Talk:Black people/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Black people. 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

←

Archive 5

There is a solution

Fill you keep arguing that you want to see all views as long as they're cited. That's why the Definitions of black people article was created. Have you read it? It shows all the different ideas people have about what being black means and every single statement in the article is cited. The solution is to redirect this article to the Definitions of black people article. Problem solved. Now if any one section of that article gets too large it can branch in to seperate articles as you suggest, but for now it samples all the different perspectives in a cited and organized way__Whatdoyou 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I of course have seen the Definitions of black people article. I think it is a good start, but could be expanded even more, with more references. Some people seem to want to have more extended discussions, so they should write up their own pages, which can be linked in to a series of pages.--Filll 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It covers the basics in a NPOV cited way. The debate boils down to how you define a black person. Some define a black person as someone of sub-Saharan ancestry, others define a black person as anyone with dark skin, and others define a black person as anyone whose been oppressed regardless of race or color. All of these views are represented in the article. More references could always be added but all sides are currently represented in the Definitions of black people article and it seems a bit redundant to try to turn any single POV into an entire article and this will probably just invite original research. We already have articles about race, genetics, racism, clourism, afrocentricism, afrophobia etc.__Whatdoyou 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is good but you need a link and a sample of it on here like an overview so people can the go to the bigger article-But we need to unlock and make the link---Halaqah 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of this article since it's just a POV essay and replace it with the Definitions of black people article. This article is uncited POV garbage. We don't need it when we have another article that makes the same points in NPOV way.__Whatdoyou 15:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was reluctant to look at it, but Definitions of black people is actually a reasonable, well cited article. This article, black people has some interesting points, but is largely an uncited, agenda-pushing essay. The clearest route to cleaning it up would be to replace it with definitions of black people and add unbiased, cited content gradually. CarlosRodriguez 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This article, and several others like it, should be placed on separate pages and proponents of each of these points of view should be invited to edit them and add references. Then a central page (possibly this one) should direct people to various pages for different aspects of the concept. The central page might also include the definitions page, or that might remain a separate page if there are space problems.--Filll 18:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fill -- I'd resist dividing editors into different camps with different "points of view". Editing from a non-neutral POV is not allowed here, nor is insertion of huge blocks of text without citations. CarlosRodriguez 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Am Carlos i would like for you to explain "unbiased" it is a term i see people using but i dont know what it means. EVerything is biased, degrees vary, your contributions are biased. Balance means inclusion of both sides of the debate, But i have notice Europeans add "unbiased" to exclude any Afrocentric or Pan-Africanist ideas. To say Egypt was black would thus be "biased" to say it was white would be another story. Yes you need to cite work where needed, not everysingle point can be cited. Just citing something does make it valid. something not cited might be more valid than something not (re: Ethiopian section). POV is a history book!--Halaqah 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No EVERYTHING must be cited especially when the subject is as controversial as this one is. This is an encyclopedia not a personal web page. Any uncited content does not belong in wikipedia. That's why the uncited POV essay that is this article needs to replaced by Definitions of black people right away.__Whatdoyou 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is go silent. It only serves the agenda-driven Afrocentrist/Black supremacist/lunatic fringe to continue these pointless arguments. Make a statement and Zaph rails his head off for a couple of hours and the article stays locked to the current version. Let's quiet down and when the article is unlocked the uncited nonsense can be removed. CarlosRodriguez 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if something is not done, this article and associated articles will sink of their own weight because of confusion and rancor. If someone writes a subsection or associated article and is unable or unwilling to find quality references for it, then no problem: it goes in the ash heap.--Filll 21:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very lazy with Wikipedia, I dont read the rules i kind of just learn from making mistakes and upsetting one or two people. But isnt there a way we can put the above questions to a vote? Because I agree with the above feeling. Now i am probably closer to the Zaphs of this world but i also agree with you guys because the foundation has to be academia and not "emotion", I think the def is well assembled and needs to be part of this article. It is very neutral. And as soon as we solve it someone will be back to destroy it, how do we protect the work?--Halaqah 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the way wikipedia works. All we can do is make it clear to Zaph and Deeceevoice on what should be here, and the "emotion" they put in is unwelcome. CarlosRodriguez 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That attitude of yours is the sole source of all the problems in this article. You believe that YOU make it clear to us on what YOU think should be here. And until you, being a non-black person, start to research black reputable sources on what black people believe is or is not black, you will be reminded again and again of how ignorant and stupid you sound. "make it clear" "what should be here". Why not just say "It's up to us to tell the black people what we decide how they should be." because that is very clearly how you sound at this point. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So why dont u guys unlock it and do what has to be done, i support your move so there is backing.--Halaqah 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Because WE don't support it. If you notice Carlos, I haven't spoken in a while, and I do not care about the emotional aspect of the discussion. The article must clearly define where black people are located,(just like all other articles on people-groups does). I even made a page "Who is black", but you guys changed it to "definitions of a black person" (again taking the arrogant, self-centered "white people knows the answer" before asking attitude). So, no, this issue is not settled, and until we see some real progress on your attitudes and a lessening of your desire to unilaterally control the discourse and the character of the discourse, then no this article should remain locked. For starters, restore the name of the article called "Who is black". And handle the differences as legitimate (Aeta), not sarcastic and childish(Like Black-Irish). To the Black people participating. DO NOT GIVE UP. You are making a difference, you just don't see it yet. I have gotten other people to participate and take an interest, and believe it or not, there are people in Asia who agree with us. The articles I presented in here are actually perfectly inline with Wikipedia's policy and I assure you the violations made by the moderator who ignored it (he asked me to show the articles and then said that the articles did not say black when they clearly did) will cause a backlash. Black contributors, please do NOT boycott, but instead continue to debate on this talk page and continue to fight for every point, every principle that we know is being compromised. When you see any psychological games, any "tit-for-tat" logic, or any pretend naive reasoning by these Eurocentricists, call them on it. Keep doing it over and over, do not stop. It will take time, but the truth of this issue will come out. Remember, most of the other websites (the so called research sites) only copy these articles. You do a search for black people and half the results are Wiki-copycats that only mirror this article. DO NOT GIVE UP! --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Carlos, with all of your "reasoning", what evidence have YOU presented that supports YOUR viewpoint? In fact, for all of you in here: Citing a census is not enough. Census reports are nationalistic definitions and "racial" labels. This article is not about explaining the "American black racial category". Need I remind you about the East Indian category in the U.S. census which has gone through numerous changes over the past 100 years? Or the Arab category? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets start from the bottom.

Let's start from something basic.

The integrity of a POV is maintained by how the language is used to present it. When I saw "Who is black" changed to "definitions of black people". I (and every black person I spoke with) took offense to the arrogant conceited nature of the Wikipedians that changed that name. Why is Who is a Jew not called "Definitions of Jewish people"? Why does the principle for one, not apply to the other? Both are humans, both are groups, both deserve equal respect. (This little point is actually a critical foundation of the example of why Black people and white people in this discussion are at odds). Explain, whoever you are, why you feel "definitions" is more appropriate than "who is" for the title of the articleDefinitions of black people? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I say again, I think everyone should write their own page, with references, then we should connect them and place caveats on the pages. But...I am burned out on this. So much pointless arguing.--Filll 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that's sarcasm on your part. Why is black people such a topic that this kind of indignation and exasperation so acceptable? Let us handle this difficult issue responsibly! Why not consider that maybe your intractability is the cause of your own burnout! Is it going to kill you if you acknowledge that black people inhabited Asia without the use of iron shackles? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way Filll, your response did not answer the question. Again, this indignation that white people use in order to avoid directly answering and taking responsibility for a blunderous use of prejudice... that is unacceptable. I ask again, Why was "What is a black person" changed to "Definitions of black people"? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to give you a response since you seem to want one. I do not know who changed "What is a black person" to "Definitions of black people" or why. I think it is probably better to stay with the precedent set by the other articles on Jews or white people, but this is not critical. Also, I will certainly acknowledge that there are people around the world in Oceania, in Australia, in Asia and other places that have either called themselves black and/or have had other people call them black, either now or currently. And I will also point out that some people very vehemently disagree with this position for a variety of reasons. So, as I have said over and over and over, I would like this article or family of articles to represent both views, complete with references. I think that it cannot be settled by arguing. And it is pointless. I think that the fact that there is disagreement and controversy should be noted and documented in the articles.--Filll 12:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok where is the answer to my question? --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I answered your question but I am just confused. Sorry. I am not your enemy, but I am just overwhelmed by all this.--Filll 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no enemy. There is only competing philosophies that are interfering with the reporting of black people in the world for this article. You have people saying that this article shouldn't exist because THEY feel that black people shouldn't be a label or shouldn't be a label to describe some of the people. This is an encyclopedia, the black people label exists and it's not going anywhere. I am proud of being black and I don't need to listen to some desperate nonsense about 17th century white men. Humans all have the capacity to distinguish contrasting features in other humans, the 17th century white men are no more or less perceptive than Egyptians or Romans or Ethiopians in seeing that black people are distinct from white skinned Europeans. I keep hearing how black was created by white men, yet no one can explain how Kushite, Ethiopian, and Zanji came to be used to describe the same people known to them. So they invent reasons. Hamitic would have worked better than African, but the White Eurocentricists ruined it by making it mean "Caucasoid Egyptians with a tan". For all of this "pro-black" articulation by the Arabic named contributor named Halaqah, I find it fascinating that he rather use "sub-saharan African" (disgusting) to describe us. I am not sub anything and a damn desert is not going to be where my identity is based. African and Black have equal relevance to my identity and I do not find either offensive. He does. This article is not at his whim. Move on. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we move on to another level.

