D. (2006). Detailed Characteristics of the South American Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. May 2006.

Guppy, Neil and Scott Davies (1998). Education in Canada: Recent Trends and Future Challenges. Ottawa: Statistics Canada and the Minister of Industry.

Kefa M. Otiso and Bruce W. Smith, (2005). “Immigration and Economic Restructuring in Ohio’s Cities, 1940-2000”, Ohio Journal of Science, 105 (5): 133-137 December 2005

Logan, J.R, Deane, G (2003). “Black Diversity in Metropolitan America.” Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban Regional Research University Albany

Onwudiwe, E. (2006). “Reflections on African Brain Gain Movement.”

The Economist (1996). 339 (7965): 27-28

Space diaspora

I think it's important to leave McNair and the other African-American astronaut in there because they are good role models for any youngsters who visit this page, especailly black young man. In addition, going into space is part of diaspora.

Unfortunately, your personal opinion of who makes a good role model isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Here we use verifiable facts. Also, I can't agree with "going into space is part of diaspora". This seems to be at odds with how the rest of the article defines the African diaspora, and it's contrary to what a diaspora in general means. One guy going on a mission looks to me like an entirely different thing. Are they any sources that refer to a "space diaspora" or is this your own term? I haven't removed it again yet, but I remain to be convinced that it belongs. Friday (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I've removed this paragraph again. Here's the version I removed (after I tweaked it a bit):

 The first African American astronaut, Robert Henry Lawrence, Jr., can be 
 regarded as the first member of the Diaspora to reach the extraterrestrial realm.  
 His successor, Ronald McNair, was killed in the Challenger Disaster.

"Can be regarded"? I don't like it. I want a quote from someone reputable who DOES regard it as such. A google did not reveal to me any widespread use of the notion of a "space diaspora", and I fail to see how one astronaut at a time going on a mission relates to diaspora at all. I don't think this paragraph should be put back in without some kind of sourcing or other justification. Friday (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't be taking this guy seriously! Read his user page. He's either a troll (my vote) or an ignorant flake. "... spreading more Africans in space"? That's downright silly -- one huge, honking, steaming load if ever I heard one. deeceevoice 19:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say this, as I was told this by my afro-studies lecturer who was recounting the tales of African diaspora. He talked about the "outer edges of the realm of diaspora," where I based my edits on. If you don't agree with me then fine, but don't call me a troll or a flake! I've had enough of black-on-black crimes lately. Don't act cosby and dis on your own brotha. Blackpower 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, your professor (assuming you have one) needs to be canned. He's an idiot who talks to listen to his own voice. Don't believe everything you see, hear or read. The entire notion is downright idiotic. I still say you're a troll. deeceevoice 01:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[Name calling does not add to intellectual dialog. The concept of "space Diaspora" is used in science fiction and futuristic material. It usually implies a significant number of human leaving earth to settle in space colonies / Moon / Mars etc. Humanities current episodic near earth venture does not relate to this concept.]

"... spreading more Africans in space" Ha! Priceless! futurebird 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New Guinea, Melanesians, and Indians

They are really a lot more similar to Australian Aboridgenes, if you want to include them you might as well include all the people on the planet, because ultimately we are all out of Africa.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.96.81 (talk • contribs) 19 June 2006.

I agree. That black people indigenous in south and southeast Asia and Melanesia are diasporan Africans is taking the word "diaspora" to the extreme of its literariness. It shouldnt be put forth as a generally held view. --Ezeu 04:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Melanesians and Australian Aborginies are no more related to Africans as Arabs or White Europeans, this is clearly POV, there is no evidence to support it other than the fact that these native peoples have dark skin! One dark skin does not necessarily have anything to do with another, Africa is hot, Australia is hot, is it really so hard to accept that there are several examples of people with dark skin on the planet? Angryafghan 12:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Angryafghan, you're simply incorrect. You, too, Ezeu. The relatedness of Australian Aboriginies to Africans was born out by genetic testing by Spencer Wells about three years ago, verifying the position long held by many afrocentrist scholars. deeceevoice 06:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Then provide a link to a respectable peer-reviewed study, otherwise cease perpetuating this anti-scientific nonsense Angryafghan (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Kidnapped

I find the following sentence ‘Much of the African diaspora is descended from people kidnapped during the transatlantic slave trade, with the largest population living in Brazil’ a little biased and misleading. The word kidnapped implies that Europeans just sailed over and took Africans from their homes and completely overlooks the trade between the Africans and Europeans. I suggest just changing in sentence slightly will be more fair and accurate: ‘Much of the African diaspora is descended from people sold into slavery during the transatlantic slave trade, with the largest population living in Brazil’

Saiidis are not strongly equatorian, they are more strongly Arab than Baharis

This section:

"which is also the name of the Southern Egyptians (Saeedi), who exhibit strong African and Equatorial origins and a distinct culture from the northern Egyptians of the Delta."

Has strong original research and total lack of proper referencing. Upper Egyptians (excluding Nubians) do have some distinctive cultural traits from lower Egyptians, there is also a slight (mostly imperceptible) phenotypical variation. But both are clinial, varying gradually rather than abruptly. Moreover, most Saiidis exhibit strong Arab cultural and phenotypical traits when compared with lower Egyptians. Most Saiidis are readily distinguishable from Nubians, let alone "Equatorial" people (with whom even Nubians currently share little). As it stands the phrase is unfounded. I have deleted it. If you want to reinsert it please let's discuss your sources first. Cheers

--Karkaron 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

bush brazil

Soon after president bush was elected he attended a European summit. In a conversation between George W. Bush and Brazil's president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Bush astonished his colleague with the question "Do you have Blacks, too?".

Rice quickly stepped in. "Mr. President, Brazil probably has more Blacks than the U.S.A.," she was quoted as saying in the German newspaper Der Spiegel. "Some say it's the country with the most Blacks outside Africa." (The United Nations says half of Brazil's approximately 173 million people are of African descent.essence, cnn

It is for this reason that statistics are important. Bush is not the only one who does not know there are blacks in brazil.Muntuwandi 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then refer Mr. Bush to the article named Afro-Brazilian. --Ezeu 00:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"See also" section of article

Is there any reason why articles that are mentioned in the body of the article are listed again under "See also"? For example, the paragraphs right above "See also" highlight African American, Afro-Latin American, Afro-European, and British African-Caribbean community — and then all of these are listed again a few inches lower under "See also".

It also isn't clear to me what Australoid, Black people, Capoid, and Negroid have to do with this article.

