Talk:Negroid/Archive 5

New image

File:Congoid.GIF

(Image has been deleted because it wasn't PD-Sudan anyway) Carleton S. Coon's example of a "Congoid", a Shilluk woman from Sudan. From "The Origin of Races", 1962.

This image was used by anthropologist Carleton S. Coon as an example of the "Congoid" type, which is synonymous with Negroid. The photo was taken in Sudan, and is now in the public domain according to Sudanese laws. Funkynusayri 13:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OR. Muntuwandi 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• It is in the book, "Origin of Races" by Coon according to this[3]. Check the book out or assume some good faith. Funkynusayri 22:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this image before, this article is not about congoid according to the discredited anthropologist Carleton Coon. Muntuwandi 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Congoid is synonymous with Negroid. It even redirects here. Funkynusayri 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• No it is not synonymous with negroid. It is construction of Coon, he is the only scientist who uses the term. It redirects here out of convenience. Muntuwandi 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Explain why it is not synonymous with Negroid. Coon used it as a synonym. Funkynusayri 22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Historical_definitions_of_race#Carleton_Coon.27s_Racial_Definitions. I can see you have reenergized yourself for this senseless and racist campaign. Muntuwandi 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what your point with that link is. And I would prefer that you didn't attack me by calling me a "racist". This article is about a historical term. No one "re-energized", I simply discovered that this image was in the public domain, and that it would be perfect for this article, as it can be verified that it was used as an example for the metrical type this article is about. From the original "Congoid" article: Congoid was used instead of Negroid by controversial anthropologist Carleton Coon in some versions of his classification of humanity into five races, the other four being Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid, and Capoid. Funkynusayri 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

this article is not about Coon, We know that his theories were racist. Why should we want to propagate them. WP:DUCK If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.Muntuwandi 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• This article is about a term, which you might claim to be racist (POV), but anyhow, the picture illustrates the term, and Wikipedia isn't censored, so I don't see the problem. Funkynusayri 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SYN Coon et. al, re: Congoloid = Negroid, and WP:OR. I can't believe you're back again with this bollocks. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Heh, I see you didn't resign after all, Jeeny. Welcome back.

Please explain what Congoid means in itself, if it isn't simply synonymous with "Negroid". It is to Negroid what "Europoid" is to Caucasoid, simply an alternate term which means the same. Funkynusayri 02:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what it means, but I assume it is some classification of peoples originating from the Congo region. Just because the Congo region is in Sub-Sahara Africa does not mean an image of a woman from that area should represent the term "Negroid". Negroid is an outdated term. Using an image of a real person, dead or alive, is OR, therefore, not appropriate to this article. As I've said before, and many others have too.... use a skull or some illistration, if an image is needed. One person does not repressent the outdated classification of Negroid. Having the image of a person, especially one who resembles many people alive and well today is not appropriate nor accurate. Oh, I'm still "resigned", but there is more than one meaning to that word. Take your pick. :) Get it? ~Jeeny ^(talk) 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see some sources for this statement, so it can be integrated into this article. The "historical use" section is a horrible stub at the moment. --Haemo 02:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, which statement, mine or Funkynusayri's? (The indent, or lack thereof, makes it difficult to determine what you are asking for.) Thanks :) ~Jeeny ^(talk) 02:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The ident, or lack thereof, is supposed to imply I'm asking Funkynusayri. Sorry for any confusion. --Haemo 06:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, "Congoid" doesn't strictly mean someone from the Congo region, just as "Caucasoid" doesn't strictly mean something from the Caucasus. It's just an alternate name Carleton Coon used instead of Negroid in his later works, thus including the image is hardly "original research", as a well known anthropologist used that exact image as an example of the term in question in a book. Congoid and Negroid are synonyms, I don't have the book, but anyone with even slight knowledge about physical anthropology knows the terms are synonyms. Therefore, we probably need someone to look at the book, or find a source that states they were used as synonyms. I don't live in America, so I would be unable to get that book from a library.

But I noticed, if someone could access these pages, it could be confirmed: "divides the world's human population into five ethnic groups: Caucasoid, Congoid (Negroid), Mongoloid,. Australoid and Capoid. In his Manual of Dermatology for ..."[4]"groups: Caucasoid, Congoid (Negroid), Mongoloid, Australoid and Capoid. He also finds it convenient to. use the term 'tropical races' when referring to ..."[5]

Maybe even more useful: "In a sense, things were largely static until 1962, the year Carleton Coon published The Origin of Races. Here Coon, a physical anthropologist, divided mankind into five races (or subspecies): Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Congoid (Negroid), and Capoid."[6]

As for your arguments about "living people", that's hardly policy, Wikipedia isn't censored.

I just found this scan of a page in "Origin of Races" by Coon which makes it very clear that Negroid and Congoid are synonyms: [7] Funkynusayri 11:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually do have access to that journal. However, the sources aren't really "articles", but replies and book reviews. As such, I've done some digging, using them as a jumping off point. It seems that there is genuine academic asymmetry over the terminology used. Here's what my study of the literature has found:

• The term "Negroid", as a typological moniker predates Coon, and his "5 races" classification; in fact, Coon discusses this in his 1962 book; the "three race" classification comes from Weidenreich's work, which Coon expanded on.
• But, you're generally right — for most purposes, the term "Negro/Negroid" are identified with the term "Congoid". This is because in Coon's classification, the term "Congoid" referred to "African Negroes". See Since African Negroes are what Weidenreich chiefly meant by "Negroids", and what the general use of the term is, the two are usually confounded.
• It does not appear that "Negroid" and "Congoid" are simply alternative terms; Coon's early work, such as his 1950 publications were cowritten, and predate his classification scheme; the 1963 response to Coon's "Origin of Races" exclusively uses the term "Congoid" when discussing his work.
• The reason for the classification change in Coon's work is that the morphological theory was being stretched; a "Negroid" race, the "Oceanic Negro" was commonly located in the Pacific.