Let us black people tell you what it means to be black. No longer is the black side of this defensive. I spent enormous amounts of time giving the Eurocentricists all the leverage they are going to get.

1. Black identity is not based on the conclusions of non-black intellectuals. That means that, like Jews and like other cosmopolitian groups with a long and complicated history, black people are not defined in the context of White or non-black scientists, anthropologitsts. No, instead, those scientists must do what scientists do. They must investigate the subject matter themselves. That means they must ask the members of the all-inclusive identity. Of course that means that only reputable sources are justifiable in the Wiki-context. However, that does not give the white contributors or moderators carte-blanche to unilaterally reject any second or third tier reference that does not agree with their already forumlated opinions. (The catch-22 ends here). The legacy of whites making the deciding factor on defining black people ended years ago.

The next few points I am going to take the "nots" and further down I will put in the affirmatives in order to remove any loopholes.

2. Black identity is not limited to a geographical origin. This is important to understand, because if you put a geographical limitation, you create a contradiction. The contradiction is as follows: Geographical origins are thrown out the window for the descendants of slavery, although not for independant groups. (I.E. the Siddi of India would be considered black, but not the Dalits.)

3. Black does not Equal African. Africans are one aspect of Black people, and the most significant and the core component, but not the exclusive aspect. This is a misunderstanding specifically by Americans. A misunderstanding that is even carrying down to Latin America and the Caribbean.

4. Colonialism and Racism must be included in this article (on BOTH sides). Racism and Colonialism played a role in defining Black people as "Africans" and played a role in encouraging people outside of Africa including among the direct African diaspora in Latin America to renounce their black idenity.

5. Black power, pride, Afrocentrism must be included in this artilce (on BOTH sides). These positiosn are legitimate although not integral. They played the most recent role in reviewing the Black identity across the world.

6. Black Identity is not based on skull shapes. Skull shapes only point to a belief in the inherent intellectual differences in "races". The shape of the skull implies a shape of the brain, which has been used time and time again to indicate the intellectual focus or charisma of differing people.

7. DNA never played a role in determining who is and who is not black. Visual cues did. Visual cues is not DNA. We cannot force "DNA" into the historical aspect of the conversation when DNA was never used as a litmus test.

Black people are so far clearly people of Equatorial Africa, people whose DNA diverges wildly across the human spectrum, people who are not necessarily dark, people who inherently recognize and hold up the darkest skinned heritage as a meaningful part of their history, a people who share social and cultural peculiarities (some of which have not been articulated in the article), people who have shared a social stigma because of racism, people who are not necessarily historically related to each other, people who are for the most part indistinguisable in appearance and can be easily mistaken for each other in different social contexts. Black "African-Americans" defy all of the assumptions made in defining old-world black people, in that their skull shapes, skin tone, features, and other considerations fall outside the definitions whites impose on us. So an black American is still black while still surely can have a caucasoid skull, light skin, a nose and features that would classify him as "not black" if he were Ethiopian, or East Indian. (I will call this the African-American Paradox, or the AAP for short) This proves more than anything, that Blackness is more of a social group and not a race or a biological entity. In fact, the Eurocentric adherence in classifying mixed black US citizen Americans (particularly the descendants of slaves) as unquestionably black (regardless of their features) is a prime example of the bottom line acknowledgement of the diversity of the black race. There is no scientific basis to exclude African-Americans from the "rules" that the white amateur ethnographers here in Wikipedia insist on.

Black People are people who may or may not choose to recognize this identity (it's more volunatary like Jewishness).

Black identity has been historically found in cultures historically unrelated or loosely related to Equatorial Africans. Kushites, Egyptians, various groups in India mentioned numerous times in here, Aeta, Melanesians, Aboriginals, Andemese, Sentinelese, Taiwanese aboriginals, etc. We cannot dismiss that when the historical context clearly indicates their presence and their identity as black (in their local or regional dialect).

I post this on my user page. Any sensible reasons to disagree post in my user page. Requests for references will be honored and respected. Mutual respect requested where references are used appropriately. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Compare the respect and the lack thereof

IN the article Who is a jew

"Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: ?מיהו יהודי) is a religious, social and political debate on the exact definition of which persons can be considered Jewish. The Hebrew phrase Mihu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?") came into widespread use when several high profile legal cases in Israel grappled with this subject after the founding of the Jewish state in 1948. As Judaism shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion, the definitions of a Jew may vary, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnical approach to identity is used. Throughout the years jews have been characterized in many different lights.

In the article Who is black

This article presents the competing definitions of black people, based on a racial, socio-political, lexical, biological, and other viewpoints. The concept of “black” as a metaphor for race can be traced to the 18th century when Carolus Linnaeus recognized four main races: Europeanus which he labled the white race, Asiatic, which he labled the yellow race, Americanus, which he labled the red race, and Africanus, which he labeled the black race.[1] Gradually the "yellow" and "red" races got lumped together yielding just three races commonly known as mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid[2]. The last term is derived from Negro which is a Spanish adjective for black.[3] Some anthropologists added an Australoid category (which includes aboriginal peoples of Australia along with various peoples of southeast Asia, especially Melanesia and the Malay Archipelago)[4].

Notice the respect given to the Jewish perspective, and the lack thereof given to the Black perspective. No, despite the fact that black people are found in the bible, in ancient dialogue, in historical contexts predating the 18th century, instead, the contributor wants the reader to think that Carolus Linneaus concocted the black race from his imagination, or that blackness is only relevant when it's a metaphor for race (otherwise it's irrelevant to some white people, and therefore irrelevant in reality). Carolus created us black people and not only that, but we must follow along Carolus' imaginations and his postulations as to how we are defined. I'll keep bringing this up until this lie is abandoned by Wikipedia. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dark skin was obviously noticed throughout history, but the concept of race did not exist before several hundred years ago and so Black as an ethnic idenity did not exist. And the reason the article is not called "Who is Black" like the "Who is Jewish" article, is because this article is better than the "who is Jewish" article because it provides a list of cited and varied definitions from people of different races (plus extensive criticism), and thus can have an encyclopedic title. "Who is Black?" is a question, not a title for an encyclopedia artice. "Who is Jewish" should also be changed.__Whatdoyou 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Then change the Jewish article. Use your assumptions that are false and apply them there. This issue is not about race, and in addition the concept of race existed as far back as the pyramids. The concept of race is not uniform, and our present day reliance on some DNA, or skulls to DEFINE it does not mean it was conceived from that. But more importantly, you believe the Jewish article is titled incorrectly? Then change the title to [{Definitions of a Jew]] without hesitation, with the same passion you do here. Do it now. Do not make excuses, do not be a cowardly punk. Do not be a chump. CHANGE IT NOW! In fact, I will copy your comments here, and put them THERE. Let the contributors there respond to you through me, and we will see how much integrity you truly have. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just changed the title to something more encyclopedic. I didn't call it definitions because they don't have definitions in their article.__Whatdoyou 16:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you do not do it yourself, I will change the title and cite you as the reason, copying your own words into the talk page of the Jewish article. And I will cross post between these two articles, having you debate them whether you like it or not. You have 24 hours. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough, you changed it to "Controversies about Jews", change it to "Definitions of Jews". Do not be a coward. "You had no problems with "Definitions" of Blacks. Have no problem with "Definitions of Jews". --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Connect the dots why do you think people like me reject the term with such passion. U r trying to climb the impossible: reverting a word thats root is wrong, how can you put pride in that which has no pride? Thats why the broader the defn the better, then it would reflect that "black" isnt a race but more a social classification born out of racism. I thnk whatdoyou is correct and the defn and critic gives balance. ---Halaqah 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You have no position to determine if it's a concept which has pride or not, and your opinion is yet again arrogant ignorance. The social classification of blackness predated the racism of the west, i've said that and proved that dozens of times. In addition, you are not in the white people article making the same claim, your words do not inflect any passion regarding white people, therefore I conclude you do not in your heart believe in it. Instead I postulate this: I belive you think the world would be a better place for everyone "else" if the black people would simply dissappear and assimilate themselves out of existence. Where the racism and bigotry against us would theoretically dissappear with it, "if only" we would abandon who we are and emulate you and other non-black people. Being proud of being black is not even a question for me, however your arrogant attitude about deciding what and who should and should not exist is a perspective that I will utterly destroy without mercy in this dialogue forever. Halaqah you are the reason that Black people reject you with more passion. In fact your quote from your talk page "I hate dishonesty, I respect a KKK man who believes what he believes from his knowledge before a so-called Pan-African hypocrite who calls for one thing and then does another in full light of the facts." shows me your bias. Because you call a pan-african a hypocrite and you know nothing of that, nor of our experiences. You hate black people, the so called slaves "abed", but your hatred is encapsulated in a philosophy that is designed to "rationalize black people out of existence". I want you to know really clearly, your belief in the dominance of white men in creating and dismantling other people's identities is misguided. There is nothing wrong with blackness as an identity, whether social, ethnic or racial. Even idiots understand that it's not meant to be taken visually literally. The social classification may have been born out of racism, but a lot of social groups are born out of solidarity against oppression, or by even the dominant groups' imposition. Regardless on this day in the 21st century, black people, the black identity has changed and has long been usurped and controlled by the very people who identifies with it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be like me coming at you saying that there should be no arabs, because Arabic is a language and people should not be identified based on the language they speak. (Otherwise you'd include anybody that speaks the language and well we can't do that!) But more importantly, here is your chance to tell the whole world

Why is black identity "wrong".
Why do you feel that it has no pride?