Finally, why are there red links to French Afro-Caribbean community and United States Afro-Caribbean community listed? Articles shouldn't be included in "See also" until they've actually been started. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Head nor tail

"Most societies that apply the "black" label on the basis of a person's ancestry justify it as applying to members of the African diaspora." What does this even mean? From an Australian point of view it seems to not make any sense at all. Does it mean "most people apply the label black to members of the African diaspora"? If so what is the word 'justify' doing in there? Rexparry sydney 08:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is rather a mess. Do you have the energy for a larger re-writing of the article? There are repetitions and lack of clarity throughout. I will help if I can. BrainyBabe 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

useful book? Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora

I offer this in case a future editor has access to a better library and wishes to add useful info. Segal, Ronald (2001). Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. BrainyBabe 08:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from WP:AFRO talk page moved here

Indeed, two thirds of white Americans have no detectable African ancestry at all, other than the prehistoric African ancestry shared by all humans. Only one-third of white Americans have detectable African DNA (averaging 2.3 percent) from ancestors who passed through the endogamous color line from black to white.

Mark D. Shriver and others, "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping," Human Genetics, 112 (2003), 387-99.

That can't be serious. How is 2.3% equivalent to 1/3 of white Americans and how in the world did anybody come to this conclusion? The USA is, of all colonial nations in the New World, most strikingly affected by segregation and admixture convention, not based in colour, but in ancestry.

It was the usual case that British colonies, on a whole, were markedly dissimilar to the Hispanic, in that separate racial populations were allowed to develop parallel societies, rather than becoming a convoluted mass of races and culture. The British mostly only intermarried with non-British whites, but even that was shunned (or "just not done") in some quarters, especially with class barriers breaking down and the focus of marital culture on relations between commoners and aristocrats was developing (e.g. the rise of democracy). The British had a settler culture (which they exploited), which the French unsuccessfully tried to duplicate too little, too late and the reason why Britain won the colonial wars until 1783. The French were average or in between the British and Spanish, having only two minor communities of multiracial background, the Creoles and the Metis. The Spanish did not have a settler culture, which by definition requires women and children brought over on ships en masse. Generally, when the French had interracial relationships, it was with those of African descent, while the Spanish interacted with those of the pre-Columbian population, thinking that they were Indians of the Old World. The types of intermarriages occurred not simply out of preference, but due to relative geopolitical positions of the three cultures. The British were surrounded by other Europeans, the Spanish were closest to the Americas and first to arrive, while the French were sort of in a third position--with African relationships. But then, which of these three founder cultures had the most influence or impact in the customs and conditions of the USA?

So then, what is this 1/3 population of "Guinea" whites? What does that mean then, that another third is part Indian and that there is only 1/3 of white Americans who are only white? Not that any of this is wrong or right to have happened, if it did, but I highly doubt that 1/3 of white Americans are partially African from New World admixture. There may indeed be much Old World ancestry from the Moors, Berbers and Egyptians, but that's a different story from the Guineas, in that it was before the Fall of the Roman West and the rise of Islam. In any case, this is the only sentence covering the subject, standing out like the sore thumb of a crackpot.

Savignac 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into the source more closely but I'm pretty sure that what it's saying is that 1/3 of White Americans have any detectable African DNA. And that group is on average 2.3% African. 2.3% is deep into one drop rule territory at less than 1/43. It seems more than reasonable considering that racial identity in the United States is based on self-identification. And the statement doesn't say anything about that being New World ancestry. It just says African.

In the future it would help if you would have these kinds of discussions on the article's talk page. CJ 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

One source. Any others would probably be some Afrocentric studies. No, that statement about identification in the USA is outright false and unsupported by facts. What about Halle Berry and Barack Obama? American society does have its standards of who is who; that doesn't mean there are eugenicists checking out people's breeding on every street corner, like it was Nazi Germany. The study then, obviously is being used in this article to promote miscegenatory perceptions of Americans, by taking advantage of unsorted data. The African DNA did not have to come from a colonial admixture, but could have been from Europeans with African ancestors who colonized the New World. The assertion thus, should be removed for its untidy assessment. It cannot prove that this DNA was recent and from admixture since 1492 or whatever. This topic is being discussed here, because the article's talk page is not active. Savignac 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so important when the mixture happened?

The study then, obviously is being used in this article to promote miscegenatory perceptions of Americans, by taking advantage of unsorted data.

I honestly don't know what to say to this? Assume good faith? Um why would anyone "promote" um... "miscegenatory perceptions of Americans" What purpose could that serve?

I mean what are you REALLY saying here? futurebird 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what purpose could there be in putting ambiguous "data" about the racial composition of North American whites (ex-slaveholders, slavetraders and miscegenation lawyering people) on Wikipedia? It's obviously to try and prove a point. Savignac 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is trying to describe the African Diaspora. What point could such a stat could possibly make except for exactly what it says. (?) 1/3 of American whites have a tiny bit of African ancestry. What's is the point that it is making besides that? Spell it out for me. I don't get it.futurebird 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Until this can be substantiated and presented properly, such as denoting the nature of the ancestry, the segment will be placed here and left out of the article. WP:WEIGHT applies to the "tidbit of knowledge being presented" here, because it doesn't make those Europeans racially African, any more than the vast majority of Africans with some European ancestor would be considered racially European. BTW, the section of the article contradicts itself by stating overwhelmingly that there are two racial populations, but then says that 1/3 of the whites are mixed and silent on the status of blacks in their own level of mixture, which comes off as a snide "academic point" about the "pure whites"--with the typical viewpoint of America being delineated as a "melting pot" paradise, instead of purely black and white. Articles are supposed to be neutral, not for or against the state of the world and take positions. There is a Wikipedia guideline to fixing the problem of self-contradictory articles, I just forget where. Also, a comparable European diaspora article would not turn Africans with European DNA into white people either, or significant enough to count as part of a European diaspora. Savignac 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, that I look in to it I'm not to happy with the sources either. The only one I can find without paying to down load a journal article is by Steve Sailer and I'd rather not use him as a source here if possible! So I'll agree that we should leave it out unless, CJ, has access to the sources and can verify it for us. As for your reasons for wanting it removed... THAT I still don't understand.

Also, a comparable European diaspora article would not turn Africans with European DNA into white people either, or significant enough to count as part of a European diaspora.

Yeah, I wonder why that is? And why is there no European diaspora article? (These are rhetorical questions.)futurebird 01:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am one of those "PC white people" who doesn't want to see racialist entrenchment of all topics. I would hope for racial discussion to not revolve around spats and banal prejudice, nor Nazi hate or Hippie love. Race should be a neutral topic of anthropology and sociology, not some polarized thing in the world where people fight back and forth over who is who and who deserves what type of respect and who is culpable for stains on their ancestors, or on them for ignorance. Maybe the whole identity politics thing is something that you feel comfortable with, like how Dave Chappelle or other prominent black comedians and celebrities think it is okay to indulge in race conscious language, such as the "N" word.