In short, to put it simply the two are not the same term; instead, Congoid is a specific classification which is a sub-set of the general "Negroid" classification. I'm going to write up some of this in the article. I think we can settle on a picture to accompany this summary afterwards. --Haemo 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon theories are fringe. Most scientists use his studies as examples of scientific racism. How racial bias has interfered with objective science. Recent scientific findings have rendered him a laughing stock in the scientific community. He was a proponent of polygenism that posited that the different races evolved from separate lineages. That modern human races evolved 5 times indepedently from homo erectus to become homo sapiens . He is a discredited scientist so this article should not entertain his theories. [8]. Some people may be obsessed or have a fetish of seeing the term Negroid next to human face, but this is pointless. Wikipedia has plenty of pictures of people who are black or of sub-saharan african descent. We all know what they look like. We also know that they all don't look the same. Muntuwandi 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know they're fringe scientifically, but they're important for the etymology and history of the term. In fact, as early as 1963 people were basically point out that the "five races" theory was laughable and that it was bunkum. By 1970, it was a laughingstock academically as well as socially. However, we can't ignore the fact that they're important for a historical overview of the term, and its use. I think my revision explains them, without entertaining any illusions that they might be correct or accurate. I would definitely like some maps as images; they definitely play a good role in illustrating how the term was carved up, without trying to parse a given person.--Haemo 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

When coon published his work in the 1960s the term Negroid had already been in use for 100 years. Shortly afterwards during the civil rights era, people discontinued using the term negro and negroid. Thus Carleton Coon's influence on the usage of the term Negroid was marginal if indeed he had any influence. While people are still interested in his racial theories, they are not directly related to the term Negroid. 22:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Muntuwandi 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much of what you say is true; however, the exact time-frame is not the key here. Rather, it is; but mainly because Coon's work occurred just prior to the heyday of the US civil rights movement. As you can read in the reference cited, it was actually one of the chief racialist academic arguments seized upon by segregationalists in the American south. The wide debate that it sparked has lead to much of a conflation between his 5 race classification, and the term Negroid — as we can see. The articles cited above also point out that even as late as 1980 people used the terms as identical, or more accurately without a clear distinction. Coon's late attempt to remedy the morphological distinction problem informed much of the later classification use, even after the theory was totally discredited anthropologically. You can say it's a kind of "last man out shuts the door" syndrome; while Coon's use was not the longest, it was the latest that generated serious academic interest, and his text was used for decades afterwards as an example of racialist bias, or morphological classification problems. --Haemo 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• You're completely missing the point, Muntuwandi, this is not about having an old image up for fun, the image is usable because 1: it is in the public domain, and 2: we have sources that state the person on the image exhibits "Congoid" features. Coon himself points out that this person is a Negroid of the "Congoid" variety. Last point is the most important one, especially in the light of our previous discussions where the verifiability of the classifications were questioned. This new image is pretty solid, and whether it is synonymous with Negroid or simply a sub-set is quite irrelevant when it comes to including it into the article, as Haemo stated, it is supposed to be a sub-class of Negroid, thus it fits the section that deals with this in the article well. Funkynusayri 23:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  Not exactly; Brittanica 1974 calls Capoid and Congoid divisions of "Negroid", but it's not clear than Coon ever made the distinction; rather, Negroid was a pre-existing racial identifier that Coon parsed to make his classification scheme. That is to say, he avoided the term, because it was too generalized from earlier work — his "True Negroes" are Congoids, but the "Negroid" archetype is more general. This is the problem he wanted to avoid; the "3 races" classification broke down because you have things like so-called "Oceanic Negroes" with no possible connection to "African Negroes"; he rectified this by tossing out the "Negroid" moniker entirely and instead making up his own classifications. --Haemo 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm quite sure Jeeny and Muntuwandi would object to including any image of any person into the article, so I'm probably wasting my time discussing microscopic details that they don't really give a damn about, no matter how obvious, any image would be turned down. Strange that this Negroid article should be unique, as images have been added to the article about Caucasoid and sub-types. Funkynusayri 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking over this all I have to imagine they may be right about the photo, in any case. I see why any single person being held up as an example of a certain ethnicity is highly problematic due to all the historical problems of classification that have been mentioned above. Wikipedia is not censored, so I do understand your point, however... I don't really think that the photo adds enough to justify its inclusion and ignore the inherent difficulties of classification. Epthorn (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! It's not only an "ethicity" but a whole complicated "racial" classification. - Jeeny ^(talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, what makes it different from the images on the Caucasoid page and the pages of the sub-varieties thereof? Funkynusayri (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

therein thereof. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

?

Section break

I'm talking about pages like "Mediterranean race" and similar. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because there are many people who do not consider themselves Negroid. Using one image for such a broad and complicated term is misleading. You saw the Black people article when Indians, and Tamils were included. Many didn't like being included. But, many people don't mind being under the term Caucasoid. - Jeeny ^(talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, I'm not familiar with the history of the Black people article. I'm not familiar with the White people article either for that matter, I've added images to articles about the biological aspects of race, that's it, social race doesn't really concern me, I just like adding free images when I find them. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well there really isn't much difference between biological aspects of race and social aspects. The terms white and black are in essence no different than caucasoid or negroid. Except the latter is used in science and the former in everyday language. The justification for pictures in the caucasoid article is also suspect. I don't think those people are representative of the presumed "caucasian race". Muntuwandi (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm, by pretty much all definitions I've seen, Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans are defined as "Caucasians/Caucasoids" (when they fit the criteria of course), so I'm not sure what you mean. As for Caucasoid/Negroid and black/white, you could say they're the same for a layperson, but not for a scientist. Black is far more inclusive than "Negroid", and white is far more exclusive than "Caucasoid", for example. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Its never been that simple. In history Indians, East Africans and some Native Americans have all been described as having caucasian affinities. See Kennewick Man. Muntuwandi (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I know, but neither of those are included on the image on the Caucasoid page, and the populations of the regions I did mention seem to have been universally classified as "Caucasoid". Funkynusayri (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not that simple, Is Anwar Sadat caucasoid. He comes from the regions you mention. The whole debate about the Race of the Ancient Egyptians has not been concluded because many of the people exhibit affinities to sub-saharan africa, the middle east and even India. Muntuwandi (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, as you noted yourself on his page as far as I recall, his mother was a black Sudanese, making him a rather bad example, but as I said, when a region is labeled "Caucasoid", it simply means that the majority of the population in this region is considered as such. I'm sure you can find a black Swede, but I doubt anyone would assume most Swedes are black, or even mixed, due to that. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