Be a man halaqah, answer these questions. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yawn.__Whatdoyou 16:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here I'll be consistent. You need to sleep, then go to bed. Otherwise we can lock that article too. I'll do the job your too scared and/or lazy to do. Yawwwwn! Both articles will have the same title "Controversies". --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There you go. consistency. We have two articles. Controversy over Jewish Identity and Controversy over Black Identity. I have negative respect for you. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue resolved. This section of the talk page is done. Any changes back to "definitions" will be reverted ad nauseum. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

yawn is right, u r the one argueing for ownership of somethng that clearly you are unable to defend. When were Africans ever black before Europe came? Moreover when did African identify with black b4 this date? Bring one book where African people said "we are black". Maybe you should a. go to Africa or b read a history book. How the hell can you be so proud of being a color, name the other race that is called a color (apart from the ones that call people by color). Man its a shame to see you clinging to a silly concept, Dont you have anything else going for you? Thats why you fight with such emotion because surley you can see it is empty, the problem with you is you have nothing else. Its like finding out Santa Clauses doesnt exist. Look at the entire debate. black is a color what is the dif between black and Negro. I have a website about black people, go and watch the doc and listen to what they call themselves in Spanish "NEGRO" yah dig, because black = negro. Face it you fell for the trick, you dont wanna be Negro so you decided to be black. 40 years later you still aint wake up 2 the reality black = Negro, so why not be proud of negro? anywhere here is the site Black is Negro in spanish. I dont have to dam define why you should be proud of black, i am not black you are!! Ask me why i am proud to be African that is something to answer. Get with the program man. flying off with passion and blindness face it if you say you r black then be proud to be Negro Les Negros. start an all negro site but this is wikipedia---Halaqah 23:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, firstly, the identity of black people is not based on regional affiliation, never has been. Only when the Europeans came did the association strictly with Africa come into play. Now, your Arabic based attitude does not do anything but make you look like an opportunist. I am not interested in your Yemeni "I don't want to be black" responses at this point. Black may be a color, but the "Kushi", "Zanji", "Ayn", "Aeta", and other names certainly sound better and more respectable than "Sub-(missively/humanly) Saharan, or "Negro" (I am not spanish). I have no problem with people in Spanish calling themselves "Negro" because that's the term they use in Spanish. I have a problem with us using it in English, because it's a colloquial word made out of ignorance. African also is born out of a European mindset "Africanus" and I am not going to spend the rest of my life like you are trying to "not be" something in order to make a point that has no point at all. You're misguided and your hatred of blackness is just another version of self-hatred. Yemen?!? give me a break. Why don't you just call yourself "Abed" like the Arabs call you anyway? --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah Arab r u crazy, Arab and black is not the samething. Arabs are from ARABIA, they speak ARABIC. blacks are not from Blackia and they do not speak BLACKITIC, yeah some old timers like to cling on to their slave names, cool, but then stop complaining when Tamils et al are included in the true definition or the mahn defines black for you, he gave you the name. Why did Malcolm, Jesse, John have an issue with the name?---Halaqah 23:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabs are from ARABIA, not the "Arabic republic of" EGYPT, not Iraq, not Syria... not Lebanon! Not Sudan! (thats where the bulk of the Arabic population is counted) You want to make up a problem with the use of black, you try to "find" a logical reason not to have it used with people outside of Africa, so you attack it entirely (throw the baby out with the bathwater). Halaqah, you're annoying, not inspiring. You want to destroy the unity among black people, that's your problem. You want lightskinned Arabs to rule over the darkerskinned Sub-saharans and make a unified Arabic culture in Africa? Whatever your aims are, you're inconsistent and ignorant --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

JEWS, practise JUDAISM, they are from JUDAH. you see the pattern? get on the bus leave the slave name behind.--Halaqah 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How about you get off the bus and leave your slave ass behind? You call me a slave, I call you a slave. Whatever. In the end, you only talk about "not" using a word, not using a name. YOu offer nothing. I am not going to resort to "just using African" when your ultimate goal is to use that to sever any references to black people outside of Africa in this article. (Yes, you forgot what the article is called didn't you). You want to prove that "black" is a bad old slave word? Then go and do that on your own. Why don't you show some consistency and go into the African-American article and remove all references to "Black" and replace it with whatever you want. You don't like "Equatorial" (probably because it shows a relationship to people outside of Africa". in fact, I think, behind your fake pro-black facade, you just want to isolate Black people from the rest of humanity, typical white racist goal. Show some integrity before you come in here trying to sow seeds of chaos. I can see right through it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Make it simple. Change the title into "black identity" SecurID 23:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a little better, but the "people" is important. I don't want any omission of the human aspect of the black identity. Notice by the way that the Jewish article reverted back to the "Who is". --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Equitorial African

Equatorial Africans what is this Equatorial Africans, i meant to ask but i said let me keep quite. Equatorial Africans. Is Ethiopia Equatorial what about Mali? Do u know how cold that place is? Is South Africa "Equatorial" SA just as far from the eq than Algeria. Like Sub (below) Sahara (a desert belt) Africa, makes no sense. but we buy anything they sell us--Halaqah 23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Its simple. When we speak of Africans, its hard to distinguish the "black" ones from the "not-black" ones, when you refuse to use "black" as a term. On a broader scale, it's difficult to distinguish the "black" Asians from the "not-black" asians. Equatorial people are people whom the regions closer to the equator have allowed them to retain their "equatorial" features. This should be especially comfortable for you since you reject the notion of the existence of black people. But anyway, I invented the term... "they" did not give it to me. I prefer "Equatorial" over "SUB" anything. And Halaqah, your "pro-black" rhetoric is not selling me, so why don't you cut the crap. You just sound like EO with the volume turned slightly up. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not pro-Black, I just think the word African is enought. Those Arabs in the North are called North Africans, not Africans. funny some of them do more for African unity than the "equitorials". The whites in the South Are called Europeans in Africa---Halaqah 03:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with using African, but not at the expense of black. This whole thing is ultimately based on whether or not we include some asian ethnic groups as Black. If your whole position is that color labeled ethnicities is inappropriate, fine, I can live with that. But this article only reflects the presence of those identities and the fact is, you can't erase historical facts with "that shouldn't have happened". furthermore and more importantly, you cant ignore the consistent parallels of the Aeta, Africans, and other black people throughout the world. If you won't call them black, then fine, use another word. In the end, the similarities and parallels will not be forgotten! Not on either side of the debate. Not while I'm here. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen i got too many white people i am debating with. fight u another day. I find developing the Ethiopian cusisine page more relaxing---Halaqah 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I supporting that, i am not denying blackness, i accept it as a political term--not a racial one. Thats one view, let everyone have their view. This is the black people article i know. As long as the full pros and cons are aired i have no issue with anyones definition, but it cannot exclude other "black" peoples---Halaqah 03:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why the hell are you arguing against me? I've been trying to INCLUDE other black people (Aeta, Siddi, Sheedi, etc)! --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, please no more off topic ranting about other articles. Any more off topic posts will be deleted. Timelist 16:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Timelist, I didn't know what you were referring to until I saw the edit history. Not only did you delete my posts, but the posts of others as well. Furthermore, you deleted posts that went to the very heart of this topic and certainly showed claritiy in this issue. I am left to conclude that you are working your bias into this, and are determined to "win" your position, by simply erasing my own, and of course the cover up, the legitimizing of the cover up is your statment "no more off topic posts". No, we will not erase anything. You will not get away with this farce. Get back and leave the content here where it stays. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

thats 2 reverts! Timelist, you're violating the rules, expecting the people higher up to support you I assume. Lets see what happens. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

