Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SanIsidro (talk | contribs) at 07:54, 6 December 2006 (→Article is stable). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:Todo priority

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Gallery

Can anyone explain what "DNA of the world's populations cluster" means? --JWSchmidt 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe what it means is that when projected on a two dimensional plane in some ways, genetics of human beings tend to cluster in groups which are semi-separated from each other. Of course, a lot of processing has to be done before a two dimensional represenation can be done. Because DNA information of each human being is much more complicated than just two numbers. Nevertheless, some prescriptions can result in these clumps or groups in a planar representation. Is that clear?--Filll 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome JW, good to hear from you. This article could do with some imput from someone of your stature. Hope you decide to stay for a bit, though there's even more verbiage on the talk page here than we ever got over on Rosalind Franklin!!!! I don't think you are answering JW's question Filll. I think JW is saying that this sentence doesn't make sense. DNA is a molecule, nothing else. Alun 20:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alun. Filll, I assume you are talking about something like what is shown in the figure (to right). I'd like to see the direct quote from "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (page 82) that discusses "blasians". From the article: "According to DNA of the world's populations cluster by Cavalli-Sforza, Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as Whites." Either this sentence doesn't make sense or I am missing something that was obvious its the author. --JWSchmidt 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has already been debated ad nauseum in the "Statement unjustified by reference" section of the talk page. Timelist 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is just a mathematical statement and it is not very clearly written. It is just an attempt to quantitatively describe the data from DNA sequencing.--Filll 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are correct Fill. If the genetic distance between North East Asians and sub-Saharan Africans is greater than the genetic distance between sub-Saharan Africans and caucasians, then Blasians, who represent the mid-point between sub-Saharan Africans and North East Asians, are about as far removed from sub-Saharan Africans as Caucasians are. This caused a huge controversy a while back because someone thought we were trying to imply that Blasians are caucasian, so the caption got reworded in an awkward way. Timelist 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this whole idea started out by citing an article that is highly critical of the claim that is being made (see). Jonathan Marks wrote,

"Time magazine published an article featuring the HGDP and its leading spokesman, geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza (Jan 16, 1995:54- 55). Time reported in passing that "All Europeans are thought to be a hybrid population, with 65% Asian and 35% African genes.
For those who care to view scientific statements as texts, there's one for the books. It is not even false; it is simply ridiculous as articulated -- as if Asians and Africans were opposites, homogeneous and pure, and Europeans were less so. It represents classic folk anthropology and pseudo-biohistory."

In controversial cases it is important to cite peer-reviewed sources, and where an idea is controversial, Misplaced Pages also has to describe the position of critics. --JWSchmidt 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Marks appears to be misinterpreting what Sforza said. It has nothing to do with the purity of races. The genetic distance is simply a manifestation of the migration map you posted above. Africa was the first and warmest places humans lived in. North East Asia was one of the coldest and most recent areas of migration. That's probably why the 2 geographic regions are at opposite genetic extremes. Timelist 00:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I started trying to get the citation changed, pointing out that we are two "according to" statements away from anything C-S had to say. If Marks wanted to attack C-S he ought to have given a valid quotation/citation. P0M 00:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. How is this quote an attack on Cavali-Sforza? Sfroza's main contribution to science is his data on genetic distance. So why all the paranoia about Sforza being taken out of context. You have his book. Does he or does he not talk about genetic distance between different populations? I thought that was the whole point of his book. Timelist 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Read again: "There's one for the books. It is not even false; it is simply ridiculous as articulated -- as if Asians and Africans were opposites, homogeneous and pure, and Europeans were less so. It represents classic folk anthropology and pseudo-biohistory." Emphasis added. Marks is saying that Cavalli-Sforza is not behaving as a good scientist.P0M 00:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the "Great Human Diasporas?" Cavali-Sforza explicitly states in that book that Europeans (and caucasinas in general) resemble both Africans and East Asians. He offers a couple theories to explain this, including the fact that caucasians are geographically sandwhiched between Africa and East Asia, and thus got gene flow from both sources. Timelist