this isn't unusual, 35% of Yemenites have sub-saharan african ancestry. Demographics of Yemen Muntuwandi (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, at those amounts it is, Yemenis had the far highest proportion, and the samples were taken from Yemeni populations that were known to be mixed. That's like taking samples from African Americans and saying they represent samples of American whites just because they're from the same country, the area hasn't been studied enough, but generally it has been estimated that 10% of Middle Easterners have Sub Saharan ancestry, with far more being present in the South than in the North. That hardly even means that these individuals would have to be mixed, as relatively unmixed black populations do indeed still live in these areas, descendants of slaves from the Islamic slave trade period (Iraq is a good example, check this:[9] and for Palestinians check this:[10]). Anyhow, another prominent recently mixed Mid Easterner could be prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, whose mother was apparently an African concubine. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just amused by the terms "therein" and "thereof" that you choose to use ever so often. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Anything wrong with that? English isn't my first language, you know. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong, just amusing. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, awright, I thought for a minute that I had made a grammatical error or something. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Check your history. Black Yemenis are indigenous. Sheba's kingdom was in Yemen. There's this myth that Blacks in what is today the Arab world are there only as a result of the Arab slave trade, and this is false. Arabs are Eurasians who migrated west. They aren't indigenous to Africa -- and certainly not to Egypt, an African nation, which they conquered in 700 A.D. That's thousands of years after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. Egyptians wore Afro wigs, for chrissakes (Egyptologists refer to them as "enveloping" wigs), with the seeds of Egyptian civilization starting in Nubia, in the south -- Sudan, where the oldest pyramids on earth are being flooded by Bashir. Blacks peopled the Levant even before the Arabs came. deeceevoice (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there really isn't much differ

Well, there's a difference between describing someone's ethnicity and using someone to describe an ethnicity. The former is illustrating a part of someone's identity, whether self-declared or imposed. The latter is trying to describe an ethnicity by using a SINGLE (presumed) example. Now, both of these methods have problems. I looked at the page Caucasian_race and I see that there are some more effective photos (in my opinion). The photos there describe the way that the 'race' has been described and do not really attempt to assert what the race is as much, for one. There have been discussions on the talk page their over the appropriateness of different photos, actually, and some were deleted because there was no consensus that they helped the article. Epthorn (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I know, I provided the photos there, or cropped them from another file, but the thing about these pages is that the examples are not supposed to represent ethnic groups, but metrical types. Negroid is not an ethnic group, but a craniometrically defined type, making classification pretty precise, as you either live up to the metrical criteria or you don't, just like a circle can only be a circle if it lives up to the criteria for being such. Social race and ethnicity is much harder to define. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not all that opposed to the photo or a photo, personally. I just see how it can cause a problem and question if it adds enough to be worth it. I have seen other articles on races based in part on craiometrics that use diagrams of skulls as opposed to a living human photo which, of course, brings a lot of other issues in. Would something like that be a better choice? My memory of the word negroid usually pertains to forensics- i.e. a hair is classified as negroid via traits or DNA, so I am not as familiar with the topic.Epthorn (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

the so called Negroid is not a pretty precise type. In fact it is variation in cranial dimensions is greatest in sub-saharan africa[11]. what enables forensic scientists to identify skull types is just a handful of common features such as the nasal opening or the eye sockets. Other than that there is considerable diversity. In fact forensic scientists use a lot of non-metric traits in race determination. Muntuwandi (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A thought

Why don't we go with one of these Olmec heads. It's easy to find reliable sources which state they are stereotypically "negroid" in appearance, and they seem to neatly illustrate how Negroid is both (1) a stereotypical means of typographical identification and (2) loosely connected to to any actual "race". Since it's a sculpture, it also ensure that we don't run the risk of "type-casing" a particular person as representative of the term. --Haemo (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• That would be POV, as the race of the Olmec heads is disputed at best (they are well within South American Indian variation, and the most common modern theories are that they depict babies), and they are not Negroid in the commonly accepted sense (that Negroids are Africans). The Negroid theory isn't even mentioned on the Olmec page itself, as far as I see. Anyhow, this guy is about as Negroid as those Olmec heads: [12] 83.72.194.208 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the point that it's not the race of the Olmecs which is at issue, but the fact that these sculptures display "stereotypically negroid" features. There are lots of reliable sources which can attest to this — the point that the article, and indeed the heads, make is that Negroid is a typographical identification, and is meaningless as a racial identifier. The idea would be to include them to illustrate what "stereotypically negroid" features are — not to argue that the Olmecs were a negroid race. Indeed, if anything, this points out how worthless the racial classification is — since there is a rather large body of water seperating the Olmecs and what "racial science" believes were the "Negroid" races. --Haemo (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• That would be kind of a red herring, don't you think? We can cut to the bone and show an actual picture of what everyone agrees on is Negroid, but that is offensive to some people, which is really irrelevant. Anyhow, what sources do you propose? Funkynusayri (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should even remove the photos from the caucasoid page as well. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that every agrees that these heads are negroid. --Haemo (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think using one of the Olmec heads is a great idea. IMO, it's just another bit of evidence to demonstrate that there was a pre-Colombian African presence in the New World. I mean has anybody been reading anything in the mainstream media on this subject over the last 25 years? The mainstream conclusion is that there was a distinctly Africoid (Negroid/Australoid) presence in the New World for millennia, that predated the presence of the Asiatic peoples, now commonly referred to as "Native Americans," the latter group having arrived approximately only 7,000 years ago. And -- incidentally -- no one is claiming how preposterous it is to call Native Americans "Asians," despite oceans and several thousands of miles separating the Asian continent from North and South America. Anyone sense a double standard here?  ;) deeceevoice (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• You won't find any credible sources supporting that. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, the academic consensus is that they're stylized representations of infants. --Haemo (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? The academic consensus is that there is no consensus. There is growing evidence of a "Negroid" (sub-Saharan African)/"Australoid" presence in the Americas thousands of years before the Native Americans arrived there. And that's from mainstream, non-Black archaeologists and forensic experts. deeceevoice (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Then cite it. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And to what end? If I can dig up something, will you agree to inclusion of an image of an Olmec head as an example of what some have called "Negroid" physical characteristics? deeceevoice (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can find reliable sources that state that these heads have negroid features, so that's not the issue. However, the presence of people who display negroid features in early South America is a remarkable claim, and one which would be good to add into this article — however, I don't believe sources exist to support it. --Haemo (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How's the BBC, Scientific American and National Geographic? Here's something I wrote a while back. I'll put it in the relevant article when I have a moment. Click the links and check the sources. Can't get much more mainstream than this.