West african type

Listen i am not happy with that Ethiopia thing, how many times do i have to say this. Is anyone supporting me on this? They take this study and broadcast it like it was established fact or the common opinion on Ethiopian people. It causes a serious distortion. Tell that to an Ethiopian they never heard of this stuff. Anyway you going to enjoy this West african type we should add this in (joke) see the section on black people and sports.--Halaqah 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And maybe you dont know but that picture is of OROMO boys, now i am not going to help anyone but Oromo are not considered Habasha so the photo discussing "ethiopia" isnt even showing "pure Ethiopians" the Oromo came from Kenya like 500 years ago. So when you say White features you tricked yourself because thats not who the study is refering to, i think it refers to the Amhara and other "semitic" ethnic groups! --Halaqah 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ethiopian section is very balanced. It makes clear that Ethiopians historically defined the black race and shows the irony of scientists now questioning whether they're black and also includes cited criticism of this by an African American culture critic on the very topic of Ethiopians. Timelist 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see your point and withdraw --Halaqah 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

BLACK PEOPLE IS JUST A TERM PEOPLE USE WHEN THE TRUE TERM IS AFRICAN AMERICAN OR JUST AFRICAN

African is not synonymous with Black. Neither was Aethiop. It meant burnt face. Thus term was applied to many peoples who were seen as darker than reeks, but not neccessarily as dark as people orinally labeled as black. In fact there was even the term Leukaethiop, which literally meant white burnt face. So obviously a burnt face did not always equate to dark skin. Furthermore Aethiopia was not Ethiopia, it was Sudan and south, so using the word to claim all Ethiopians (Not just more recent migrations) is innacurate as they were Abbysinians back then. No, not all Ethiopans see themselves as Black. --Salsassin 14:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Celebrate "Good Times" ZAPH is GONE

Zaph has been blocked indefinitely for misbehavior. I have questions about the legitimacy of this block, but it is great he is gone. He has threatened to return with a completely different writing style, but if he does, I don't think that'll be a problem. Now we can make some progress on this article!

I do believe that he raised some serious issues about the Jewish articles, unfortunately there is an agenda-pushing mafia of editors that makes improving those articles near impossible.

I cant believe they banned him!!! It is funny like or hate there is right and wrong. I bet had he been pushing some other agenda and happen to be of another race, he would still be here. The militancy is only allowed from one end of the race game. And i have noticed that some areas in Wikipedia are off limits to de African (i say no more) i got burnt going into these strange places. Truth is what they allow you to say, go beyond their limits and you are in a world of hurt. Zaph has been slaughtered a reminder for us to know our place, And dont believe the hype about democracy, If Ur African freedom has its limits.---Halaqah 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know about all that. But you have to admit he was not being as cooperative as he could have been. I think he had some good points, but you have to cooperate with others, rather than try to convince them. This is not a debating society. It is an encyclopedia, and for an encyclopedia I think the goals are a bit different. The fighting and nastiness were a bit tedious and counterproductive. If there is no agreement on a subject (and I would claim there was evidence for disagreement here), then the article should reflect that fact so readers can understand the issues. Why try to stamp out the disagreements and confusion that exist? This is not the place for that, even if it were possible (which seems unlikely)--Filll 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He was totally uncooperative. He promised to revert and edit under other names indefinitely. He also filled up talk pages with unending nonsense. But if he agreed to quiet down a little I would sign onto a petition to let him return. (I'd do this for just about anybody if you guys ever find yourself in trouble) CarlosRodriguez 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did. He contributed nothing encyclopedic. And he drove many of the best editors away. It's a shame he wasn't banned long ago. I think many of the admins were afraid to block someone claiming to be black for fear they would look racist. He played the race card almost every time he posted and it worked for a long time, buit eventually someone got tired of his constant personal attacks. Gottoupload 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they blocked him because he discovered errors in the way some pages were allowed to be edited yet other pages were controlled by certain groups. Tom, Dick and Harry can come and edit here, go to another group and c if you can edit their def or history--Halaqah 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolls can try to revert all they want

But all I will do is revert it back. If you have an editin issue state it. Don't just delete whole paragraphs.--Salsassin 17:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And that goes for Carlos Rodriguez, too, w/regard to his blanket reverts done without any attempt at explanation/justification. deeceevoice 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the gallery

Some of the previous versions had some nice pictures that might fit in there. I like that picture of the saint's statue in the German church and the photo of the Egyptian statue showing one black figure and one white figure. Is there any place for those in this article or on an associated page? Also, it would be nice to have a link to that NPR program page with the race quiz that shows how difficult it is to classify people according to race in some cases.--Filll 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The NPR thing sounds interesting, but it sounds better suited to a general discussion of race, rather than an article on "black people," because blackness isn't strictly about race. Never was.deeceevoice 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kobrakid 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"white and civilized." undre warren hardings picture... rewording perhaps in order? Cannibalicious! 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

well just as a reference. That is all. Because to a lot of people, black IS about race (certainly historically it was). Otherwise, why do I hear all this stuff about the "black race"???? There are over 700,000 hits on Google for the phrase "black race". So even if it is complete nonsense (which I sort of lean towards), SOMEONE at sometime clearly equated the two. --Filll 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I tend not to use the word "race," since the notion of race is largely a social, political and economic construct. And when I do use it, I tend to put it in quotes. If an Australian Aborigine, a Sri Lankan, and a Southeast Asian all are considered black by somebody, then clearly, "black" is transcultural and transracial; the term transcends geography, ethnicity and commonly held notions of "race". That is precisely why I have resisted placing this discussion/article under the rubric of "race" and genetics. Blackness preceded modern notions of race, and it certainly preceded genetics.

Furthermore (this is a bit off-point, but it bears mentioning here), some people seem to be laboring under the misconception that "Caucasoid" when applied to certain people of color means "Caucasian." It does not. Caucasians are whites. "Caucasoid" blacks are obviously not white people; they have certain physical characteristics that fall outside the narrow "Negroid" classification, a term which confines itself to some stereotypical physical characteristics of some equatorial African peoples. But, then, the Wolof of Senegal, who very clearly are considered equatorial Africans, have similar faciocranial attributes which anthropologists have used to assign a "Caucasoid" designation to (only some) Ethiopians/Eritreans of the African Horn. And then there are many (not all) Nubians, Somalis, Kenyans, etc. Add to those so-called "Caucasoid" blacks some East Indians, some of whom are among the blackest people you'll ever meet. They have (so-called) "Caucasoid" traits, but very clearly aren't white. In fact, historically, these peoples have commonly been called "black" -- and often in a pejorative manner. "Caucasoid" refers to a set of physical characteristics, and is not a racial classification. deeceevoice 22:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? There's no such thing as black caucasoids. If you are caucasoid then by DEFINITION you are NOT black. Gottoupload 22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Well as far as I know, there is one race of humans on earth at the moment: homo sapiens sapiens, of which we are all members. However, historically the word race was used very differently. And there is copious documentation for that. So please, lets try to write an encyclopedia, not a political diatribe.--Filll 22:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very aware that this is an encyclopedia, so no need to state the obvious. However, the concept of "race" is a discredited one. It serves no purpose to continue to write as though strict racial boundaries still exist -- because they don't. There are populations distinguished by cultural, historical, geographical and physical characteristics they either share in common -- or do not. Relatedness. And that's all genetics can establish -- not "racial" identity.

Finally, yes. Ethnic identity is political; it always has been, at least in part. And properly recognizing that is not engaging in polemics; it is realistically acknowledging that political factors (as well as objective historical factors) also play a huge role in how people define who and what they are and what they call themselves, and how others with the power to define characterize other people. And because people's objective realities are different, people's interests are different, there is rarely a universally agreed-upon standard for the various terms in use. That's simply a fact. deeceevoice 22:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you buy this politically correct propoganda about race being discredited and think there's no point to writing about, then this article needs to be deleted, because the tradition of calling people black, white, yellow, red, and brown started with the concept of race. That is extensively documented. Not sure how you missed it. Gottoupload 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with gottoupload. Even though I think the concept of race is a load of nonsense, that does not mean that it has not had a HUGE influence on the events of the last few hundred years. A person who wants to know what "black people" means will want to know that to understand history and the way the world is and various attitudes. You can try to ignore it, but it is the truth. There are many people who live in places where NO black people exist, or very few. Or no white people. Or no black OR white people. And for someone in a situation like that, they will want to understand what all the fuss is about. If you do not write an honest article that includes ALL points of view, they will get a very limited picture of the world and its history. So that is why I constantly plead to have a broad broad article with many different viewpoints represented, and contrary views, and evidence of disagreement, and inconsistency, and hypocrisy and sheer stupidity (all with references of course). Why? Because THAT is the way humans are and have been for centuries.--Filll 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly a way of writing about the concept of black people as it traditionally and internationally has been understood to be the case, as population groupings which transcend cultural, "racial"/ethnic and geographic distinctions. In fact, the concept of blacks being only Africans and their "modern" descendants is a fairly narrow, provincial view not held in common throughout the Western world, let alone globally -- as this article repeatedly has tried to point out. And, no. Actually, while distinctions always have been made among different peoples, the concept of "race" is a fairly modern one. There were black peoples long before there was any such thing as humanity divided among Mongoloids, Caucasians and Negroes -- and later all the other "oids." deeceevoice 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm begging you to do some reading and not from Afrocentric sources. Read Professor Frank M. Snowden Jr., a very well respected black professor at Howard university who did the most extensive survey of what it meant to be black in the ancient world. He says terms "Kushite", "Nubian", and "Ethiopian" were the closest think the ancient world had to terms like "colored", "black", or "Negro", so obviously long before science formally recognized race, blacks were equated with Africans. Gottoupload 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think I've confined my reading to Afrocentrist sources? I came to Howard University shortly after Snowden left (he wanted the university to be the "black Hahhvahd"), and I'm well acquainted with his work and his focus on the "classics." Yes, the term "black" was equated with Africans in the classical world, but that's still not equivalent to the relatively modern concept of "race." Further -- again -- the term ("black") has been widely applied in a far broader context in the many centuries since. deeceevoice 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And the article extensively documents the broader context its been applied. Read the alternative view points section. The article is excellent and well balanced and I'd hate to see it ruined over such minor disagreements. Gottoupload 01:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up needed