But thankfully, you have noticed the inconsistency of the subject matter as I have. There is no reason to call somebody with 1/43? ancestry as "black", or even part of their identity whatsoever. Likewise, the same goes for blacks with comparable levels of white ancestors. Wikipedia should be conventionally serious, not grabbing at straws to present these extremely eccentric types of POVs. Savignac 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I don't make the rules about race in America, I just write wikipedia articles about them. The one drop rule was/is real. 'Passing' really happens. You can't rewrite history to be color blind. You can't rewrite the present to be color blind. It's not color blind. The rules are dumb but they have an impact on people's lives.

I am one of those "PC white people" who doesn't want to see racialist entrenchment of all topics.

It's not like people have a choice in the matter. I don't see how you're "being PC" at all by overreacting to the idea that white people in america might not be "all white" (whatever that means.) Maybe I'm totally misreading the intent of your comments, If I am I'm sorry. But you earlier comments came across as being borderline insensitive and even racist. I'm glad we're looking in to the sources, but I was shocked to see a long complaint about an article mentioning the idea that some white people have black ancestors. I never questioned it. And, in fact, although it was a little off the statement appears to be mostly correct. But are you saying that even with a solid source we should leave this information out? futurebird 01:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that activists who consider themselves, down and out because of the man, look at any potential disagreement on race to be unfair to them and not simply a neutral, noncombative discussion over identity. So I look forward to more of your prejudice and stereotype.

My complaint, aside from the obvious straw-grasping, is that there is no explanation as to the source of the statistics or the date, through the scientific method of verifying the assertion as truth. What tests were performed, on what segments of the population, etc. etc. etc. Is this fair at all? The article doesn't explain this, but makes it seem like (with your "yes man" defense of its infallibility, in essence) it's the absolute truth and no questions asked. Savignac 02:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint is unwarranted. I suggest you go and read the Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability, neutrality and no original research. These data have been produced by a perfectly respectable scientist and published in a peer reviewed journal. This means that they derive from a reliable source and have been verified as per Wikipedia policy. Whether you like it or not your personal opinion regarding the veracity of the data is irrelevant. If you can find published data from a reliable source that contradict these data then please add them to the article in compliance with the neutrality policy. So far your complaints amount to a personal rejection of the validity of the science, a position that is irrelevant to content in Wikipedia. Alun 11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot get access to this article, then I can recommend reading Frank W. Sweet's essay Afro-European Genetic Admixture in the United States, which discusses the work of Shriver et al. in some detail. It should be noted that many African Americans have a greater proportion of European ancestry (>50%) than African ancestry, just as many European Americans have a significant African ancestry, but the point is that concepts such as African American or European American are social constructs, they are about identity, culture and society (and of course oppression) and not about genetics or necessarily about ancestry. It's about perceived descent more than actual descent. It seems the so called "colour line" in the USA gives many people a distorted perception of their actual ancestry. Alun 11:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Alun. Concerning the questions posed by User:Savignac: The researchers who authored the article "Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry and admixture mapping" used quite a lot of article space describing the importance of ancestry estimates in biomedical research. Suggest reading it before critizing the aim and the results, and especially before using derisive comments about the editors here, such as "racialist entrenchment of all topics", "attempt to promote miscegenatory perceptions of Americans", "these extremely eccentric types of POVs", "any others would probably be some Afrocentric studies", "the sore thumb of a crackpot". Please note that biomedic research involving genetic admixture mapping was in this case a crucial part of the search for answers about genetic risk factors, which in extension leads to proper treatments and healthier lives, to attention being made to diseases tied to genetic ancestry, thus reversing the long neglect of risk factors, conditions and unnecessary suffering among people of African ancestry. This sort of research is concerned with contribution to the understanding of genetic factors such as soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors, interleukin-6 soluble receptors, C-reactive protein and adiponectin levels. Levels of adipocytokines differ between Black and White Americans; diseases associated with adipocytokines include type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This research is not some trivial anthropology thesis about "hippie love" or about "Nazi inspired" immigration policies, but a necessary and vital part of biomedic research to save lives. The usual Eurocentric jitters about race is no good reason to ban issue like this from articles about the African Diaspora. (As an aside: It's especially interesting to me that this issue should crop up with such urgency right now, right around the time the French gov. decided to implement the use of DNA testing to halt immigration, primarily from former colonies in Africa according to the critics.[1].)

Anyway, there's more than a handful of recent articles in the journal Human Genetics alone, and it would not exactly be difficult to expand on this topic:

Alexander P. Reiner et al. "Genetic ancestry, population sub-structure, and cardiovascular disease-related traits among African-American participants in the CARDIA Study. " Human Genetics 121.5 (2007): 565-75.
Christina L. Wassel Fyr et al. "Genetic admixture, adipocytokines, and adiposity in Black Americans: the Health, Aging, and Body Composition study. " Human Genetics 121.5 (2007): 615-24.
Heather E. Collins-Schramm et al. "Markers informative for ancestry demonstrate consistent megabase-length linkage disequilibrium in the African American population. " Human Genetics 113.3 (2003): 211-219
M. Molokhia, et al. "Relation of risk of systemic lupus erythematosus to west African admixture in a Caribbean population." Human Genetics 112.3 (2003): 310-318.
Mark D. Shriver et al. "Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry and admixture mapping." Human Genetics 112.4 (2003): 387-399.
Heather E. Collins-Schramm et al. "Markers that discriminate between European and African ancestry show limited variation within Africa." Human Genetics 111.6 (2002): 566-569.
Carolina Bonilla et al. "Ancestral proportions and their association with skin pigmentation and bone mineral density in Puerto Rican women from New York city." Human Genetics 115.1 (2004): 57-68.
Xiaofeng Zhu et al. "A classical likelihood based approach for admixture mapping using EM algorithm." Human Genetics 120.3 (2006): 431-45.