In 1999, Sao Paolo archaeologist Walter Neves said of "Lucia," the earliest human skull unearthed at Serra di Capivara in northeast Brazil, that it "was anything but mongoloid." A forensic artist from the University of Manchester, UK, used the skull to reconstruct Lucia's face and reported "the result was surprising: 'It ha[d] all the features of a negroid face'....""First Americans were Australian

In 2005, archaeologists at the University of Sao Paolo announced that the first people of the Americas "were not Asiatic phenotypically,"[13] "but instead shared physical characteristics with appear much more similar to modern Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans."[14] Their findings were based upon an examination of skulls found in the Lagoa Santa region of Brazil. The paleoamerican human remains discovered at Serra di Capavera and elsewhere in South America are similar to the Lagoa Santa skulls, thus adding to speculation that the earliest Americans were not Asiatic, but African.

Archaeologists estimate that these original, Australoid/Negroid human populations were supplanted by Asiatic peoples between 7,000 and 9,000 years ago.

And then there's Thor Heyerdahl's Ra expedition in the 1970s, in which a high-pronged boat built on models of vessels utilized in ancient Egypt sailed from Morocco to the Americas, thus proving that seamen could have reached the Americas from Africa by navigating the Canary Current. And, as one of the articles cited above notes, some fisherman from Africa ended up -- alive -- in South America a few years back when their boat went off course and got caught in, presumably, the Canary Current. Consider this: Africans are the oldest people on the planet with the oldest civilizations. It's not too much of a stretch to believe that some of them ended up in the Americas, perhaps, not by design, but by accident, several times over the centuries, established settlements, then civilizations, then later co-existing with Asiatics who arrived later; but, due to their relative paucity in numbers, either were overcome militarily or simply were assimilated into the Asiatic population over the millennnia. Keep in mind that Van Sertima claims that the Olmecs were a hybrid civilization comprised of Africans and Native Americans. I mean just take a look at this iamge (scroll down the page a bit)[15]. "Stylized representations of infants" my butt! lol In helmets? If that ain't a Blackman, then I'm a freakin' Martian.

Ask any forensic anthropologist or even a forensic criminologist, and they will tell you that lots of Latinos exhibit prognathism. And I'm not talking about Afro-Latinos; I'm talking Indios. If they're Asians, then where did that come from? A facile response would be from the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but the fact of the matter is there are Indios who exhibit prognathism in areas not directly affected by the Maafa. So, what's the explanation? The only plausible one is a more ancient presence that predates the slave trade.

There are other accounts as well of blacks in the Americas before Columbus. In 1970, I took a course in Latin American Studies at Howard from an Italian-American professor Vincent Peloso. He told us about the Popol Vuh, an ancient mesoamerican religious text in which Black people are physically described so amazingly accurately, there was no way the authors could have done so without having seen Black people -- and that they were considered gods. Also, consider the legend of California, supposedly a land where Black Amazons dwelled. And it goes on and on and on.

Just consider the last paragraph of the BBC article cited above and open your mind:

The identity of the first Americans is an emotive and controversial question. But the evidence from Brazil, and a handful of people who still live at the very tip of South America, suggests that the Americas have been home to a greater diversity of humans than previously thought - and for much longer.[16] deeceevoice (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is far more likely that these "Negroids" would be of Asian or Australian extraction than African, people similar to the Onges, as far as I recall. These people do have a history of such long sea-journeys. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Australoids are indigenous to not only Australia. People often mistakenly conflate the two as one of the writers did in proclaiming "The first Americans were Australian" (or something to that effect). There are indigenous populations of Australoids in Yemen. They are simply another exmaple of the natural biodiversity among black peoples -- as Spencer Wells so amply demonstrated in his DNA studies tracing the DNA of the San/Khoisan to the Australoid Tamils in southern India to the Aborigines of Australia. Again, the skulls repeatedly have been characterized as "Negroid," "sub-Saharan African" and "Australoid." Compare this photo of a Khoisan/San tribesman[17] with the image of "Lucia" here.[18] They look like twins to me. Australoids, are Black Africans. deeceevoice (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Genetics do not seem to support that. "Black people" are not defined by genetics, but mere physical features, and it is not synonymous with either African or Negroid. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sh*t. I just typed a long response and got "Database locked." Well, duh. Of course genetics don't define black people. And I didn't say otherwise. But did you read what I wrote? Wells' genetic findings most definitely support the close interrelatedness of Africans, Australoid Tamils and the Aboriginals of Australia and Southeast Asia. Many of the Blacks of Southeast Asia are, in fact, Australoid. Too, the Andaman website clearly draws linkages to populations in the Indian subcontinent and even the Middle East, calling them all "Australoid." And all of these peoples are Black peoples, and have been considered Black peoples, for centuries. It is only with genetics that some have tried to stress the ties with other Southeast Asians rather than with Africans. However, it is quite clear that the genetic affinities between the two groups came about as the populations developed and interbred in relative isolation of many millennia. If you look at the earliest photographs of Southeast Asians, you will see people with sloe eyes and commonly Asian features, but with dark skin and often nappy hair, and people round eyes and otherwise African features and straight hair or any combination of characteristics thereof -- all in the same family, village or clan grouping.