I think it is good but needs to be cleaned up. I spotted little spelling errors like "east Indian" etc. Also the references need to be done better, references should have viewable details, no one should have to click on them to find out where they go. I think in the interest of diversity a diverse image of "black" people should be used and not only the image currently up there, it is not rep of the topic. Pick a diverse range of people it would really help the actual material than the old "image" of blackness---Halaqah 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

wow

It would be nice if the huge amount of new content now at the top/start of the article had references instead of being just a sermon from a soapbox.--Filll 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam? I thought that the early human ancestor was an Eve, not an Adam ???--Filll 21:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

~~This article developed rather quickly into absolute garbage.~~ Look at the huge section about Ethiopia right at the beginning....would anyone (other than perhaps Zaph) consider this a good organization? ~~We have higher standards here than on Afrocentrist blogs. Learn to write!~~ CarlosRodriguez 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility, CR. deeceevoice 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not attacking anyone. He's criticising the article. But I have no problem with Ethiopians at the start because the article is organized chronologically and Ethiopians defined the black race in antiquity and its a good photo to have near the top. Gottoupload 01:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, i think the old material on colonialism or black in ancient sources is needed, you really cant start with Ethiopia. The order needs fixing and some of the old material needs to come back---Halaqah 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ethiopian section discusses blacks in ancient times. It discusses the only reliable source about blacks in antiquity and they were known at Ethiopians. Start at the beginning. Gottoupload 01:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is excellent

It's so well cited, so interesting, so well balanced, telling the complete story of black people in chronological order, shows so many different perspectives from racist theories of the 19th century to Afrocentric scholars of the 21 century to respected black scholars from Howard university, to a ton of diverse definitions of black people, to a fascinating photo gallary that applies those definitions to famous people. This article is so perfect the way it is I just don't want anyone to touch it. Gottoupload 02:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I touched it. The references appeared like: [[1]], [[2]], and I changed them so a reader can at least have a clue what sort of site he is being sent to. There were also problems with whether " marks should include the ^[1] (cite which sends the reader to the reference list) or the " not include the ^[1] and just include the quote which the cite is to. Wikipedia:Footnotes (shortcut WP:FN) tells how to do this and WP:CITE can also be helpful. I went through it and (hopefully) improved it. I should also point out that several of the links are dead links and should point out that several links point to personal opinion on personal websites (a no-no according to WP:RS). Happy Ho Ho's Terryeo 08:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Style question: Are terms such as caucasoid, africoid or australoid capitalized or not? It's not consistent within the page.SecurID 06:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article is looking nice. I still think at least 3 images should be used at the beginning to fit the "diverse" theme of the article. but the topic has come a long way, i hope it stays that way, because i walk away and come back and it gets turned inside out. English rules say you capitalize names, i have argued that black be capitalized to distinguish it from the color. how for example do you say a black man made a black comedy. Many situations arise where not capitalizing Black causes issues. But Africoid and Caucasoid have to be capitalized.---Halaqah 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is nothing of the sort (excellent); it's racism at work

It is riddled with POV. The black editors have been effectively driven off, blocked for clearly intemperate remarks (Zaph), or locked out of participation by repeated tag-team edit warring -- block reverts of new material with lame excuses that wouldn't hold up if applied equally to other (read "non-black") editors. These automatic reverts include reinsertion of blatantly erroneous material, misspellings, problems with syntax and capitalization. deeceevoice 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand, so you can fix the grammar issues. After that what is the problem? I see a very general POV, rnt both sides sorted? You should explain what you see as wrong.--Halaqah 10:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So now I have your permission to fix the "grammer issues"? "After that, what's the problem?" What a joke. You clearly have a problem with even my corrections of grammar, syntax and spelling -- forget the wrong sh*t -- because you and your cronies block reverted every f***ing thing I contributed. After you (and your henchmen) repeatedly reverted my corrections wholesale with inane excuses? And one of you has the nerve to visit my user page and tell me to take a break from editing because "Your edits aren't helping"?!!! And that's followed up by a warning to me about edit warring?

Aw, yeah. Sho', massuh. I's gon' do jes' whut y'all sez.

I'm not explaining jack. There's a double standard at work here. I make edits based on the information provided, but I have to run every, single, niggling change by you guys first? I need your permission? But white editors are free to edit at will, making all sorts of changes in content and structure without any attempt at a meaningful edit note or so much as a kiss my a** on the discussion page? And now you have the nerve to pat each other on the back, congratulating each other on what a great job you've done! You're dreaming. This article is a classic example of what is so reprehensible about Wikipedia: white people writing about their distorted notions of black people, including all the ignorance and misinformation/disinformation they care to insert, citing a rabid racist like Blumenbach like his antiquated notions are f***ing gospel -- and too arrogant to even read the changes and corrections made by others before they mindlessly obliterate them. *x* deeceevoice 10:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you could be talking to me, I have no idea what you are on about, I havent blocked you, i actually dont understand your issue with the article. I have never been to your user page, and i havent asked you not to stop editing. I have argued against the banning of zaph, I think you need to calm down and explain the issues, maybe then others, like me, would see your point(s) and argree. --Halaqah 10:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Deeceevoice for 24 hours so she can calm down a bit. — Matt Crypto 11:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That his edits [1] were reverted [2][3] had nothing to do with racism. It had everything to do with striving for accuracy. And he violated the 3RR rule. SecurID 12:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I somehow had the impression that Deeceevoice was female...anyway I understand that he or she is upset with the text they produced getting constantly removed. I think it should be included, although not necessarily on this page. And it needed more references. There is so much material that I would argue for us taking over a family of pages, all linked, to explore different aspects of this question. There is a LOT of controversy and disagreement, and a reader is going to want to understand it...........However, let me ask. Should we include that picture of the black saint statue in germany or the picture of the two egyptian figures on the throne, one dark one light? --Filll 14:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you say "there's so much material" one more time I'm gona start screaming. There are so many OPINIONS but there is very little encyclopedic material. In fact normal encyclopedias don't even have articles on "black people". They have articles on "negroids" which many would say is the same thing, but not black people per se. The only reliables sources on black people in the ancient world are covered in the Ethiopia section and it essentially all comes from one black professor who is known as the leading authority on how blacks were defined in the ancient world. There's also a few religous scriptures that no one can agree on the interpretation of. After that it's just a matter of how the black race was defined in the enlightenment and various racialist and afrocentric theories that followed. Timelist 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess we might have a difference of opinion. However, I would say that is a lot of stuff, if it is properly developed. I would want to see

historical backgrounds of groups called black by neighbors in asia, africa, europe, the americas
groups that call themselves black historically
age of enlightenment racial theories
DNA studies
melanin "science"
black movements in the US
afrocentrist and black consciousness movements
religious scriptures
different definitions
trivia
controversies

And in my book, that adds up to a LOT of stuff. I am not sure how easy it would be to do with good references etc...--Filll 02:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of those topics are already summarized in this article. If any one section gets too long it can always branch out into its own main article where the specific topic is covered in more depth, but that would require a lot more references. Timelist 02:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree.--Filll 02:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Egyptians picture would get my vote, I would love to see what Deeceevoice is saying, can someone post it in the disucssion, i rather have a polite agreement. i wouldnt exaggerate the controversy because the article reflexs or is starting to reflect a diverse view-point, you have put all the def, people who oppose the term, so what more can be done?--Halaqah 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put back the Ethiopian picture