Afv2006 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

moving forward

Alun and Afv2006-- thanks for verifying the source! I didn't have access to it and I was reluctant to use the only source that I could find which was Steve Sailer, quoting this study. Now in the study is it 70/30 or is it 1/3 and 2/3? Can you correct the article to reflect the right numbers? futurebird 14:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

30% of white Americans have some detectable African ancestry, with an average detectable African ancestry of 2.3% This is not the whole story though, some white Americans have over 20% detectable African ancestry, while about 5.5% of black Americans have no detectable African ancestry. Obviously there is a question of how sensitive the test is, but if African ancestry is not detectable in over 5% of African Americans, then one has to assume that it remains undetected in a similar proportion of European Americans. There's also the question of membership of social groups, clearly it is evident that a significant overlap exists, with some European Americans having a greater degree of detectable African ancestry (>20%) than some African Americans (<5%). Alun 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make 30% of white Americans part of the African diaspora, any more than the vast majority of black Americans with European DNA would be considered part of the European diaspora! I don't need any of your "leftist POV science" preaching either! You should look in the mirror all day and yell at yourself about how wrong you are with all the misconceptions you yourself have, not going around "telling other people" about their faulty views etc. Besides, I question the "scientific method" of this "study", much like most political polls. How do we know it's not done with a select batch of subjects, to steer the results in the favour of the hypothesis? I don't take you seriously at all. Oooh, SCIENCE is rad! Go ahead and categorize all Americans as your hodgepodge of races, even though you yourself claim to have no interest in race, finding yourself here and making the fuss. Sure, it may become like Mexico soon, but that doesn't mean it is now. BTW, any respectable scientist would be able to isolate certain groups of people from the study who don't belong in it and aren't Americans, like illegal aliens! From your personality, I figure you WOULD include them, just to push your POV about racial miscegenation which is your political schadenfreude. Savignac 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make 30% of white Americans part of the African diaspora

Whoever said it does? But they certainly have ancestors that definitely were part of the African diaspora, whether they consider themselves part of that diaspora or not.Alun 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't need any of your "leftist POV science" preaching either! You should look in the mirror all day and yell at yourself about how wrong you are with all the misconceptions you yourself have, not going around "telling other people" about their faulty views etc.

I have not "preached" anything. I have simply stated that this is a reliable source published in a peer reviewed journal. If you have evidence that this work was fabricated then I suggest you contact the journal in question and also the appropriate authorities regarding fraudulent academic practices. If you have no evidence then you really have no leg to stand on. Either way Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your personal opinions. Go and read the appropriate policies regarding reliable sources and verifiability, you clearly have little understanding of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth.Alun 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil, the community does not regard personal attacks as productive, we work by consensus here, and by following a few simple rules of behaviour and attribution. You are clearly not assuming good faith and are currently making ad hominem attacks against users who do not agree with you, a classic example of someone who has already lost an argument.Alun 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not "told" anyone about their "faulty views". I have stated that your personal opinions are irrelevant to editing Wikipedia. If you were to read the relevant policies then you would know this is true. The same applies to my personal opinions. While you are free to express your opinions here on the talk page, you cannot use them in an article because you do not constitute a reliable source.Alun 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I question the "scientific method" of this "study", much like most political polls.

Irrelevant. This is just your personal opinion and is not supported by any published reliable sources. Go and find a reliable source that supports your scepticism and then come back and add it to the article. Alun 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How do we know it's not done with a select batch of subjects, to steer the results in the favour of the hypothesis?

That's why we have peer reviewed journals. Alun 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't take you seriously at all. Oooh, SCIENCE is rad!

I can't take someone seriously who seems to think that their personal opinion's are of greater value to humanity than published peer reviewed academic work. Sorry, but you'll have do do better than getting hysterical if you want to make a case for this work not to be considered reliable by Wikipedia criteria. Alun 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and categorize all Americans as your hodgepodge of races, even though you yourself claim to have no interest in race, finding yourself here and making the fuss. Sure, it may become like Mexico soon, but that doesn't mean it is now. BTW, any respectable scientist would be able to isolate certain groups of people from the study who don't belong in it and aren't Americans, like illegal aliens! From your personality, I figure you WOULD include them, just to push your POV about racial miscegenation which is your political schadenfreude.

Eh? This appears to be totally incoherent ranting. Sorry but you cannot expect to be taken seriously when you post drivel like this. Alun 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your politically correct POV strutting is impressing nobody but those just like you. You want to tell me "that's how it is", that you are an enforcer of the standard. Fine, co-opt the establishment to serve your motives. The article in this aspect, is advancing people like http://dienekes.blogspot.com/. You guys, like him, want to prove that white Americans aren't so white and that they are ignorant hypocrites for holding others down for not being white enough, due to the one drop rule as it applied to children of slave owners and slaves, or due to stereotypes about the Moorish admixture in Southern European immigrants. You want to advance your "corrective stereotype" to radically demolish accepted sociocultural convention. Regardless of how much you want to believe in your own hype, you have proven nothing to other people, other than that you should pay attention to WP:POINT and WP:BIAS, with the intent on being more open minded and less zealous about preaching your political science, dishonestly through the supposedly NPOV website that is Wikipedia. BTW, science is not something I or anyone is supposed to take on faith, but through demonstrating how one came to the conclusion through verifiable tests, which I have not seen, so I will not believe the outlandish breaching experiment you so devoutly believe in. Savignac 06:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have failed categorically to support any of your claims with reliable sources, while attempting to remove reliably sourced information from this article. These are the facts. The rest of your posturing is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on good faith editors who have been more than patient with your abuse and racist abuse. I have warned you on your talk page, mauch more of this and I'll go to WP:AN/I. By the way you have reached your 3rr limit. Alun 06:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and play these rv games. You think it's alright to "game the system", even while telling me to quit it? You are down right hypocritical and guilty of breaking Wikipedia rules. Go ahead and win. Savignac 06:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please play civil, Savignac. from someone who knows the consequences Let's contribute to the encycolpedia using reliable sources to back up claims. Avoid POV, and bad faith. We can always get a RfC, but it's best to try to work it out here first. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 06:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

When people are making outrageous allegations about me, I believe it pertinent to explain the obvious truth they are attempting to obfuscate about their own motives in doing so. Thanks anyways. You seem like a nice person, just for disinterested kindness. How absolutely Christian of you. Savignac 07:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has made any allegations about you. You are making personal attacks on editors for no reason. You have been asked to provide reliable sources that support your claims, but seem unable to do so. You have claimed that the sources here are not reliable, but this comment seems to be merely your personal opinion and not supported by any reliable sources. Yet you continue to remove the cited info based simply on your personal beliefs. Wikipedia does not exist to reflect your personal misgivings. Coupled with your repeated comments about so called "miscegenation" this all seems to indicate that you have some sort of "purist" agenda to push. Possibly you do not, but you have been unable to support your claims from reliable sources and seem to think that personal attacks can compensate for a lack of academic support for your position. Alun 08:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't change people's beliefs, if race is a social construct, by inserting DNA POV forks to encourage some sort of divine revelation and truly radicalize society. This is what you have done, still do and intend to continue for as long as you edit here. I am not the one who has specialized in DNA tinkering. Think twice before stabbing me in the gut with a smile. Savignac 08:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about, this response is very opaque and seems to be irrelevant to the article. Alun 08:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember? ~Jeeny ^(talk) 08:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You want to play a naive Dr. Jekyll now? You can't pull the wool over my eyes. You have a POV to push; to hell with the opposition. Savignac 08:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

All I want is for him to look at WP:POINT and learn from it. His assertions about my heritage are offensive, because it is based in some laboratory somewhere, where judgements and stereotypes abound with mockery and derision for the supposedly serious and NONPARTISAN study. Oh, is it nonpartisan, unideological? I don't think so; it feeds the abuse I've already been given. Savignac 08:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved back here where it belongs

From your personality, I figure you WOULD include them, just to push your POV about racial miscegenation which is your political schadenfreude.