• Furthermore, many Southeast Asian "Asiatics" cluster more closely with Australoids (Blacks) than with other Asian populations for the same reason Australoid blacks do. Isolation. There are, after all, tremendous differences between a fair-skinned, sinodont Asian living in Tokyo or Beijing and a dark-skinned, sundadont Cambodian, Burmese, or Malaysian. deeceevoice (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing. Black people are defined by many factors: lineage, phenotype, geographic origin -- and also by law and historical and social tradition. deeceevoice (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, of course these people can be traced back to Africa, so can everyone in the world, but that doesn't mean that they are closely related to present day Africans, which is what is important. Australians might be considered socially black, but this page is not about a social, but merely metrical definition. As you mention, these people have their own "race", "Australoid", therefore the people mentioned as ending up in America would be Australoids, not Negroids.

By the way, what do you think about the inclusion of the proposed picture of the Shilluk woman above? (Funkynusayri (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• It seems you didn't even bother to read the links. The archaeological evidence says otherwise: "Australoid," "sub-Saharan African" and "Negroid" are their terms -- not mine. I'm out. I've got deadlines. deeceevoice (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• What are we actually disagreeing about? Funkynusayri (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm goldbricking. ;p Australoid isn't a separate "racial" group any more than are Jews. The terms "Capoid," "Australoid," "Congoid," "Negroid," sometimes the mis-applied "Caucasoid" in the case of some East African Blacks -- are all terms for Africoid -- Black African -- peoples. These are descriptive, phenotypical subgroups. Nothing more. deeceevoice (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• I know that can be said about Negroid, Congoid, Capoid, and some "Caucaosids", but do you have any citations for it applying to Australoid? From the page on Africoid: "Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples

Some Afrocentrists argue for the primacy of phenotypes in describing a broad cultural-genetic set of black peoples stretching from Africa to Australia to Asia.[21] Other DNA data however, which details the genetic complexity of peoples, calls into question conceptions of a single, rigid black or "Africoid" type that cuts across broad areas including Asia and Australia. Physically there may be similarities (dark skin or curlier hair for example) but genetically the data are much more complex.

Indeed some supporters of the term Africoid (see Scholarly use section below) note that DNA and serological (blood)analysis for example, places populations like Australian Aborigines, Dravidians of India and dark-skinned Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples closer to the populations of mainland East Asia than the stereotypical sub-Saharan Negroid phenotype." Funkynusayri (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah. What I said. But, then, as we both know, DNA doesn't define Black people. ;) West Papuans involved in a liberation struggle against Indonesia consider themselves black. Politicized Tamils also consider themselves black -- and not only that, they identify with the struggle of African-Americans in this country. I've dated an East Indian who considers himself black. There's an East Indian brother writing at Runoko Rashidi's website who clearly considers himself black and claims there's ancient lore that states that the Dravidian peoples migrated to India from the African Horn up through the Levant and then southward. Some tie the dreadlocks of ancient Egypt and the dreadlocks of India to migration and trade links between Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

Funny how white, majority culture can glibly lump all Asians/Asiatics together and call them Asians -- including the Tlinglit, Native Americans, Indio Latinos, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, some peoples of the Russian steppes, Southeast Asians, etc., etc. -- despite their phenotypical biodiversity, including the Sherpa, whose distinct physical and physiological adaptations to high altitudes set them apart from any other group of humans. White folks lump Nordics, the WASPy Brits, the Irish (with their frizzy, red hair), swarthy Italians (who didn't use to be "white" and Jews, too -- who aren't "white" either), Russians, Portuguese, Slavs, etc. -- they're all lumped together, despite their disparate physical attributes. But when it comes to black folks, we see this purely modern-day attempt to divide us into all sorts of "oids" to suit a Eurocentrist political and cultural agenda. It just doesn't wash. "Africoid" is as legitimate a term to describe all Black, African peoples, wherever we may be, on the continent and in the diaspora. as are the other "racial" identifiers.

But this is off the point. "Negroid" is what it is -- a phenotypical term, and the Olmec heads definitely fit, as to the skulls referred to in the articles cited above. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the Olmec head image is used. I never did. But I saw some ignorance and misinformation being bandied about on this page and sought to address it. I've done so. Now I'm done. I've got deadlines. Peace.deeceevoice (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• What was ignorant? You don't think the image of the Shilluk a little further up would be a better example? Statues don't have skin colour. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Negroid and Negrito in the Philippines

Negroid is also a term used in the Philippines to refer to the various Negrito populations. I have added a brief sentence about this but maybe those who have spent more time on this article can integrate it more into the article. Racial classification is not just a European project and does not just involve Africans and Europeans. There are also uses of such terms in other contexts and that should be mentioned somewhere, I think. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, Negroid has almost exclusively referred to various black Africans, and sometimes it has been applied to Australian and Negrito groups by some scientists. It is already mentioned that the term is mostly used for Sub Saharans, but to mention what other groups it has referred to would need some sources.

As for this "Racial classification is not just a European project and does not just involve Africans and Europeans", I'm not sure what you mean by that in this context. Negroid is a term invented by Europeans, and Negritos were labeled as such by Europeans. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that it is not just European and Africans that classify people by race, nor are they the only ones that use English to indicate such classification. Just as the meaning of many English terms vary from place to place, native speaker to native speaker (think British v. American English), so does Negroid. To those in the Philippines, Negroid means slightly different then it means to those elsewhere.

