Talk:Black people/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

To Do List items

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

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

Resolve them

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

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

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

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

Mediation conclusion

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

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

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

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

Request for reprotection: Minor technical problem needs to be solved

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

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

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

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

Minor technical problem needs to be solved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your reasoning with regard to Ethiopians is deeply flawed. They aren't Caucasoids; they're Africoid. They originated in Africa -- not the Caucasus region of Europe. If anything, so-called "Caucasians" are Ethiopioid. You do not say the father has the eyes of the son. You do not name the progenitor after his offspring. There is a racist agenda afoot in the attempt to single out part of the indigenous Ethiopian/Eritrean population from the rest of black Africa and rename them with a European term, a term associated with whites. It not only is counterintuitive; it is unacceptable. All indigenous Ethiopians are as black as the Nuba, as black as the Dinka, as black as the Karo -- you get the idea. Here are a couple of links to photos of Ethiopians, whom people like you would dare to try to classify as "Caucasoid."[2],[3]. It makes about as much sense as segregating out some Senegalese (many of whom lack pronounced prognathism), or the gracile Nilotics of the region on the basis of their strikingly slender, elongated bodily proportions and pronouncing them "Martians." deeceevoice 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I am gratified that Deeceevoice, perhaps the most vocal black Wikipedian, has joined this discussion. Maybe Deeceevoice will be more successfull in pointing out the obvious fallacies in Editingoprah's reasoning. I have more or less given up arguing with Editingoprah. Apparently Editingoprah attends a class on Black studies (together with Whatdoyou)[4] which teaches somewhat outdated, and blatantly ludicrous knowledge. Paradoxically, some people who usually disagree on "black" issues like myself, Deeceevoice, Zaphnathpaaneah, Paul Barlow, Yom etc. are rather in agreement against Editingoprah's fallacious arguments. I have argued before that Editingoprah's point of view, although it borders on the periphery of reality, is not entirely uncommon. The prevailing line of thought, even among African (including diasporan African) scholars, contradict Editingoprah's line of thought, and support the consensus here on Wikipedia*, and in general. It annoys me that Editingoprah can disrupt this important article in this manner – but I am also happy that this issue can be discussed, and that all opinions can be taken into account. The only way to go forth with this issue is by letting the article reflect and explain the different points of view (even the fringe views). Editingoprah, you must accept that others (quite may others) disagree with you. I beg you to compromise and allow other views to be represented in the article. --Ezeu 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Mboro; 8:48 EST, 24 September 2006

Uninformative and POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm Back

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

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

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

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

Here it is, here's that stupid chart. [[5]]. Where is the Egyptian? Where is the East Indian? "Gee Zaph, you make it look like black people don't understand sciiiiiiiience". No, EditingOprah, you yourself make yourself look like a fool. You see how Danish people are slightly closer to black Africans than ITALIANS? Oh thats really a reliable scientific source (sarcasm!) .You have no hindsight and seem to lack the ability to reason to a logical conclusion. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The Phony War begins

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

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

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

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

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

• 172.203.28.27 - AOL user
• 195.93.21.103 - Another AOL user

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

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

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

Editing Oprah has contradicted himself

From the "Black Billionaires" article EO says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, Yom and Zaph, here are some articles you may find of interest if you doubt there is any ambiguity about the race of Ethiopians. This[[6]] article claims:

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

And this [[7]] informal online discussion claims (press "show quoted text" to see the full discussion:

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

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

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

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

This is the picture you paint of the Amhara with your comments [8], yet this is the picture I seee when i do searches for Amharic people online [9]. Do you see how your words distort the facts? The first pic is an Amharic and European kid (His mother is a white Israeli), the second pic is the AVERAGE look. And just as I already knew the Amhara, despite being "caucasoid" when you put a ruler to their foreheads, and down their nose, look far more black then they do Arab or White. I told everybody else you would go there, I told yall. Next up, the Caucasoid Tutsis. What about theM? --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

if you shaved their hair and painted their skin, these Ethiopians would look exactly like whites