You think it's a turn of misfortune that white americans have black ancestry...? WOW. That is a very racist thing to say. I'm not even going to mince word about it. You're remarks are racist and you are wasting the time of editors who have better things to do without presenting any new information other than your own personal, unsupported, racist opinions. I thought I might have misunderstood the intent of you remarks earlier, but now I'm certain. I find your remarks hostile, degrading and uncivil. In the future please limit your discussion to the subject at hand. OK? futurebird 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, I am related to blacks. They are my cousin-in-laws, while their mulatto children with my cousin are my dear kin. Don't you people dare question my love for them. I don't care if she's had a few different partners and not ever married, being a pregnant teenager in high school. I don't get in her face about the babies' daddies. I love them with all my heart. Yes, I also find "black is beautiful", but I don't need your frigging ass to tell me who to love!

I agree with futurebird. Keep it civil and relevant. Don't make ad hominem attacks, discuss the article and not the editor. Give reasons for the changes you want to make and back them up with reliable sources that support the point of view you want to introduce. Be civil and do not make racist comments like this one. Alun 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird is not right, because he is still making assumptions; don't kiss his ass with your false motives. You just want to be on his good side, because you are a conniving white liberal who would never listen to the concerns of an ethnic minority, just tell them some Kipling thing about how it's up to your own white ass to make them happy and successful, while trying to turn blacks against your political enemies, the white conservatives. Dirty, dirty worm politics in your backstabbing self. I don't need your divisive POV pushing to try and "teach a lesson" to "ignorant and backwards white Americans" about their "false whitehood". Would you like me to "rob" you of your British/Anglo-Welsh heritage, by saying that it doesn't exist, even though you are very conscious of it, as well as the Nordic blend of your children? It would be offensive and intrusive, wouldn't it? So why set a double standard, for you to preach your infallible faith in "socialistic progressive science" about other people who "just have to take it like a man", holding their ankles and bending over like a fairy? Savignac 06:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alun is used to getting his way. That comes with the territory of being around for so long, especially if one enjoys his lynch-fests of politically incorrect editors. Savignac 07:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lookie lookie: [2] It appears that Alun has made it his mission to define white people, even to the point of edit-warring. So, if one makes this about personalities--and I'm unfamiliar--then why accept the diatribes of this recidivist racist calling me a racist? I just don't want Wikipedia to perpetuate stereotype and invite prejudice, based upon skewed findings of like-minded intellects like Noel Ignatiev. Savignac 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Savignac, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your behavior on this talk page, and the edit summaries you've made with your reversions, have crossed the line from advocacy to attacks and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Continuing down this path will lead to a report at WP:ANI. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 08:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll stop, but will he? I leave that up to him. If he violates principle again, I'll have to call him out on it. Why do you consider complaints about personal attacks to be wrong? I don't care, actually. Maybe since drawing attention to this problem of systemic bias so much, some changes could result. I'm tired. Savignac 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Alun's comments on Jeeny's talk page:

The article already asserts that America has two racial populations, then goes on to say that there is no essential difference in DNA. This is your socialistic and revisionist opinion, which is why you want so much to keep it that way. I don't think one way or the other, but I sure as hell won't accept your dogmatism on it. People are fluid and stable at the same time. So what? Savignac 08:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this: http://backintyme.com/essays/?p=5 article states that Sicilians and Greeks are lactose-intolerant. Why then, is cheese culture, including dinners with lots and lots of cheese, so ancient in those cultures, while it is only recent that the Danes and Dutch have taken an interest in blue cheese, for instance? It's utter bollocks, but you think it is a worthwhile, trusty and serious source? From the start, I see bullshit. How do you get sucked into the kool aid and drown? Savignac 09:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The USA has far more than two "racial populations". People identify as various different things, but in the USA people may identify as Asian American, European American, Indigenous Americans and African Americans and presumably many more.
The article, and no science anywhere claims that there are no essential differences in DNA between people from these groups. Clearly people identifying as "white" have significantly and measurably a majority of European ancestors, indeed in most cases it is overwhelmingly European, in the case of African Americans the overwhelming ancestry is from Africa. So no one claims anywhere that there are no genetic differences between people. What has been demonstrated is that many African Americans have significant European ancestry, and that a minority of European Americans have a small amount of African ancestry. I can find no evidence that the article claims that these groups are genetically homogeneous, as you claim it does.
I have never included my opinion in any article, I only include cited material from reliable sources. Can you please show me where I have included my opinion?
I don't know what you mean about accepting my "dogmatism" (sic). I have had no part in this article until very recently (yesterday). I am merely supporting the inclusion of cited material from a reliable source. You have failed to show why this source is disputed, except that it is your personal opinion. Alun 09:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That first "point" was a red herring.
The article is attempting to blur the distinctions between people, by introducing controversial assessments of American society on a whole. They have not tested on my DNA, or that of anybody I know. Why is their test so important? How come I only hear about it on the internet? It's an obscure, wingnut progressivist theory from the dark corners of humankind.

Which article? This is just your opinion. I see no such "blurring". Alun 09:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article. Stop playing naive. Savignac 09:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your presence here is to defend your educational POV, from what you learnt in school and what you have tried to prove in several other Wikipedia articles about race. You are "very involved" in such topics.