More broadly, I think there should be a discussion in this article of what negroid means today, in places worldwide, and in common, everyday usage. How is the term used in casual conversation? If someone reads it in a paper or on a blog, what is meant by it? Afterall, it is not exclusively a scientific term. How ever it was used by those who first used it, the term means something slightly different today. Among its other uses, it is applied to people who are not from Africa but whose skin and hair look African, i.e. the Negritos. Such a discussion could be kept short, say to one or two sentences with links to other articles. There should also be a link to Negrito.

We shouldn't be so focused on the work of European racial classifiers that we forget the terms other uses. When I get a chance I will see about finding some good common-usage sources. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical image again

File:Negrid types.jpg

Negroid (black) main-race (hair thick, nappy, and black-brown, eyes dark brown). Sub-races: Bantu - (II, 9, 10) and Sudan-Negro (II, 11), Melanesians (II, 16, 17), Pygmys, Bushmen (1, 20), Hottentots. [1]

User:Muntuwandi has been blocked indefinitely as an extensive sockpuppet user, and User:Jeeny has left Wikipedia in anger and had her user page deleted, so maybe we should take this into reconsideration. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The image is quite similar to the one already on the Caucasian race page in that it clearly shows the different racial types. It also respects Wikipedia's image use policy, including its pertinence and encyclopedicity clause. There really is no legitimate reason why we shouldn't include it in the article per the reasons already explained above by Funkynusayri. Soupforone (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'm Funkynusayri (not a sockpuppet, I just had a name change for the unified login), I'll try to come up with a proper caption and re-add it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Soupforone (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, we should probably wait for some more opinions just to be safe. Wouldn't want to be near-crucified again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want another opinion, I like the image. It is one that is historically accurate -- it was used to discuss negroid -- and it imparts some data by visually reminding, me at least, of the racial classification chart of the Nazis, among others. I associate such images as this with scientific attempts to rigidly classify people by race. Keep it.--Bruce Hall (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as it is clearly mentioned that a chart like this is useless today, it is very informative when discussing race in a historical context. Take the current image in the article, it has been completely disproven by genetic research today (lumping Melanesians with Africans), but of course, it is only one of many schemes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Waiting to make an edit just because someone has been blocked is not in good faith. Better to try and build consensus.Neotuwandi (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus between all parties but you. And you most likely won't even be here within the next few days. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The arguments above have not changed, you are simply trying to take advantage of the fact that one editor is currently absent.Neotuwandi (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the one editor who is against the inclusion of the image. And about your comment about my blocks, I got them all from reverting edits (thus breaking the three revert rule) by people like you; POV pushing sock-puppeteers who have been indefinitely banned. I should get a medal, not blocks. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And to Ramdrake who just removed the image, consensus can change, especially when the two only users who were against the image have been deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, then the correct thing to do would be to start an RfC (or at least a straw poll) on the inclusion of the image. You cannot assume that consensus has changed without testing for it. And back then, there were more than just two usera against it. If I remember correctly, you were one of a very few users (possibly the only one) wanting to include the picture.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read this talk section? There are presently two other users who are for the inclusion of the image, no one against, unless you are of course, and that's still three against one. The old discussion was dominated by Jeeny and Muntuwandi, who have both been indefinitely blocked, so I don't give a damn about their past opinions, to be honest. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see 3 users for, 2 users (including myself) against, so that's hardly a consensus. Sorry. -Even if you were to discount Neotuwandi, 3:1 is still not a convincing consensus.-Ramdrake (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Neotuwandi has just been blocked indefinitely, so it's three against one, in other words, consensus. But I'm willing to wait for other opinions, obviously. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just started a proper RfC below. Let's wait and see.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwandi had no less than 45 sock-puppets, so I won't be surprised if he shows up a couple of times on the RFC vote. FunkMonk (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of image "Negroid types"

This is meant to re-assess community consensus about the possible inclusion of this image:

File:Negrid types.jpg

Negrid types according to Meyers Blitz-Lexicon, published in 1932. Translation of original German text: Negrid (black) main-race (hair thick, nappy, and black-brown, eyes dark brown). Sub-races: Bantu - (II, 9, 10) and Sudan-Negro (II, 11), Melanesians (II, 16, 17), Pygmys, Bushmen (1, 20), Hottentots. [2]

• Oppose The picture promotes an outdated, derogatory of Black people. If necessary, modern free color pictures should be found.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support This article is about an outdated, sometimes viewed as derogatory, term. The image doesn't "support" anything, it merely shows how race was viewed in the 30s when this science was considered valid (this could be made clearer in the caption if necessary). Because the term is outdated, you won't find modern, free colour images depicting it. A similar image from the same source is used on the Caucasian race article, with no apparent resistance.

An argument could be made for deleting this very article, if we went by Ramdrake's points above. Is Wikipedia "supporting" a view simply for having an article about it? FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't, as long as the article meets WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The article has neutrality concerns, that is true and probably needs a good review. But I do not think the picture is the major problem. If it is used to illustrate the section that this term is indeed outdated and backwards, it is perfectly acceptable.

Modern pictures have their place at Black people, which is the modern term anyway. But my point stays, it needs to become clear from reading it that the article is about an outdated, derogatory term and not about a valid, accepted term (which it isn't). So#Why ^{review me!} 07:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support The picture neatly shows the different racial types under the old typologist system, which this article titled 'Negroid' obviously falls under. It's also the counterpart to the gallery already featured on the Caucasian race page. In addition, the image respects Wikipedia's image use policy, including its pertinence and encyclopedicity clause. There really is no legitimate reason why we shouldn't include it in the article per the reasons already cited above and below by Funkynusayri/Funkmonk, myself, Bruce Hall, and now So#Why. Soupforone (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Removing the image would be white-washing the history of racial stereotypes. why would anyone want to do that? As long as the artilce and caption make it clear that this is an outmoded, scientifically unsupported idea, the image is more than fine, it is essential.Yobmod (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Before debating the photo, we need to ensure that we are adhering to wikipedia's policies of reliability, verifiability and relevance. There was a previous discussion about whether the german translation to english in this case refers to the term Negroid talk page archive. It appears not. The following dictionary definitions clearly stipulate that the term Negroid refers to Sub-Saharan African peoples, and not Melanesians or Australoids as depicted by the photo.
• [19]
• oxford relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa.
• Merriam-Webster a member of a race of humankind native to Africa and classified according to physical features (as dark skin pigmentation)