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

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

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

Compare your 50 cent to our Filipino

Here are more examples:

[10] - Filipino [11] - Ethiopian [12] - African American (the average African Americans you see on TV) [13] - MLK and Coretta (notice how "arab" King looks now in light of EO's comments. Dennis Archer, former Mayor of Detroit (another Caucasoid!) [14] His SON (a negroid)[15]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The True Bottom Line

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

The truer bottom line? BULL

File:Aeta05.jpg

Aeta woman does not resemble any other Asian group, in other words one cannot mistake her for any other Asian nationality, however its possible for her to be mistaken for Madagascar, or a black person mixed with Asian.

---

The file [[:]] has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Aeta Filipino people who just don't look Black to EO, BUT DO LOOK BLACK TO THE PEOPLE OF EARTH. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] - Tell me the ones in this last one looks more like Japanese or Chinese people than Black Africans. Just tell me so I can call you insane EO. Some of the pictures have people whose dress and other characteristics are almost identical to some people in Africa. If you notice our last picture, the people are dressed oddly similar to the

One more time. I am not going to even ask. You know you see a similarity to the [23] Maasai women of Africa (who look obviously NEGROID) and our Filipino women here [24]. I am not even going to play dumb with you EO. This is DONE! The more you talk, the worse off you look. Why don't you plop up some more DNA nonsense logic so you will feel better. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This conversation really ended here

[25]

File:Aeta07.jpg

aeta man.

---

The file [[:]] has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

File:9579274new.jpg

Now this is a Black man too.

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

He looks like Tyrese with hair.

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

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

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

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

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

Guys, I'm done here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dishonesty of EditingOprah

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

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

I respect Zaph's opinion

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Ethiopeans are not white blacks

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

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

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

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

Jewish comparison

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

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

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

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

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

Tiger Woods

This statement has been taken out:

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

There are multiple reasons

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

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

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

Another Myth I am destroying

I took this statement out

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

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

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

Admixture in Brazil

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

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

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

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

Youth Culture

I took this out

• ==Youth Culture==

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

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

Caucasian not accurate term for whites

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

Removed the racial disclaimer

I removed

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

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

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

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

problem with black

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

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

white people

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

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

Afro-Arabs

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

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

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

• In all cases, the words were applied to various peoples, ethnic origins and skin color. [2] Although the word Kush itself originally may have referred to particular ethnic groups or empires in the Sudan, throughout antiquity in the Near East, this word became the most commonly used word (as black is today in the English-speaking world) to describe African peoples with dark complexions. [3]. In Ancient India, the Sanskrit name of Krishna literally meant black or dark-skinned person. Throughout India, other references to black people in the Rig Veda scriptures indicate their presence in that region.

• In the Middle East, various unrelated groups of Africans and other black people inhabit the regions. Their appearance in the region varies considerably, and there is no stong unified sense of black identity there. Mostly East African in origin, their culture is distinct, with some even retaining African languages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terms no longer in use

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

Removed POV statement

I removed

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

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

Interesting interpretation

I got this from the Madagascar article

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

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

Example of the political nature of denying black identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictures uploaded

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

Oppession?

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

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

EO you're weaseling again!

I took out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• <ref>[[http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/filipinos.html]]</ref>.

was removed by EditingOprah and replaced with

• ((fact})

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes reiterated in the first paragraph

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

Black (noun, black or blacks; adjective, black people) is a term that commonly refers to the indigenous peoples of Africa (with the exception of Maghreb Berbers) and their diasporic populations throughout the world. Black sometimes also refers to various non-African, dark-skinned peoples who inhabit Asia and the Pacific.[1]. Blackness is not dependent on national identity nor regional ethnicity. Though literally implying dark-skinned, black has been used in different ways at different times and places. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Runoko clearly tells you why he calls them black:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyrighted images

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

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

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

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

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

This article is very "American" and far from reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please

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

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

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

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

I'm fed up with EO's crap

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

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

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