My presence here is the same as most people's, it's to contribute constructively in writing an encyclopaedia. I know a bit about Genetics because it's what I studied at University, so often I contribute about genetics. In this case I am preventing you from removing a relibaly sourced information. You have provided no reliable source that states why this info is unreliable. Alun 09:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are here not for impersonal interest in advancing knowledge generally, but on topics you are frequently edit warring over. I must say, that says much about your quality of editing. Savignac 09:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, see above. Savignac 09:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, how do admixture levels in Americans differ from that in Europeans, with regards to purity of identity according to racial or social distinction? Europeans with distant African descent are accounted for as European or white or European=white, without ifs, ands, buts, or any preachy attitude like the article in its depiction of Americans is giving. So, it comes down to this old fashioned European elitism about European standards and the "charlatan experiment in democracy called America". Basic case made, that American whites don't deserve to call themselves white, just like the usual European hatred for Americans identifying by their ancestral ethnic nationality. You lot hate those like the Irish Americans, who are so proud of themselves for being Irish, because they are not Irish enough to you, for instance. To make matters plainly, you would not see me as white enough to be as white as you, if I had African DNA and you did too. Well, be content to be whiter-than-thou. I'm above this social Darwinist obsession you have. Savignac 09:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "distant African descent". All humans have a distant African descent, obviously. Most of your comment is irrelevant, the article does not make any of the claims you say it does, and you have resorted to making personal attacks again. You know nothing about me, so to make spurious claims about my motives reveal a great deal more about your thinking than mine. Alun 09:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I only know of you, what you show me here. I'm making nothing up. Try to erase your past here--it can't be done. I study how you contribute and listen to what you have had to say about several different things. In all cases, you believe yourself to be the most non-controversial, because you and those who think like you are absolutely correct and everybody must prepare themselves to be graced by your divine gift of knowledge, which is aimed at changing people's minds. That alone is cause for reminding you of WP:POINT and you never acknowledge my assessment of your habits, so why should I accept yours of mine? Ha, you just hate it that I'm coming from a neutral position, aimed at depolarization, while you wish to remain a wingnut and continue to impress people with your knowledge, because others just don't have enough, at least not enough to compare to you. Savignac 09:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

But then, perhaps the analysis about ethnic or hyphenated Americans more applies to User:TharkunColl, whom you seem to have a tight relationship with, in respect to identity politics and the particular identity supported through editing--that of a Nordicist Britain. His Tolkienism and your move to Finland surely do reveal something about de facto, activist Nordicism. Breed the perfect children, while he chants occult oaths and lauds the purity of blood. I am done with your caliber of Hippie Nazis. Savignac 10:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of North America section

Please answer these questions or I will remove the tags. You need to cite sources!

This article or section appears to contradict itself. (Where?)
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. (Do you have sources to support this concern?)
This article's representation of one or more viewpoints about a controversial issue may be unbalanced or inaccurate. (What is the other viewpoint? Do you have sources to support it?)
The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed. (Why? Source')

futurebird 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you editors always see fit to buttress your sources with all the energy in the world, even if they have obvious holes that can't be patched by any type of apologetic you throw into the mix? You have a flimsy response. It is not about competing sources. It is about Wikipedia's integrity. Or else, Wikipedia is a mish-mash of self-contradictory information, or the extremist POV of those who won their case in a free for all. Regardless, I have stayed up all night over this...while you were sleeping and unaware of our numerous discussions, which on my part, directly address those queries of yours. You can't hide behind the "sources" thing forever, like some fundamentalist who thinks speaking in tongues is "the key". Savignac 12:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read all of your posts on this page and it's mostly personal opinion. I'm trying to seriously entertain your concerns about this section. So, please help me out and respond to each of the points above. futurebird 12:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's more anti-white American rubbish: Talk:White_Hispanic/Archive_1#To_the_person_who_says_Spaniards_aren.27t_white._You_are_a_fool