The definition for black people here states

pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia

This definition is more in line with the photo as it contains a mix of Africans and South Pacific Islanders, the Papuans. FunkMonk did not address this issue last time, and it remains. Pseudowandy (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As I predicted, Muntiwandi is back with yet another sock-puppet. But I'll gladly readdress your concerns, though I've already given you clear answers. First of all, we had a German user and Babelfish confirm that it was a correct translation. Second, the racial schemes changed over time and from author to author. Some authors considered Melanesians Negroid, some did not. Just shows how unreliable the science was. Not much else to say, really. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For verifiability, we should ensure accuracy of information and not inject original research. We should stay inline with mainstream definitions of racial types and not inject our personal opinions. Pseudowandy (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "mainstream definition of racial types", and no "personal opinion" is expressed in the image. This is your 47th sock-puppet, please give it a rest, Mutu. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, with caveat The illustration seems appropriate for the article, provided that the article is rewritten to reflect modern, mainstream understandings of the topic. As it stands, the article doesn't properly contextualize the term as a historical and outmoded one, and as such, inclusion of this illustration could be construed as advocacy of racism. Gimme danger (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I'm not opposed to including outdated plates to illustrate these articles (they are in fact the best way to illustrate these kinds of articles), the image provided is unsatisfactory. It includes two images of Papuans and does not illustrate the entire spectrum of "Negroid" types as determined by 19th & early 20th century typologists. If we're going to include such a picture, we might want to include one of each type (Ethiopid, Capoid/Sanid, Sudanid, Paleonegrid/Silvestre, Bantuid/Kafrid, Bambutid, Senegalid, etc.). Papuans had their own classifications outside of the larger "Negroid" group ("Capoids" or Bushmen did in some systems as well, but some included them under the "Negroid" race, IIRC). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ezana/Parahu... Again, some authors did include Melanesians as Negroids, this image just represents one of several typologies developed by different authors, which I bet you're aware of. Even Coon seems to have included Melanesians as Negroids at some point (Congoid referred to African Negroids, but there were supposedly Negroids outside Africa). Aethiopids and similar are mentioned in that lexicon, just not as "Negrids". If we find a free image compiled by an anthropologist which includes more types, well, let's include it alongside this one so it can be demonstrated that the science wasn't consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

comment-The source may not be credible then, because the current definitions do not make such inferences. Remember the australoid classification is probable as old as the the Negroid classification. Meaning these two definitions were contemporaneous, we should thus not mix. I think we need to place emphasis on the actual article, not a photo. Africans look the same as they did 100 years ago.Xtuwandi (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep insisting that this term is widely considered valid and frequently used today, but it isn't. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but different authors had different typologies, there was no consensus. Some included Melanesians as Negroids, no one were "right", so it doesn't matter what typology we use here. What matters is that an image representing one of the typologies is free. Why the hell am I even arguing with a damn sock-puppet? Your comments here should be deleted on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Easiest way to overcome the "Melanesian problem" is simply to state in the caption that "most authors did not classify Melanesians as Negroids". What do you think, Yom? I doubt it can be verified, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a problem, because the whole article makes no mention of melanesians, and then to throw in a picture of melanesians with no context is counter to the definition of the article. I maintain, the map is a more accurate portrayal of the racial divisions. Nocwandi (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what this article currently states, since it isn't comprehensive by any stretch, all which needs to be done is to find a historical text which classifies Melanesians as Negroids. Fortunately, we already have that, the lexicon, but I'll see if I can find others. Haemo already mentioned in a section above that Coon mentioned "Oceanic Negros", a sub-set of Negroids, which referred to Melanesians. Search for "Oceanic Negro" on Google and you'll find plenty.

Take this for example: Following Cuvier and Topinard, W. H. Flower, an Englishman, separates mankind into three main divisions:

Ethiopian or Negroid Races: (a) The African type of negro; (b) Hottentots and Bushmen; (c) The Oceanic negro or Melanesians; (d) Negritos.

Mongolian Race: (a) Eskimo; (b) The Mongols proper, comprising the Mongolo-Altaic group; and the southern Mongolian group; (c) Malayans; (d) Polynesians, Maoris; (e) Americans.

Caucasians, comprising Kanthoeroi and Melanochroi. [20]

Tons of other historical texts classifying Melanesians as Negroids can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?ct=result&q=%22oceanic+negro%22+negroid FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The image does indeed show the entire spectrum of Negroid types as determined by most 19th and 20th century typologists. Most typologists did not classify Horn Africans as Negroes, but rather classified them along with Berbers as Hamites. In fact, right up until the 1970's, Hamites were viewed as Caucasoid peoples from Asia that entered Africa in a series of migrations whereafter they both civilized and subjugated the allegedly backwards local Blacks. This view stems from the fact that most typologists were almost exclusively interested in phenotype, and the Northeast African phenotype they observed, measured and calibrated with their instruments corresponded comfortably with Caucasoid populations, as did the Afro-Asiatic languages these people spoke. From the so-called 'cephalic index' to the 'nasal index', Hamites clustered with Europeans as opposed to Blacks. They were consequently classified as among the darkest members of the Caucasian race by everyone from Giuseppe Sergi to A.H. Keane to Oscar Peschel to Carlton Coon. Incidentally, this is also the reason why early anthropologists considered Melanesians, Aborigines and similar peoples to be Negroes: because they had the prognathism, hair form, tooth size, nasal indices, etc. to go with that designation, whereas Northeast Africans for the most part did not. So yeah, there still is no reason IMHO why we shouldn't include the image. All the folks historically labeled 'Negro' by most typologists are indeed well represented in the graphic. It's also obviously period-faithful. Soupforone (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• So now it's five against two, and one of the two who opposed did so on the basis that Melanesians were not considered Negroids (while still supporting the inclusion of an image in the same vein, and being indifferent to supposed insensitivity), which has now been proven wrong, so I'd say that makes it six against one. Neutrality issues with the article itself will probably disappear if for example a user like User:Dark Tea comes around. FunkMonk (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the one that did oppose may have done so for different reasons, but still opposed. And of the four who supported, two did so with the caveat that the article should make it much clearer that we are talking about an outdated classification, and I agree the article isn't clear enough about it as it is. So I wouldn't call it a consensus yet.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which one are you referring to? If Yom, he clearly said he opposed due to the presence of Papuans, and that he wanted a wider selection. It has just been demonstrated, though, that the image is very representative of the scheme of for example Cuvier (who I assume is Georges Cuvier) and several others. As for outdated classification, when it is still used widely in forensics, there's a limit on how outdated we can claim it to be, but of course, it should be clearly expressed. It's strange that the intro doesn't mention that the term is outdated, for example, like the other race article seem to do. User:Bruce Hall supported in the section above, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Support inclusion of this racist unscientific picture to illustrate this article about a racist unscientific historical episode.Filceolaire (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: The article should represent modern ideas of the topic, but the image shouldn't be deleted. It's not unreasonable to have an outdated image to discuss an outdated classification. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 03:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I see no problem with inclusion of this material. It belongs in this article and fits nicely. Raggz (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Blacks or Negroid