I have noticed the topic has one single woman representing the "black" topic. I have put another diverse image up there, it has been removed--AGAIN. The article reflects diversity, take an alien vantage point on it. 1st thing show the diversity at the top. Why have that image, is she the symbol of "blackness" or an "average" black person?--Halaqah 12:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And those references still need to be cleaned up---Halaqah 12:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have an large image of a group of Ethiopians at the top since Ethiopians are the first section and we have an Ethiopian in the gallary too, and having 2 images of Ethiopians right at the top would be too much. I understand that a single West African woman can not represent all of black people, however the solution is not to add yet another Ethiopian or to cluter the intro with too many photos. I think the best thing would be to replace the West African image with a single image of a group of different kinds of black people all standing together. The problem is most images of many black people standing together usually only include the same type of black people. In the Irish people article they have a collage as their opening photo to show the different types. I'm sure similar collages exist for black people, but finding them may take time. Timelist 14:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good idea!!!! lets do that---Halaqah

Okay I have done it, i hope everyone likes it----Halaqah 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I like it very much. That's exactly the kind of thing I was imagining. Now the article is perfect! Timelist 14:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Halaqah!SecurID 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Category question

Should this perhaps be in the newly created Category:Words referring to ethnic groups rather than Category:Ethnic groups? It seems to be about the term, not about an ethnic group as such. - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been the problem from the get-go. Black has several meanings. An ethnic meaning which refers to people of African ancestry, a descriptive meaning (any dark skinned person), and a political meaning (not used as frequently today) which is as a term that all non-whites used to united against racism. People could never agree on which definition this article should focus on so instead it focues on the history of how the term was used. Timelist 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a "problem" for an article to be about a term. That's probably a much more valid article topic than any other I could imagine here. Blackness (applied to people) is a social construct, no? Anyway, sounds like I was right about which category to place it in, I'll do that. - Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My edit

My only change was to separate the term "Ethiopian" and the actual peoples called "Ethiopian." The two have distinct meanings and the genetics of Ethiopians is not central to this debate, so it has no job being the first paragraph of the article. The term "Aithiope," or "Aethiope," however, is relatively important so can be put at the top. Other than that, I simply removed an image of the Sahara with an incorrect caption, as supra-Saharan and sub-Saharan peoples are connected by the PN2 clade, especially through E3b (which originated in the Horn of Africa [sub-Saharan Africa in case some of you have forgotten]). Moreover, Paternal J and maternal U lineages are also found south of the Sahara, so it doesn't work as a genetic argument. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But the term aethiope if I'm not mistaken was introduced by 20th century anthropologist Carleton S. Coon to describe Caucasoid/Congoid hybrids, so as someone pointed out, it really has no relevance in a section describing how the ancients percieved blacks of which the Ethiopians were the best known. And as for the Sahara desert, all human populations are related however many genetecists believe that sub-Saharans form their own genetic cluster. Others may disagree, but those who disagree also disagree that there's any such thing as the black race on the genetic level, and that photo was used to describe those who do believe in a black race. Also when you reorganized things, you moved part of the discussion about black historian Frank M. Snowdento to the biology section which didn't make any senseTimelist 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the Frank Snowden part, it was not my intention to move it to the genetics section, but the term Aethiope was not introduced by Coon. You may be talking about the term "Ethiopid," but I believe that is actually a later term. The term "Aithiope" dates to the mid-1st millenium BC and was in use in Greece (cf., e.g., Memnon, the Ethiopian) to refer to Kush, or more generally Africa outside of (generally south of) Egypt, or all black people (some ancestors of the berbers were called Leukoaithiopes, e.g., meaning "white burnt-faces," or "white blacks"). It only barely meant Ethiopian in the modern sense ("Sudan" would be closer to its original meaning). Geneticists do not believe that sub-Saharan populations have a single cluster. There are a number of clusters, from Horn Africa, to West African, Pygmy, Khoisan (South African), Nilotic (East African), etc. No one said that those who disagree with such a dichotomy between supra-Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa don't believe in the existence on the genetic level, and unless you provide evidence of such, you should not assume it. My changes are relatively slight, simply breaking down two disparate concepts (Greek Aithiope vs. Ethiopians [people]) with differing importance to the subject matter (the genetic makeup of Ethiopians is not essential to the definition of black people and shouldn't be the first paragraph). You may like the Sahara picture, but the picture being nice doesn't justify its presence (nor the reversion of all of my changes). It must be relevant, and without a citation for the claim made in the caption, it should be removed. The Sahara was actually often traversed in past times (and still today); it was not much of a barrier. Here's one professor's comments on the situation (and his comments on the teaching situation):

Few American, and certainly no African universities continue to divide their African history general survey geographically. While a north-south division may have some validity in contemporary political studies, it is not given wide currency in historical analyses. Most historians of prehistoric, ancient or precolonial Africa contend that the Sahara was more a bridge than barrier, and contact more the norm than isolation. Furthermore, thorughout the great expanse of human history, similar social processes were underway both north and south: hunting and gathering, the transtition to agriculture, state formation, long-distance trade, religious conversion, and so forth. Such themes are best dealt with together, is a single unit, rather than dispersed between two regional courses.

I am reverting back until you provide some better reasons (since Coon did not introduce the term, e.g.) and some citations. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But you appear to be overlooking some crucial points. It was primarily horn Africans who the ancient Greeks had the most contact with so it was people related to ethiopians (as we know them today) who represented black people in the ancient world. Yes the term was also used more broadly, but Snowden's book is based on the role of horn Africans (or relatives like Kush) in showing the ancient world what black people are about. Thus it's legitimate to discuss Ethiopian genetics in that section to avoid 2 Ethiopian sections & that way we'll have the Ethiopian photo at the top and wont need the extra one. As for sub-Saharan genetic cluster, read the actual defininitions in the section and go to the race article and read the section called Jensen's views on race for citations. Recent studies may contradict these views, but those views still exist and are at least historically interesting, if not correct. Also, if you believe that Horn Africa, West African, Pygmy, Khoisan (South African), Nilotic (East African) are all independent clusters, instead of subclusters of a larger African cluster, than how can you believe that the black race exists on the genetic level. Instead you'ld argue that the race now called black is not a race at all, but many separate races. So the Sahara desert image is to show the perspective of those who do believe that all the black ethnicities of Africa form a black race. Timelist 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read Diop "cultural unity of black Africa" i think you will find that African people are a wide group of different ethnic groups who share something hence they are all grouped as African, i think they are different but the same, and what they share is they are native to Africa. Remember race is a social idea, it isnt real, you could say ethiopians and hausa are related but bantu people are a different race, depends on how you look at it. I avoid the word black i just say native African people and that includes all the sub-clusters.--Halaqah 10:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes we know that culturally all sub-Saharan Africans are related; Yom and I were just discussing if genetically sub-Saharans qualify as a single race. I don't know if they do or don't, but it's a common opinion cited by the definitions given in the biology section as well as the citations in the race article. Timelist 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

issue with wording

The concept of black identity has been traced to the ancient Greeks and Romans who labelled dark skinned peoples from North East Africa as "Kushite", "Nubian", and "Ethiopian" and to early biblical writings equating blackness with servitude.

Black identity and people being called black is two different things. It can only be called a BLACK IDENTITY if the people self-use these terms. that what "black identity" means. Today "black identity" exist but no African identified with this term during Greeks and Romans. The Bible equating blackness with servitude is very loaded because the Bible also Equates Ethiopia with greatness. So back to why i have issues with "black" in the first place. The Bible is talking about "black" or "African people" when you put it there is seems to refer to African people.--Halaqah 10:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cut this

The term "black" was soon replaced by "negro" but by the 1970s African-Americans reclaimed the term "black" as did segments of other non-white populations who shared in their struggle with racism. By the end of the 20th century, advances in modern genetics suggested that Africa was the birth place of modern humans, causing many people to declare that blacks are the original race.

It doesnt below in an intro, it is a Pan-Americanism, it gives central focus to an American experience. It belongs in the relevant section. Also the intro should be concise. And it should be like the article--universal.--Halaqah 10:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But African-Americans have popularized the term black in the modern world and deserve credit for this. I agree the intro should be concise but it should also give an overview of the article that follows and the main stages in the history of black identity are the ancient world where Ethiopians and the Bible defined blacks, followed by the enlightenmnet which came up with the concept of a black race, followed by African Americans and other people of colour reclaiming the term in the 1970s, followed by modern science hinting that blacks are the original race. These are all major developments, major chapters in the article, and thus give the reader a good overview. Timelist 14:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it too specific and it an over view is to be given it should be broader, touching the more general chapters. I still find it strange to see a topic about ethiopia starting the chapter, I think Black in ancient times would be a better header. I actually liked the older historical intro. The Ethiopia bits focuses it down to one group of people.-- Halaqah 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And you need references you just cant start the topic without some references---Halaqah 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But the references say that Ethiopians are the historical background so it must be focused on them if we want to correctly record history. According to Snowden's book, the reason that blacks had a good reputation in the ancient world was because the only blacks the ancient world knew were the highly cultured Ethiopians. It wasn't until other parts of Africa were discovered did the reputation of black people decrease. Timelist 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