Just because white Americans may have disparaged Spaniards, doesn't make the white American less white than Spaniards--or any more, conversely. The "rubber and glue convention" of he said and she said, shouldn't be a factor in serious editing at Wikipedia. It is, unfortunately, one of the violations of WP:POINT that get bandied about like a leftist progressivist victory, as though such propaganda is de facto, widely accepted and believed by the majority of the people, the people in particular being said to have a certain heritage. The sources you provide, don't even back up their own claims. It's shallow posturing. Savignac 12:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See here: Talk:White_American#Admixture_section_is_a_can_of_worms & Talk:Race_and_genetics#Wobble.2FAlun.27s_Reverts Savignac 12:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How come Wobble's POVs are not POVs? Just because he's in agreement with the same theory you defend and propagate? I look like the eccentric one, for disagreeing with a dubious claim, that has not found mainstream or widespread acceptance, because of what you yourselves, in your own POVs, claim has to do with the social convention of identifying by race in America, that white Americans are in denial of this "overwhelmingly true" opinion? You make a fuss over something that you expect to get away with, but not me, because we are in philosophical disagreement. Your POV pushing is excusable, or at least your POV is acceptable, because it's the socialist standard, aimed at abolishing the white race. If you think I've been side-stepping your "questions", then you are correct, but these are framed in such a way as to ignore the situation at hand, to maintain the POV you wish in the article, not to uphold NPOV. I agree with Jimbo Wales on the non-negotiability of NPOV. Consensus is NOT a one-sided party platform. Savignac 13:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you've said and none of the links you have pointed to address my very simple and direct questions in the bulleted list above. Let's stay on topic. You have tagged a section in this article to express your concerns over the content. So, please, respond to the questions so we can address those concerns. futurebird 13:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you have addressed violations of WP:NPOV and WP:POINT on the part of yourselves, because you would never "self incriminate", as you wish me to do for your own benefit. You are going to forever try to get me to give in, while you will not. So what? Savignac 13:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not about pov, it's about verifiability. As I have stated before any pov can be included as long as it is cited from a reliable source. If I introduce a pov into an article it is always cited from a reliable source, and it is not necessarily my point of view. I support the inclusion of all pov's that are supported by reliable sources. The problem with your pov is that you haven't supported it. You claim that Shriver's paper is flawed, fair enough, but provide evidence for this, include this evidence int he article. I would support you doing this fully, but you do not want to do this, you just want to remove the information just because you don't like it. This is against Wikipedia policy on verifiability. You keep whining about WP:POINT but it is not me who is disrupting Wikipedia, I'm merely, abiding by policy, I am supporting the inclusion of information from reliable sources while you are simply attempting to remove this information, apparently because it upsets your world view. I suggest to you again that you go and find a reliable source that contradicts Shriver's work and cite this in the article. You currently have no reason to dispute this source except for your personal opinion. You have constantly tried to personalise this in a most petulant manner. This should not be about your personal antagonistic feelings towards me, although you have attempted to make it such, it is about verifiability, and it always was. You have utterly failed to produce any evidence to support your claims, and have tried to change the subject to one of personality rather than verifiability. Alun 13:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wish (as you clearly state) to continue adding NPOV problems into the Wikipedia to support your POV, because the sources are never, ever in variance with your own, as a disinterested, altruistic Wikipedian would rather do (for the benefit of others), then you will continue to violate numerous Wikipedia rules (as you edit war over all race and dna articles, long before "I arrived"). Just about every bulleted part of WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system can be applied to your approach, which is why I don't particularly care for your position on this topic, or what you think will deter my complaints about your rose-coloured glasses view and putting the miscegenated human on a pedestal. Savignac 13:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Before you came? Possibly, but you appear to know a great deal about Wikipedia for someone who is really a newbie. I have my suspicions about who you are. Besides you still have not provided any verifiability for your pov and so can't include it. Your constant attacks against me are tiresome and indicative of a lack of any reliable sources to back up your claims. Alun 13:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You refuse to be held accountable for your end. So you thought you could get the upper hand, just because I'm a "newbie"? How shallow and indicatively lacking of your "Wiki-community spirit", which goes to show how you really don't care to fix any of these problems that surround your editing history. This pedantic fighting has me totally lost. BTW, where does your source assert that this DNA "slipped under the radar" or "color line", so to speak? Or did you add this yourselves, in the first place, to advance your POV of the "findings". That's why I don't believe your request for sources of my own is a logical following--you just want to distract from the real errors, that you perpetuate. Savignac 13:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I doubt you are a newbie. Secondly I don't think asking for a reliable source to support your edits can be considered "gaming the system" by any stretch of the imagination. I have stated several times that I am happy for you to include your pov if you can provide a reliable source to support it. How is that "gaming the system"? You seem to ignore my posts completely and just want to attack me. I would say this shows that it is you who is uninterested in constructively contributing to Wikipedia. Actually on average African Americans have a 20% European ancestry, how do you explain this if it is not due to the fact that the so called "colour line" was rather permeable? Alun 13:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooh...I'm not interested in advancing any POV on the matter. I'm simply stating that your True Believer attitude to these convictions, is damaging to the Wikipedia. You zealously work towards the versions of race and DNA articles which fit your view, rather than work in the interests of the community, but wish to hold me to task, all for calling out the outlandishness of wiki-activism, when it in this instance at least, is pock-marked with inferences rather than facts. How much of a scientist are you truly?! Savignac 14:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? All I did was ask you for a reliable source, something you cannot do, so you personally attack me. Your other accusations against me are very odd. I suggest you take a WP:RfC out on my conduct if you feel so strongly about it. We'll see what the community thinks about my editing. I see no point in continuing when you clearly only want to make abusive comments and have no interest in providing anything like a reliable source to support your diatribe against good science. Alun 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Revel in it, Master Goebbels. All I did, was explain how you have no standing in this matter. You are the boy who cried wolf, or Jew? ROFLMFAO! Savignac 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make anti-semitic personal attacks. This is insulting and unhelpful. futurebird 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell him that! I'm the Jew to him and he wants a Final Solution to the "whitish problem". Racist science has not escaped the Nazi conventions of its WWII chrysalis. Godwin's Law doesn't apply here. Scientific racism hasn't changed since the Nazis tried to eliminate their Jewish brethren. It is still used to defame and mischaracterize the "test population" of human guinea pigs, whomever they may be. Why don't you care that the shoe is on the other foot? The opinions about discomforts endured by whites, just don't resonate with your "non-racist" mind? Savignac 14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Section moved from article

Since there is already an article dealing with Genealogical_DNA_test#African_ancestry and International HapMap Project, I'm not sure this section about genetics is placed correctly when it is appearing in this article, rather than in an article more directly focused on the issue, especially since it has been tagged and disputed as giving this issue "undue weight" here. I am therefore temporarily placing the section below, for community consideration, until its future is decided by consensus.

Nevertheless, the United States has preserved two distinct genetic [[Population groups in biomedicine|population groups]]: one of mostly African ancestry, the other overwhelmingly European.<ref name="Collins" /> Many New World states (except Canada) that enslaved African people, have [[unimodal]] Afro-European [[genetic]] [[admixture]] [[scatter diagram]]s.  A wide variety of recent studies target natural population [[admixture]] in the United States as a way to uncover disease susceptibility genes, based on the observation that genetic risks for certain diseases appear to vary between populations of different genetic ancestry, including risk for [[type 2 diabetes]], propensity for [[nephropathy]] and [[systemic lupus erythematosus]].<ref name="Collins">Collins-Schramm, Heather E., Rick A. Kittles et al. (2002). "Markers that discriminate between European and African ancestry show limited variation within Africa". Human Genetics 2002:111, pp. 566, 568-569.</ref><ref>Zager, Philip G., William C. Knowler and Barry I. Freedman (2003). [http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/S202 "Genetic Determinants of Diabetic Nephropathy: The Family Investigation of Nephropathy and Diabetes (FIND)"]. J Am Soc Nephrol 14:S202-S204, 2003. Retrieved 6 November 2007.</ref> Researchers from the Departments of Biological Chemistry and Medicine, [[University of California at Davis]], National Human Genome Center at [[Howard University]], and R.S. Cooper Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, [[Loyola University]], state in a recent study that there is "compelling evidence" that the African contribution to individual African Americans can be "accurately analyzed with a set of obtainable markers that distinguish between European and African ancestry, [and] for the majority of markers, the African populations are more nearly fixed for one allele than the European American population".<ref name="Collins" /> Various follow-up studies, including a study performed by the National Human Genome Center, [[Howard University]]; the Department of Anthropology, [[Penn State University]]; the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, [[London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine]]; and the Department of Environmental Health, [[University of Cincinnati]], have shown that the average admixture of African Americans is higher than that of African Caribbeans in the former [[British Colonies]] in the Caribbean. For African Caribbeans, the average European ancestry is 10 percent and for African Americans, it is approximately 18 percent. An exception is the [[Gullah]] population from [[South Carolina]] and [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], where the European admixture is very low.<ref name="Shriver">Shriver, Mark D. et al. (2003). "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping," ''Human Genetics'', 2003:112, p. 395. ([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=12579416 Abstract]).</ref> The genetic data collected for this study also indicated African and Native American admixture in the European American sample. As noted in other studies of European American populations, the non-European admixture is low in European Americans. In this case the result showed it to be less than 5 percent.<ref name="Shriver" />

Afv2006 (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I think we need to talk about where this article should be foucues. DNA is only a tiny part of the story.futurebird (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Culture

This article needs to talk about the impact of the diaspora on cultures around the world. What are good sources for this? futurebird (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

Why is Sub-Saharan Africa listed in the population table? The article is on the AFRICAN DIASPORA, meaning people of African descent living OUTSIDE of Africa. --Maurice45 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was included for the sake of comparison. --Ezeu (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

France

Just noted that the numbers in France are listed as 5,000,000 out of 62,752,136, for 3.0%. Obviously there is an error either in numbers or percentage, and neither of the two references given has a valid, viewable link. Dionix (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

An other problem for France the link are about black, so north afriacn are not include. CRAN is an association about black french not about north african that are mostly arab. Minato ku (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews

There is a significant amount of Mizrahi Jews which are of african descent, but they are not included in this listing nor can i find the AU/OAU referencing them at all. according to number estimates, they would be among the 12 biggest african disapora states. on one hand, this is a glaring omission. i believe this should be documented somehow, i'd be happy if anyone can find a decent reference with regards to AU/OAU relation to mizrahi jews, so this is well-referenced. any further suggestions are welcome. MiS-Saath (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are Africans living outside of Africa included in the Diaspora?