Let's have the citation then. That would at least establish something that was definitely said by Cavalli-Sforza. P0M 01:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I don't get. Both of you claim to have read Cavali-Sforza's book. Both of you appear to have Sforza's book. Sforza is a credible scientist that both of you appear to respect. Surely you know that he has published a thorough list of genetic distances between the populations he studied. So what's all the controversy about? Timelist 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If something were quoted that Cavalli-Sforza actually said and a citation were provided to that quotation, how could I object? But read the cited text. "Time reported in passing that 'All Europeans are thought to be a hybrid population..." That statement stands only as some magazine reporter's "in passing" take on the gist of what somebody, 'perhaps Cavalli-Sforza, "thinks" things are or may be. P0M 01:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your skeptiscism. The popular media often gets scientific facts wrong. But I've read parts of "The Great Human Diasporas" where Cavali-Sforza actually makes comments very similar to what Time quotes. I wish I had the book here so I could provide an exact reference. But the article no longer implies that Europeans are hybrids. The primary point is the genetic distance between the 3 broad geographic regions: Africa, Europe, North East Asia. Forget about the strange wording of the quote, and focus on the larger point. Timelist 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not read Cavali-Soforza's book. I have decided to look into the mathematics that was used to analyze the genetic data for my own purposes and amusement, since this falls in my area of expertise. I do not particularly believe the statements, even those of Cavali or Soforza, since this is a bit too sophisticated to give to social scientists or biologists. I have read the Cavali and Soforza official website at Stanford and looked at some of their papers, and my opinion is the same. However, for the purposes of this article, that is somewhat irrelevant. I would suggest we go to the original sources to get their quotes, and also to some of their colleagues to find their opinions. I think there are a lot of people who dispute how well separated the "clusters" are, which is why most scientists have sort of given up on the notion of "races". On the other hand, the people trying to do this sort of statistical analysis are basically amateurs in this area, so I am not so sure that if someone like myself took a hard look at it we might not come up with better criteria for separating the groups in some high dimensional space. This is a delicate thing and one is required to actually think when analyzing this kind of data.--Filll 00:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm no expert, obviously, but it's my understanding that Cavali-Sforza simply took all the correlations between the genes of his 42 populations, and applied PC analysis. This simply separated the ethnic groups along 2 dimensions. The vertical axis appears to differentiate the ethnicities based on climate, hence you have all the Southern populations in the bottom quadrents (Africans, South East Asians) and the more Northern populations in the top quadrents (North East Asians, Europeans) The horizontal axis appears to roughly differentiate the groups based on how far they migrated from Africa, so you have Africans and caucasians in the right quadrents (because they never left or stayed pretty close to Africa) and Australoids and Eat Asians in the left quadrents (they travelled far from Africa). And so because North East Asians and Africans are at opposite extremes on both dimensions (climate & geographic distance from Africa) they fall in opposite quadrents and can reasonabley be viewed as genetic opposites. Does this mean that race is a valid concept? As POM would say, "it depends how you define race". Keep in mind that Sforza selected very indigenous populations to study, so a lot of the mixed people who seem to embody the absurdity of race were not included in his study. Timelist 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I might point out that pure pairwise correlations would produce a projection onto a one dimensional line. SVD was performed instead based on an assumed distance metric and then a couple of the eigenvectors chosen, with the projections along these directions taken as appropriate axes. And probably more as well. If you are in a 1000 or 10,000 dimensional discrete modified Shannon space, finding out clusters in a biologically meaningful way is not so trivial and any method is fairly arbitrary.--Filll 02:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line, Cavalli-Sforza did not say, "All Europeans are thought to be a hybrid population, with 65% Asian and 35% African genes." Much less did he say that they are a hybrid population..." P0M 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well we have the most reliable source there is (Time magazine) claiming he said it. And the article itself does not depend on that exact quote, but the larger point of genetic distance between North East Asians and Africans exceeding the genetic distance between Africans and caucasians. Sforza most certainly compiled genetic distance data. Timelist 01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well what did cavalli-sforza etc say about the clustering then?Any direct quotes? --Filll 01:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Blooming heck, what a lot of confusion. Jonathan Marks is not criticising Cavalli-Sforza. He is criticising Time Magazine for misrepresenting him. Paul B 01:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/hgdp/an.htm You could be right, I suppose. If so, Marks might have made his target a little clearer since he attacks a "public pronouncement," which sounds more like something an authority says to a magazine than something that a magazine reports to its readership. If you are then even Marks doesn't believe that C-S said it or believed it.P0M 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That is why direct quotes are needed and probably from more sources than just Cavalli-Sforza.--Filll 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have versions of his genetic distance quadrent chart posted twice on this talk page. They pretty much speak for themselves. If you know of any scientist who disagrees with the concept of genetic distance, a brief mention of that could be added to the capation for balance. Timelist 02:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I have skimmed over the C-S's chapter on the Europeans. In his summary for that chapter he reviews what he has figured out thus-far about the past 40 ky (kilo-years I guess). P. 300:

It is, therefore, reasonable to think that there was an essentially undisturbed expansion of modern humans from somewhere in West Asia all the way to western Europe in the period between 40 and 30 kya, unless some less likely explanations are preferred on other grounds.

::Between 10,000 and 6000 years ago, Europe was deeply transformed by the slow entry of agricultural techniques, introduced by Neolithic farmers from the Middle East, in particular from Anatolia.

I'm looking forward to direct quotations supporting the claim that C-S said that "Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as Whites." And by the way, is that statement intended to mean "as genetically distant from Blacks as from Whites," or "as genetically distant from Black as Whites are?" I was assuming, somehow, that the claim was that the intermarriage of a black person and an "Asian" person would produce a person whose genetic heritage was equivalent to that of a European. (Note that on the chart provided above there is no locus for northern Chinese, and that Mongols are approximately 130-140% as far from Africans as are southern Chinese. Where you draw the line between the two determines where its midpoint is, and how far that midpoint is from the Italians calculates out to be about 140% greater for southern Chinese than for Mongols.) P0M 03:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the genetic distance chart, you'll see these 4 yellow circles that seem to correspond to 4 major groups: Oriental circle in the top left, white circle in the top right, black circle in the bottom right, oceanic circle in the bottom left. Anyway the article is not claiming that Europeans are a hybrid between blacks and orientals (that would be absurd). The article is simply citing Cavali-Sforza to claim that blasians are as genetically distant from blacks as whites are. I'm perfectly confident in that statement because blasians, if graphed on the chart, would simply be at the mid-point between the centre of the black circle and the centre of the oriental circle. The black-oriental mid point is about as far from the black circle as the white circle is. My personal experience is that some whites are furious that they can not call blasians black without also calling themselves black, but if that's what the data show, then that's what the data show Timelist 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are claiming cannot be the basis for article content. It amounts to original research because you are drawing your own conclusions from C-S's book. P0M 03:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, I already used the same argument (based on SciAm data published in July 1980 or thereabouts) to put a racist in his place for attacking to Mexicans who weren't "pure" enough for him. I don't oppose the idea, but if we are going to attribute it to C-S we need a direct quotation. P0M 03:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I certainly respect tha view point (I'm actually the first to jump on other editors for original research) but here's why I disagree. No one would disagree that Blasians are in between blacks and orientals, hence there's nothing original about claiming that offspring are in between their parents genetically. After that, all we're doing is describing where blasians would be on the chart relative to whites and blacks. Misplaced Pages is not based on 100% quotes. We're allowed to put the information we've gathered from sources into our own words. I don't consider making very basic inferences to be original research. Timelist 03:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is, what does "beween" mean in a 10,000 dimensional space?--Filll 04:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only 2 dimensional space. Only 2 factors were extracted from the PC analysis to explain most of the genetic variation. Timelist 04:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The charts shown here are all projections from a very high dimensional space onto a two dimensional space. In fact, I am not even sure they are total projections, but might be nonlinear transformations into a 2 dimensional space. However, whatever function was used to produce the 2 dimensions, a lot of information was discarded to get there.--13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this was the source of the citation to The History and Geography of Human Genes, p. 82. I'll ask Lukas19 to provide the direct quote and a citation to a peer-reviewed publication. --JWSchmidt 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the book right here. p. 82 has the chart that we have on this discussion page, and some technical discussion that does not seem to clarify issues we are involved with here. P0M 04:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, the chart is not super compelling, even if I believe culling things down to 120 alleles, relying on a small sample set of individuals, having no error bars, choosing one of dozens of potential genetic distance metrics, relying on an SVD in more or less arbitrary directions, and so on. It still looks like just a sprinkling of different populations around on a plane. What do the error bars/ellipses show? How would this be different in varimax analyses, which he said he did? What about discriminant analyses? Why are we so worked up about this? It just shows in this sort of arbitrary display you can spread out the "races", sort of. --Filll 04:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well idealy we would want to see these "racial" clusters replicated by other biologists, studying another sample of the world's ethnic groups, using other equally objective mathematical procedures. Cavali-Sforza's data is just a starting point. Far more research is needed, and he's the first to admit that. The problem is such research is very expensive and very controversial, so this is probably the best we'll have for several years to come. Timelist 04:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of a caption can be put on that photo that will suggest the question to readers in a way that will educate rather than confirm prejudices. The problem with the photo is that, to people who say "I know a person of another race when I see one," the photo "proves" that a "Blasian" is not a white person. The reason that it is a problematical, if inquiry provoking, piece of evidence is that we are in effect compating a mixture of diced fruit (the individual human, a product of two parents with two sets of very different superficial characteristics) with a fruit smoothie (the average European, the product of a long-term process of genetic mingling). In any child you do not get an average of the characteristics of the parents. My mother was 5' 2" and my father was 5' 11", but my brother is over 6', and I am 5' 10". P0M 04:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point I think you're nit-picking. The typical Blasian has 50% Black genes, 50% Oriental genes. Timelist 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but the "Blasian" doesn't look like a European.P0M

