| Revision as of 20:36, 7 January 2024 editMSGJ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators130,796 edits fix parameter← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:34, 20 December 2024 edit undoHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,123 editsm Reverted edit by 210.3.243.147 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: Rollback |
| (48 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=90|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{censor}} |
|
{{censor}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Black as a Social class in South Africa == |
|
== Definition of 'black' == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 1950, the Apartheid government of South Africa introduced the Population Registration Act No.30 which effectively forced the Xhosa people and other nations organic to the land to be registered under the National Socialist system into either one of four categories, Black, White, Colored and Asian. |
|
As far as I'm aware, most of the Indigenous people of Oceania are not considered 'black' and even aboriginals are generally considered to be genetically and socially distinct. Shouldn't the article reflect this rather than sticking them under one term? ] (]) 16:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's one term, but it has many different meanings and many different connotations, depending on who uses it, when they use it, and in what connotation. It certainly is used in Australia (sometimes currently spelt ''blak''), more often by Aboriginal people to describe themselves or their fellows. It is often deliberately politically loaded today. The issue with Melanesia is well described in the article. That name literally means ''Island of black people'', which is hard to ignore. But you're correct in saying that the term is rarely used today to describe people from there. I think the article does a reasonable good job with an inherently fraught term. Individual sections can always be improved though. ] (]) 00:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Nazi Germany == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Act effectively alienated the Xhosa people from their collective identity as a nation unto themselves and forced the label "Black African" on them as a social and legal status. |
|
{{Ping|White American 2023|Fajita Biscuit}} You added information about Black people in Germany, which I removed for the following reasons: |
|
|
The history of anti-Black racism in Germany is not limited to Nazi period; Black people have a longer and richer history in Germany than just being victims of the Nazis or other racist people; Jews and Roma were persecuted on a different level, i.e. they were systematically murdered. Some Black people were murdered by the Nazis, some were sterilized, some (like ]) were able to live a kind of "normal" life. Not everything that is sourced should be included here, see ]. ] (]) 09:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Black, White Or Both == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Act not only alienated the Xhosa from their collective identity but also from their resources and property as well with the implementation of the Black Codes from the 1913 Black's land Act and Groups Areas Act. |
|
This may sound stupid but I have crossed countless people who have called themselves black althought they physically look white. So that made me ask: |
|
|
Can a person who looks white but has black people in their bloodline be labeled “black?” ] (]) 11:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:As our article makes entirely clear, 'Blackness' is ultimately a social construct. What constitutes 'looking black' (or 'looking white') varies from place to place, and time to time. It is routinely contested. Attempts to divide humanity with its complex patterns of diversity into simplistic binary categories are rooted in the realms of politics, not science. And to be more specific with regards to your question, there have been contexts where having any 'black people in your bloodline' made you 'black' in the eyes of (white) social norms, regardless of appearance, and regardless of any own personal identification: see the so-called ] in the United States. 'Appearance' is but a small part of what society constructs its arbitrary racial categories from. ] (]) 13:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been the cause of cultural erosion in this community and has prevented the redressing of many injustices that were committed against the Xhosa people. ] (]) 23:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Is this text you wish to add to the article? If so, do you have sources for the above? I can add it if you do, and if it still needs doing. ] (]) 19:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Black people|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Black also includes the Indigenous people of India as Well as The original Dravidian speakers of india. This is non inclusive and must be changed immediately. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Blacks" == |
|
Also need to add the Indigenous People of India and Dravidian people onto the page Under South Asia ] (]) 16:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Want to recommend that someone with more access than me double-check this article to ensure that the preferred term "Black people" (or another noun as appropriate in place of "people") is always used over "blacks," except in context like quotes, titles, or the South Africa section where Blacks had a formal legal status. The defines "blacks" as an offensive term that should always be capitalized and replaced with "Black people." ] (]) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 17:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Really? This older Australian (who doesn't want to offend anyone) truly finds it hard to keep up what's OK and what's not in America. When did "blacks" become offensive? ] (]) 06:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I guess that calling black people "blacks" has the same kind of vibe as calling the Aboriginal people in Australia "Aborigines". While we might not see any real issue with it, the people it's used to refer to might have their own reservations about being called such. I will admit that America's increasingly common and almost impulsive "knight in shining armour" response to anything considered offensive nowadays is more than a bit excessive, but here, I see no real problem here with @]'s request from the perspective I just presented. ] (]) 06:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I understand and accpt hat language changes. MY real question was, when did this particular change in acceptability happen? ] (]) 07:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I dunno, when was the last time you heard "blacks" used commonly in everyday life? To be honest, I can understand why a black person might not want to be just called a "black". I'd be more than a bit annoyed if someone called me a "white" instead of making even a half-hearted attempt to refer to me by any other defining characteristic. ] (]) 07:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{midsize|I've no real personal insight here, but these things aren't binary switches. What is observed as a sea-change is instead like reaching critical mass, maybe as the direct result of many people becoming aware or changing their mind in a short amount of time, but likely just as much if not more some mere signal of preexisting perspectives catching on in the media. A thinkpiece, a sitcom quip, whatever—unfortunately those are the events people notice as regards these things. What I'm saying is there's potentially no answer for you—different folks have different feelings and different explanations. From what I intuit from reading memoirs, it was always possible for this choice of language to confer this particular meaning. }} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It doesn't seem particularly contingent or peculiar to me that a ]-as-demonym can become offensive. I really wouldn't read much more than that into it, it's not particularly complicated or particularly American. I'll steal these citations from ]: |
|
|
:::* ''Merriam-Webster Online'': {{xt|Use of the noun Black in the singular to refer to a person is considered offensive. The plural form Blacks is still commonly used by Black people and others to refer to Black people as a group or community, but the plural form too is increasingly considered offensive, and most style guides advise writers to use Black people rather than Blacks when practical.}} |
|
|
:::* ''Oxford Learner's Dictionaries'': {{xt|Using the noun black to refer to people with dark skin can be offensive, so it is better to use the adjective: ''black people • a black man/woman''. It is especially offensive to use the noun with the definite article ('the blacks')}} |
|
|
:::* ''Dictionary.com'': {{xt|As a noun, however, it does often offend. The use of the plural noun without an article is somewhat more accepted (home ownership among ''Blacks''); however, the plural noun with an article is more likely to offend (political issues affecting ''the Blacks''), and the singular noun is especially likely to offend (The small business proprietor is ''a Black''). Use the adjective instead: ''Black homeowners, Black voters, a Black business proprietor''.}} |
|
|
:::* ''AP Stylebook'': {{xt|Do not use as a singular noun.}} |
|
|
:::<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 15:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why don't we have a picture of some black people in the info box? == |
|
|
|
|
|
for example how the page for "<nowiki>'''human'''", or "'''woman'''" or "'''child'''</nowiki>" has a picture of what they look like ] (]) 02:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Which ones? ] (]) 03:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Pls review ]. |
|
|
::<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 04:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
In 1950, the Apartheid government of South Africa introduced the Population Registration Act No.30 which effectively forced the Xhosa people and other nations organic to the land to be registered under the National Socialist system into either one of four categories, Black, White, Colored and Asian.
Want to recommend that someone with more access than me double-check this article to ensure that the preferred term "Black people" (or another noun as appropriate in place of "people") is always used over "blacks," except in context like quotes, titles, or the South Africa section where Blacks had a formal legal status. The US National Archives defines "blacks" as an offensive term that should always be capitalized and replaced with "Black people." TheMiddleWest (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