I thought that the African Diaspora was people descended from the slave trade, not modern African immigrants. Also, why does the total population need to be listed? There is no mention or even estimate of the total number of white people in the world, and I think that 900 million is absurdly low number for the African Diaspora when considering the number the number of European descended people likely approaches the 1.5 billion mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElijahTM (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In the fact, there are even less blacks than 900 mil, because in this article are all mixed races in Brazil counted as blacks, which is not real truth.

Brasil

I dont understand this: why should be mullatos from Brazil counted as african diaspora when they evidently have half european origin? According same logic you might considered them as european diaspora. They are not black neither white, they are just mullatos with both roots! The truth is that in Brazil are only 13 million real blacks who might be counted as african diaspora <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#Demographics> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black25 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no "Black Colchis"

The Colchis (Georgians) are not black and never were. "http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/1003" is an Afrocentric forum with radical, extremist views. For example, they claim that "blacks" built the pyramids (both Egyptian and Central American), and speaks of "Negritic African racial reatures [sic]" among the Olmecs. Although other articles are less extreme than some Afrocentric sites (which claim that the Vikings, Greeks, Carthagians, Phoenicians, Berbers, Eskimo/Inuit, Chinese, Celts, and Romans were also "black Africans"), a short look at the site shows that it is nothing more than Afrocentric pseudo-history. Also, it is a forum posting, which is not a reliable source:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

In addition, the only link from that forum post (http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/loc/colchis.htm) does not give evidence outside of writings from Herodotus and the vague "[...] though black communities are known to have existed in the area." Herodotus himself, despite being a great historian and "The Father of History," was known to exaggerate and/or lie to make places seem more interesting. Also, one has to wonder when Afrocentrists rely on the comments of a historian from nearly 2500 years ago. Afrocentrism is a fringe theory and not mainstream. I have already removed the part of a sentence. Although it was not much information, it is presented in an otherwise genuine and factual wiki article, which may lead readers to believe that it is also true. The Colchis article itself claims:

Though the 'Egyptian' theory of origin was not generally adopted by the ancients, it has been defended – but not with complete success, by some modern writers^{[citation needed]}. It is possible there was a Negroid component (which predates the Arab slave trade) in the Black Sea region, whose origins could conceivably be traced to an ancient expedition into the region by blacks from Africa. However, in the absence of any conclusive archeological evidence, this claim is speculative. [3]

Note that the source of the above quote is the same as the link from the forum. Although Google hits are not very reliable, as per the "Google test," there are only 450 hits for "Colchi negroid" without quotes.[4] Most are unrelated, merely mentioning "Colchi" and Negro(id) on the same web page. Some are Italian or Spanish sites using "negro" as the color "black" and others are medicinal/scientific (Colchicine) or biological (phasianus colchicus). Quoting "negroid" returns 51 hits[5], 27 if not counting "similar entries."[6]. Of these, about seven relate to the actual topic. Colchi and "black" turn up 2,610 results, but most are about the Black Sea, which is where the Colchis lived, and the ones about "black," as in race, are all related to Herodotus's quote.68.76.104.18 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

200+ thousand Africans in Australia?

Where did this number come from?Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the word Australia. Click on the [32] to see the source. According to the census, more than 245,000 Australians come from Africa. Almost half of them come from South Africa, however, and I wonder what percentage are Black Africans. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Africana womanism

Helo everyone! You may be interested in checking out Africana womanism. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Population Statistics

Hey, I think it would make more sense to list the statistics as: Country, # African, % African , Country Population rather than with the country population first. 130.39.188.56 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

These numbers are ridiculous

In Cuba black and mulatto people are not 35 percent, are more than half, and Italy doesn't have 755000 black people, there are only 200000, and netherlands has more than 800000, the numbers are all wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.148.60 (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Meaning of Diaspora

Diaspora means any people group who reside outside their place of origin-- either by force or by choice. It seems to me the conversation has taken a turn for the worse with people haggling over who is black and who isn't. This is a slippery slope. I think Afro Americans should be included on the African Diaspora page. We are very much part of the African Diaspora. It seems silly to haggle over how much blood makes one black and how many people of African descent is in a given country or even how they came to be there. I've met people from many coutries who call themselves "black" and some of them are very obviously mixed with other races. Noone has the right to choose how someone else should be labled. I think the bigger point is that there are blacks in every locale (or just about every locale) on the planet who identify as black. In my own family we have people who are part European, Asian, and Native American and they all identify as black. For those who feel they are "other" or feel that they are half and half, that's fine. That is their choice. However, I think the African Diaspora page should not concern itself with those people and should focus on those of us who are proud of our African heritage and ancestry and who do identify with being black.Cmoore235 (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just Curious

Why is it that whenever a race based topic is presented on Wikipedia is there so much ugly fighting? I thought the point of Wikipedia was to present an accurate view of historical events to disenfranchised people (which are historically African Americans in my country)? Many young people are raised in homes that can not afford encyclopedias and they can read all of your ugly comments just as I did.

Why? Fundamentally, two words: white racism. Caution youth that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information on its own. Verify everything utilizing credible outside sources. And, given your experience, it's probably wise never to allow young children to read Wikipedia articles treating Black people without first reading the article yourself. Some of this material is shockingly inaccurate, racist (due to ignorance and/or calclation/vandalism) and wrong-headed. deeceevoice (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why afro-arabs,afro-berbers,afro-persians,afro-indians and afro-egyptians are not counted?

There are at least 30 mln afro-arabs,10 mln afro-berbers,10 mln afro-egyptians,1mln afro-persian and 200-300 mln afro-indians.

Why they are not counted?

Humanbyrace (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about African diaspora. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1