A Blasian's not supposed to look like a European. Just because both Blasians and Euopeans are both in between blacks and orientals, does not mean they occupy the same place in the genetic grid. Oceanics are also in between blacks and orientals, and they are in the opposite quadrent from Europeans. Rember we're dealing with 2 dimensions, not a straight genetic line. Now the people who should look like Blasians would be the offspring of a European and an Oceanic (negritoes), because the oriental-black midpoint is identical to the Oceanic-White mid-point. Timelist 05:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Have I convinced everybody that Marks is not the one to quote? That was how I got involved in this mess to begin with.

If you have a problem with the current refernce we're using, then we'll just use the chart as our reference. We can provide a link to the chart's image page in the reference itself. Timelist 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a great deal of trouble believing the general picture. I read research back at the dawn of history (genetic research history, anyway) that was already finding genetic traits in Europeans that were giving those early researchers a sketchy picture of Europeans as sharing genetic traits that could be identified as typical of Africa and genetic traits that seemed to radiate from the east. What I have seen over the last twenty-five years seems to clarify that picture rather than to poke any major holes in it. It would be a big shock if something turned up to knock this model apart, but that is always possible.

If Wells is right, then one path of migration from Africa came from Central Asia and a later path of migration from Africa came up in a tight curve via the Middle East. That idea doesn't necessarily say anything about percentages of genetic traits, but the distinguishing traits are a tiny minority anyway.