that is an intresting way of putting it. anyway i tried to clean up some references so you have full details prior to clicking it. we need to use full ref so; date, publisher, et al can be seen. references 28-30 are all a mess. And yes i think Black should be Black and not black Black or black--Halaqah 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So one might infer that "white" should be replaced with "White". I am very uncomfortable with using "White" as a term, and I am not quite sure why. It sort of smacks of elitism. But I am just confused in general so I will go along with whatever you feel strongly about. I think the afrocentrists (who were so angry and strident before; where are they now?) should develop their views in a separate article that could be linked here. Even though I have my doubts about some of what they say, I think they should explain their platform extensively someplace so people can understand it. --Filll 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I also would like a more extended discussion of why all humans were originally black, or why it is thought that the ancestors of all current humans are thought to be black. Sort of a combination of genetic bottleneck with geographical location and climate with whte skin mutation. On another page, linked here, so this article does not get cluttered up and too long. --Filll 19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph and Deeceevoice weren't afrocentricists. Just the opposite. They appeared to be aphrophobic since they felt that equating blackness with their African ancestry was an insult to black people, and thus prefered to self-identify with dark skinned people of non-African ancestry who do not share their racial or ethnic group. What an incult to the African race that some of their own people would rather self-identify with other ethnicities since they don't take any pride in their African ancestry. Such Afrophobic racism will not be missed. And as much as I like the image that Halagah created, I was a bit disturbed to see so many borderline black people in it (i.e. those who have so much Caucasoid or proto-Caucasoid ancestry, that they might actually be more caucasoid than negroid). I hope it was because he was just trying to show diversity. I would hate to think that's there are any black people left here who are ashamed of the hard-core pure negroids. Gottoupload 23:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I just like diversity, no one is more or less "black" because they have light skin or curly hair. Thats the slant. the myth of "black" looking a certain way needs to die. Its not that these people arent beautiful but why limit a race into narrow views. Amhara woman is pure African and vanessa williams isnt mixed either. Hence i have to disagree with any notion of "pure" because many Africans look "borderline" and are 100% African while some dark ("negroid looking") brothers in the usa who are 80% African 20% European.--Halaqah 00:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't want to get into an off-topic debate, but Amharas are most certainly NOT pure African (they have SUBSTANTIAL West Asian ancestry, at least 40% and much more for those living in Northern Ethiopia), and even much of the part of them that is indigenous to Africa, is classified as non-African by genetecists. It's very common to hear geneticists call Ethiopians the only non-African race that never left Africa. Gottoupload 00:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should stop before it starts again. there is good reason why people make up those stories, dig and you will find why they say Amhara arnt African and it has nothing to do with their genes, but more their accomplishments (see previous discussions). i find it strange or a conflict in reason that a genetecist should be left to classify race, since race is anything but genetic. 30% of rwanda look like Ethiopians, most of Niger have the same apperance. what about Somalia, what about Fulani. My background in ethnic class finds that the "Ethiopian type" is not limited to Ethiopia. So i guess all these people are non-African. Most AA are then not African at all. moving on.--Halaqah 01:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Most AA are over 80% African genetically. But yes, let's move on. Gottoupload 01:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is why I am totally confused. How on earth can there be "nonAfrican" people who never left Africa? This just sounds like tautological arguments and word games. This all makes my head spin. What the heck then is an "African person"??? What is a nonAfrican person?? I thought we ALL were descended from African people, at least as far as we know. Every single human being alive on planet earth has African ancestors, as far as we know and what our current scientific consensus tells us. And what about the Lemba, who look like their neighbors in the Kalahari, but genetically are far closer to Jews than the Falasha (from Ethiopia I think) and even many Ashkenazi Jews (I probably spelled that wrong). This sort of nonsense is why I get disgusted with the concept of race, and why anthpology has moved on from previous racial classification systems.--Filll 04:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I wasn't going to get into this discussion but you raise some interesting questions: "non-African that never left Africa" is just a provocative of way of claiming that some segments of the population that stayed in Africa (i.e. elongated Africans) are genetically part of the population that branched out of Africa and into the middle East to become caucasoid. In other words, some believe that based on genes and skulls, elongated Africans should be grouped with caucasoids who define the Middle East and Europe, instead of the negroid populations that define sub-Saharan Africa. Hence, the argument goes, they are Africans who are out of place in Africa, and really belong with the non-Africans. Similarly, Afrocentricists argue that Australoids are really Africoid, and so even though they're part of the population that left Africa, based on physical appearance, they should be grouped with Africans. Timelist 05:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh brother. I need an aspirin. So somehow we have some very specialized idea about what a "real" african should look like??? Man oh man this is twisted.--Filll 05:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a certain way MOST Africans look and there's a certain way MOST Arabs/Europeans look. Some people have argued that elongated Africans look more like most Arabs/Europeans and so should be racially classified with them. Others argue that they look more like other Africans, and should be grouped with Africans. In any biological classification system there's going to be grey areas and ambiguity. Race is no exception. Timelist 05:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A GOOD IDEA

You see the Jewish page has a big side board with all related articles, i think it would be a good idea to do something like that. So the culture the music can all come together. just like for African-American. Or has it been done already?--Halaqah 01:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I'm starting the process of trying to clean the citations of this article, most of which are currently nothing more than blind URLs. So far, I've found one very weak citation. Several statements (such as "some scientists argue that Ethiopians resemble Caucasoids more than Negroids" are cited to http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/ethiopians.html. Racial Reality is a personal web site. It points to some interesting materials, and we would do well to follow up to its sources and cite them, but at least some of what it contains is quite outdated. For example, the photos of Ethiopians described on this page as "Racial Types" are from Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe. Coon's views were pretty discredited by the end of his own lifetime, let alone now. Much of what the page contains looks good, and worth following up, but that follow-up really should happen, rather than citing someone's personal website. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Carleton Coon was discredited is not relevant. He played a major role in how a lot of people viewed black people so he's of historical interest. This article cites all kinds of opinions about who is black including by fringe Afrocentrists, and there are no right or wrong answers, just different ways black people have been defined, percieved, and socially constructed. Timelist 06:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I should be removed immediately if it has no source already it has caused disagreement, it is a silly statement. I will remove it if you are saying the reference is bad. and yes it is a silly reference as many Caribbean, Nigerians Niger people, Rwanda people, Masai have the same skull shape, esp Fulani people.--Halaqah 11:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Every statement in the article is silly to someone or has caused disagreement with someone. Let's just show all sides and not censor anything. Plus there is criticism that directly follows those statements that will make less sense if those statements are gone. You've raised this issue ten times now and I'm really getting tired of you saying something should be removed just because you find it silly and offensive. You're starting to remind me of the person who keeps trying to censor Snowden's controversial view that the ancient Egyptians were Eththiopians. Again, everything in this article will be offensive to someone since race is a very sensetive topic. Timelist 17:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have formatted the citations per MOS where applicable. Some of the given sources are not appropriate (eg. ref. to a school essay and a bulletin board - which I have removed). There are also citations that refer to the opinions of non-notable persons, published on personal websites, ~~as well as an obscure publication, A Mirror to Nature by a certain Knudson~~ (Knudtson was misspelled, the book is now properly referenced). There are more examples of mediocre references which should probably be removed--Ezeu 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be too picky about references, because if we only cite mainstream sources, the article will simply reflect the dominant culture from which blacks have been excluded. Timelist 20:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is paramount that we use references from notable sources. Not only will that save us from the petty bickering that results from citing obscure sources, but it is also Wikipedia policy to cite reliable published sources.--Ezeu 21:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not as if there is not an extensive literature on race by Blacks, arguably extending clear back to slave narratives, but well established by a century ago (consider W.E.B. Dubois), and including Malcolm X and bell hooks (and the Afrocentrists. I could list a dozen more, but, Timelist, there is no excuse for saying that the only place to get a black point of view on the matter is someone's personal web page or blog. - Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice image up for deletion

It seems most of you like the image i flung together, it came from images i could find on wikipedia, so i assumed it would be "legal" however Mr Strotha seems to follow all of my additions around (because i had to put him in his place once) suggesting them for deletion. I cannot see how grouping images together could violate wikipedia policy. And i think this image is a suit all solution,--Halaqah 11:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Most image licenses prohibit copying and modification the way you did. This is especially the case with fair use images. To create a "legal" composite of images, check the images at Wikimedia Commons, as most of them are free for modification and distribution - but make sure to note in the description which images (and the link to them) you have used to make your composite. There are enough images of black people at Commons, so there is no need to use fair use images. You may find some at commons:Category:Africans, commons:Category:African Americans & commons:Category:People by country. If you absolutely must use the images in the current composite, post the links to the images you have used, so that we can create a table-based composite instead. --Ezeu 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

yes that is good advice---Halaqah 14:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Timelist, references need to be formatted properly. What do you have against that? Looks like you are itching for a revert war when you cannot even allow normal cleanups and regular page formatting. --Ezeu 17:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The first time you had done it you left ugly red gibberish all over the article and appeared to have removed info that was sourced. The second time you did, things look much better, and the reference section now looks excellent. I'm bit worried that people will mercilessly remove statements that you've requested better references for before I have a chance to find better references, as I expect to be quite busy this week. Timelist 17:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was a tag error that caused some ugly page rendering. I apologise for that. The references that I removed (and tagged as "citation needed") were unverifiable because the linked websites were broken. If someone removes those statements, you could always re-insert them when you find the apporpriate sources. No loss. --Ezeu 18:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this racist?