Huxley races

I don't want to interrupt the comments above. The picture in question does not refer to the term Negroid but is referring simply to black people. There is a scientific distinction, because blacks are defined by skin color, regardless of continental ancestry. However Negroid is applied to Sub-Saharan African peoples. This is especially prominent with regards to craniofacial anthropometry because crania reveal differences that go beyond skin color. African blacks differ significantly in cranial characteristics from australians or melanesians. Just because the image in question is historical, we should not assume that they were referring to negroids in the sense of the english language. Us humans, being visual creatures, would obviously prefer to have an article with a photo than one without. Therefore, there will obviously be a bias towards including a photo. However, we know nothing about the source, other than it is free and available to use. We cannot verify that the subject matter was subject to any academic standards. I therefore propose instead to use this map of Huxley's races. It avoids the POV of saying that Negroids look like this. I mean there is the fellow with the appendage sticking out of his lips, just gives the wrong impression all together. A map is more neutral and less controversial. Xtuwandi (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You're being very disruptive, Mutu. Again, the source is clear, it is from a section about human races in a German lexicon from 1932 which deals with the "Negrid" race, not the "black" race. It is the equivalent to the section about the Caucasian race in the same lexicon. No reason why the Huxley map can't be included along with the portrait image. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the german translation, provide the quote that we may parse it. Xtuwandi (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this a déjà vu? We already did that, and you know it. You can view the source yourself by simply clicking on the image, how hard can it be? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FunkMonk, after checking the de:Negride article, I found out that the term in German refers specifically to people of African origin. Therefore, the proposed picture isn't representative, containing two Papuans.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As with English Wikipedia, anyone can log into German Wikipedia and type literally anything they want others to believe. It's not exactly a reliable source. In fact, on August 4th (around the period when this talk page discussion first began), someone did just that, and changed the words 'Negroiden' and 'negroid' in the article to 'Negriden' and 'negrid', respectively. Also, the non-editable and period-faithful Meyers-Blitz source refers specifically to Negroid types and not to peoples from Africa. 'Negroid' is, after all, what this article is about. It's also the category under which most historical typologists' systems classified Oceanians. Soupforone (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, Negrid is not a German word, the difference between Negrid and Negroid is the Greek suffix, oid means resembling, and id means belonging to the group. Futhermore, as was established earlier, there were many different schemes, so holding one typology up as the "real one" doesn't really make sense. The German Wikipedia article is not a valid source either. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Bluescientist is interested in this particular revision. Since an RFC is still in progress, I would suggest merging any relevant information from that particular revision, into this revision, rather than a whole scale revision.Who let the goats out (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to randomly merge the two versions. The older revision has a large number of statements that are not referenced. Furthermore, there seems to be a disproportionate number of references from controversial scholars such as Michael Levin and J. Phillipe Rushton which rendered that particular revision not neutral. Levin says that negroids are those whose ancestors were from sub-saharan africa 15-5000 generations ago, using 20 years as a generation. That basically stretches to 100,000 years. Well according the latest out of Africa dates, humans left Africa 50,000 years ago, or 2500 generations. Hence, the whole world would be classified as Negroid. Therefore both Rushton's and Levin's dates have been rendered obsolete by recent data. In keeping with WP:RS, we should stick to the latest information available. Who let the goats out (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure humans left Africa that recently? Doesn't fossil evidence suggest that modern humans left about 100,000 years ago? Genetic evidence may seem to contradict that, but perhaps the first fully modern humans to leave Africa did not contribute enough to the current gene pool to be represented in the current data? But they did leave behind fully modern skulls did they not? As for Rushton being controversial, absolutely anyone who takes the concept of race seriously is going to be controversial so to exclude all such people is POV. The topic itself is controversial. There were a lot of good things about the version you reverted such as the genetic category section. 205.211.54.10 (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Then mabe we should have a discussion on what to merge. I agree that, beyond controversiality, citing Rushton's definition of "Black"(considering Rushton is neither a biologist nor an anthropologist, but a psychologist) may not be the most appropriate. However, I must say I sort of liked the introduction of Bluscientist's version, which made plain that "Negroid" was an obsolete term from tnhe beginning.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There maybe some relevant information worth salvaging from the particular revision in question. However, the genetics section is probably tangential to this article. There is the article race and genetics, or human genetic variation that should deal with principal component analysis. In any case, Arthur Jensen's genetic study from 1993 should be outdated since there have been more recent studies regarding statistical analysis such as this study from 2005. Once again, the issues seems to be more about race in general, than the usage of the term "Negroid".Who let the goats out (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)