What is the point that we can drive home with the "Blasian" picture? P0M 04:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The absurdity of the racits one drop rule. Southern whites would look down on a blasian for being black, when in fact the Southern white is just as close to blacks genetically as the blasian is. Timelist 05:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no point to the "gallery", it's pointless and obsolete. What is the point to any of the pictures? Are they supposed to represent "typical" people? There's no such thing, all humans are unique and different, no one is "typical". I'm not sure there is any point that any photograph in the "gallery" can possibly make. Indeed this whole discussion about "Blasians" (horrid word) is almost Pythonesque in it's sillyness. It is absurd to claim that people who have one Asian and one African parent are similar to Caucasians. It is absurd (and incorrect) to claim that Caucasians are the product of admixture between Africans and Asians, the areas of the Near East, the Indian subcontinent and the Caucuses must have been populated before Eastern Asia. It is absurd to claim that someone with an African parent and an Asian parent is no more African or Asian than an European is. Europeans do not have a recent (15000 years ago) African origin as far as I am aware, someone with an African parent would have. There is a misunderstanding in this, or someone is distorting science for political reasons. Alun 07:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that it would be absurd to imply that caucasians were the product of sex between Africans and Asians or that Blasians are similar to caucasians. The article does not claim either of those things. But many Blasians feel very strongly that they are not Black, but that they are Blasian. Blasians will tell a white man to his face that he's blacker than they are. I've seen it first hand. We may think their views are absurd, but they probably think our views are absurd. Timelist 09:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what "many Blasians" think or do not think. This is simply a form of weasel words. If there is a point of view like this then it belongs in a "Blasian" article. It can be expressed here as a point of view if it is cited, ant other pov should be cited, but should not be expressed in genetic terms because this does not make sense genetically. If a person of mixed African and Asian descent is not "Black" then why is a person of mixed African and European descent Black? These are POVs, they are not scientific theory. Let's stick to wikipedia policies shall we? Alun 09:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is not saying whether Blasians are Black or not Black. It's simply saying that Blasians have roughly the same genetic distance from Blacks as Europeans do. That's not POV, that's just math. Timelist 11:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But it's irrelevant, and still untrue. Presumably someone with three African grandparents and one Asian grandparent would still be considered as "Blasian", but it would not be true for them. "Blasians" are not a population, they are not an ethnic group. You are trying to compare three stable "continental populations" with a heterogeneous unrelated group of people ("Blasians") who just happen to have both Asian and African ancestry, they "share" this ancestry by accident and not because of environmental and/or ethnic reasons. Alun 11:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Of course not all Blasians are the same, we're describing the typical Blasian. Why all the nit-picking? Timelist 12:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What's a "typical Blasian"? I find your reasoning really confusing. What is "Blasian filk-lore"? "Blasian" people are not an ethnic group, they are no more or less Black than African-Americans, as I understand it on average African-Americans have a 20% European ancestry does this make them Bleuropeans? Should we call Black people who have a greater than 50% European ancestry "not really Black"? I can't help but feel that your reasoning is quite scary. Alun 12:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so scared to admit that white people are just as black as blasians are. We're all Africans under the skin. It's nothing to be afraid of. Timelist 12:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If I were the one coming at this thing from the outside, I wouldn't be convinced by an argument that said: "You are half African and half Asian in your genetic heritage, and when we reproduce that mix by showing the offspring of an African and an Asian you can see what the result is in the photo above." I would be convinced if, above this caption there were a picture of someone who looked more or less like me. P0M 07:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's striclty speaking irrelevent what your mother was, what counts is what your mother's father was, I can't believe you needed someone to tell you this.--LaBotadeFranco 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated wording

The text has been changed to:

According to Cavalli-Sforza's allele frequency data, Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as Whites are.

and still cites Luca Cavalli-Sforza et al., The History and Geography of Human Genes, p. 82.

I'm repeating my request for direct quotes from this cited source about "genetic distance" between blasians, blacks and whites. It would also be useful if there were a citation to a peer-reviewed publication that discusses "Cavalli-Sforza's allele frequency data" that supposedly say something about "genetic distance" between blasians, blacks and whites.

And to be clear, the need to verify this citation can not be satisfied by original research from Misplaced Pages editors. Specifically, Misplaced Pages has no place for arguments generated by Wikipedians based on their interpretations of images that do not contain clearly labeled genetic data for "blasians", "blacks" and "whites". Either we find a verifiable and reliable source for this scientific claim or it must be removed from Misplaced Pages. --JWSchmidt 23:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not interpreting images. They're simply describing it. Not everything must be direct quotes. We're allowed to put things in our own words. Timelist 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Timelist, that's not the point. I doubt if the cited source says anything about blasians. If the cited source does say something about blasians, I want to know what it says. This is how Wikipedians verify sources. A Wikipedian's interpretation of an image is not a reliable source when we are dealing with conclusions drawn from of a complex scientific data set. --JWSchmidt 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed this from the article because this claim has not been verified as being supported by the cited source: "In some cases, according to Cavalli-Sforza's allele frequency data, some Blasians are almost as genetically distant from some blacks as some whites are." --JWSchmidt 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I just want to make one thing clear. I didnt make the claim in the gallery. I just re-wrote it. See the discussion here . And "DNA of the world's populations cluster" came from . Lukas19 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When making a statement as potentially inflammatory, as the above-named quote regarding so called "blasians", the least that is expected is a direct quote from a published work. It seems to me that parts of this article is based on unsubstantiated claims, or interpretations of barely credible sources such dictionary.com. --Ezeu 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of caption?