This section was removed:

nterpreting such findings, in 1993, black nationalists stated "white people are genetic mutations of black people. Only black women can claim all the genetic material necassary to create other races"^[1]. Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of Islam echoes such themes: "The original man, Allah, is none other than the black man. The black man is the first and last, marker and owner of the universe. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people."^[1]

However J. Phillipe Rushton of the university of Western Ontario argues that because blacks were indeed the first race to branch off the human evolutionary tree, they are primarily superior in primitive traits like size of genitalia, salience of muscles and buttox, and reproductive output, but lag behind when it comes to more evolved traits like brain size and social organization, especially when compared to orientals, who Rushton believes evolved most recently in a challenging ice age environment. "One theoretical possibility," said Rushton, "is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others."^[2]

While Rushton's views are extremely controversial, Afrocentric scholars, black supremacists, racialist scholars, and mainstream scientists all increasingly agree that modern humans come from Africa. Nathan Hare suggests the following anthem:

"I, the Black Man, am the original man, the first man to walk this vast and imponderable earth. I, the black man, am an Africa, the exotic, single, quintesence of a universal blackness...the first truly human being the world has ever known."^[1]

I do not understand why this is "racist". It is controversial, yes, but is it racist?--Filll 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that black people have some right to be the "owner of the universe" is as racist as saying that white people have a right to be "owner of the universe". However, the main problem with this passage is the way it jumbles up idological assertions with science, as though "mainstream scientists" would support nonsensical statements like the claim that "the black man" is "the first truly human being the world have ever known". The earliest human beings are no more related to modern black populations than to any other population. To claim that they are is to self-destructively assert that modern black people have not moved on in any way from our earliest ancestors. That's exactly what Victorian racists said. Paul B 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Did the Victorian racists say that? I though the idea originated with Rushton. Prior to Rushton and the African Eve hypothesis the racialist thinking by Coon was that whites were the first to become human and thus were superior. Anyway, mainstream science believes that modern humans evolved in Africa nd thus black are arguabley more similar to the first modern humans. Folks like Rushton interpret this to mean that blacks are genetically primitive but black supremacists use it to argue that blacks are superior. Let's jsut show all sides and not censor anything. Makes for a far better article. Timelist 18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All sides should be shown. I agree with Timelist. This passage might not be the best written or most scholarly, but I think that there are several things that are clear to me:

most scientists appear to believe that homo sapiens sapiens arose in Africa
the survivors of at least one genetic bottleneck, the one 200Ky BPE (the "Mitochondrial Eve") lived in Africa. I believe there was at least one other genetic bottleneck where the survivors also lived in Africa, but I have to check this.
environmental pressures of living in Africa at roughly its current tectonic position and current climate encourage the survival of dark skinned individuals

Therefore, the humans walking the earth today were descended from dark skinned forebearers. Is this a racist statement? I do not believe it is. It is just a statement of the current dominant scientific theories. Now afrocentrists and others might extrapolate from this in all kinds of crazy ways (and these should be included as well for completeness, as timelist advocates). Just because they are crazy and extremist does not mean we should ignore them. The reader will want to have access to ALL the information, so why should we censor it? We should just document it.--Filll 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Equating black people to "dark skinned forebearers" is racist. Black people are homo sapiens sapiens, not dark skinned humanoid apes from which all people evolved. --Ezeu 06:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What on earth? Who said ANYTHING about humanoid apes? That is a ludicrous statement, I am sorry. I could come down on you like a ton of bricks, but in the interests of comity, I will hold back. I will note that you are very sadly mistaken. Our human ancestors 60,000 years ago and 200,000 years ago, which were two of the prominent genetic bottlenecks that I recall, were NOT humanoid apes. Do you honestly think they were? When in your opinion did the homo sapiens sapiens species emerge? Please try to educate yourself a little so you can make positive contributions to this effort. So you think that having dark skin is a bad thing? If that is true that even noticing or mentioning that one human has darker skin than another, then this article and many others like it should be deleted in the interests of being color blind and nonracist. So I guess you want to suggest that the ancestors of all humans had white skin, even though they came from Africa, and to say otherwise is racist? Let's put it to a vote and discussion and see if everyone else here agrees with you. If most people agree that noticing that one person has darker skin than another is racist, then I propose that this article be deleted and I will look for others to suggest for deletion as well. This is why this article had such trouble getting written. It is very easy to play the race card and charge others with racism.--Filll 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I might note that ALL humans are primates. ALL humans are animals. ALL humans are evolved from other primates, as near as we can determine. Evolution uses the processes of natural selection and mutation to create new species, over a long enough period of time. If humans were created by evolution, then we are the result of mutations and natural selection that occured in our forebearers. Genetic differences among humans is about 0.1% at most, but the genetic difference between any human and our nearest primate relatives is about 2%. Look at a chimpanzee and a black man and a white man. Use your eyes. Do the men not look more similar to each other than to the chimp? There might be some minor characteristics in which either the black man or the white man might be closer to the chimp. The white man might have more hair like the chimp and the white man's hair might be straight like the chimp. The black man might have a skin color closer to that of the chimp. The white man might have a posture more like the chimp and musculature more like the chimp. Maybe the black man has eye color more like the chimp. Does this mean that the black man is closer to the chimp? Does this mean that the white man is closer to the chimp? Of course not. These are superficial differences which are pretty meaningless. You might just as well say that the white man is closer to a white koi fish and the black man is closer to a black koi fish. That is silly and a completely useless viewpoint.--Filll 14:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Suppose that it is stated that white skin is part of a genetic mutation (as many state). Does this mean whites are more evolved and further from our primate forebearers? No it does not. Aborigines supposedly are descended from a group that left Africa earlier than other groups. You think that somehow magically evolution stopped operating as soon as they left Africa? Mutations continued. Natural selection continued. They are just as "evolved" as any other human. Their environment selected for different characteristics than other environments. So what? Skin color is a very minor characteristic that can obviously change in just a few generations from environmental pressures and interbreeding. Look at the Lemba, who are genetically Jewish. Do they look different than their neighbors in the Kalahari? Nope (the Falasha from Ethiopia, look more Jewish, but in fact are further away genetically). How long did that take? Three or four thousand years at most. Look at many of the light skinned African Americans in the US. Some of them are SO light skinned they are lighter than most Europeans. How long did that take. A few hundred years at most. Claiming that being dark skinned is less evolved or makes an individual closer to our genetic ancestors is ridiculous. Where is the proof of that? I would prefer to use something that is a little more solid, like genetic distance. And as far as I know, there is NO evidence that Africans are closer genetically to chimpanzees than Europeans. Show me a solid reference that demonstrates this, and I will change my stance. Otherwise, consider me from Missouri; the show-me state.--Filll 14:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ezeu disdn't say black people were closer to apes, but including a quotation that equates modern black people with the earliest human beings does imply that. In reply to an earlier point, early anthropologists did assume that the earliest humans were white, but it was very common by the mid 19th century to argue that black people were closer, by anthropometric measures, to apes. That then developed into the theory that they were stuck at some earlier stage of evolution. By the way, chimps actually have white skin - or most of them do, there are black skinned varieties. It's just that it's covered in black hair so you can't see that they're whities. Paul B 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But Paul Afrocentricists don't see it that way. They see blacks as the first MODERN humans, not as the LAST primitive humans. The whole point of the African Eve hypothesis was to show that all modern humans shared a common ancestress who was so recent that all races are modern humans, and blacks are the first of these recent modern humans. Only Rushton uses the theory to imply that blacks are the primitive race and Orientals are an advanced race. Most racialist theories were demolished by the Out of Africa model because it showed that contrary to what Coon thought, humans became fully modern very recently in Africa, and only after becoming fully modern did we divide into different races. Timelist 18:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then does stating that humans are descended from people who lived in Africa imply that the people who currently live in Africa are closer to our primate ancestors? To some it does, and it should be noted that it does. To some it did, as Paul B notes, and it should be noted that it did. However, modern genetics does not confirm this, as far as I understand. There are indeed primates with dark skin and primates with light skin, and primates with dark hair and primates with light hair. None of that really demonstrates that a dark or a light skinned human is closer to a primate ancestor. Genetic studies show that both of those viewpoints are sort of silly. If Afrocentrists and others have some other theories, then these theories should be included. Just striking things out as racist is not helpful. As I said before, if you wanted to be aggressive you could remove all articles that discuss race in any way as racist, including this article--Filll 18:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference DSouza was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Knudtson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society (p. 163), Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)

[DSouza-1] Cite error: The named reference DSouza was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Knudtson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society (p. 163), Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)

[1]

[2]