The "Bladisn" caption now says: "Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as Whites are."

Does that sentence mean, "Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as Whites are distant from Blacks?" I printed the chart out and did some measuring, so let's see how the numbers work out.

If Blacks and Whites are measured to be 6.5 units apart from each other, then Blasians are supposed to be 6.5 units from Blacks, right?" But when you plot it out on the graph, Blasians are 4.25 units from Blacks.

Should that sentence mean, "Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as are Whites?" In that case Blasians are measured to be 4.25 units from Blacks and Blacks ought to be 4.25 units from Whites. But the measured distance is much larger, 6.5 units.

Shouldn't the idea be that Blasians have an intermediate position between Asians and Africans just as Europeans have an intermediate position between Asians and Africans? But the distances are definitely not equal. Blasians are 4.25 units from Blacks, but Blacks are 6.5 units from Whites. and Asians are 7 units from Whites.

Perhaps I am missing some way to construe the caption that would make the math come out even approximately, but I don't see it. P0M 08:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well according to Blasian folk-lore, one drop of North East Asian blood cancels out a drop of black blood, so for this reason many Blasians feel that mulattoes are Black but Blasians are not. If Blasians are 4.25 units away from being black, they would argue that they're distant enough to not be considered black, but by your measurements mulattoes would be only 3.25 units from Blacks (half the distance that whites are) and thus would be considered Black. Also, are you sure you measured correctly? Did you measure from the center of each circle? Also keep in mind that the genetic distance you measured for Blasians assumes that they have 1 parent who is pure African which would bring them closer to Africans, but in reality their black parent is usually African-American (who are typically only 83% African, 17% Europeans) and so the combination of being 1/2 Oriental and 1/6th European, would make them aproximately about as removed from Africans as 100% Europeans are.Timelist 09:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds this sort of reasoning really quite scary? Looks like the sort of thing they used to do in the 1930's to determine who was "Aryan" or not....Gives me the shiveres. Alun 12:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree race is a scary concept that has been badly misapplied, but if wikipedia insist on allowing articles about such antiquated topics, we have to make sure they have their facts right. Timelist 12:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the second time that there has been an indication of people wanting to deny their genetic heritage. I do not find that idea frightening. I find it sad. How can one be a whole person, an integrated person, if one tries to throw away a part of oneself? It reminds me of homosexual J. Edgar Hoover leading a crusade against homosexuals. The worst result, the part that is scary, is that one joins the oppressors in an effort to gain safety for oneself. The devil comes when two groups contemn each other. P0M 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wells map indicates that there were two paths to Europe, a long path that went into Central Asia and then veered west and moved into Europe along a path farther from the Equator than the eastward path, and another path that is a tight counterclockwise hook from Africa through somewhere around Turkey and on up into Europe. The people who are in Cemtral Asia now are not the people who were there tens of thousands of years ago. They have changed. The people who moved into Europe changed as they moved and continued to change after they got there. The people in the second wave of migration are likely to be a little more similar to the people living now in the departure area in Africa simply because the original population in Africa will have changed relatively little, and the people moving into Europe by the shorter trail have undergone equally short changes of their own. Both migratory paths lead to the same part of the globe, and migrating people who arrived by both paths have long intermarried and the distinctions between the groups have blended into each other. In addition to melding, they have continued to change. P0M 09:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wells map and the Sforza map both show that caucasians branched off of Africans and the North East Asians later branched off of the caucasians. So if Africans gave bith to Cuacasians and Caucasians gave birth to North East Asians, one might expect that Caucasians would be genetically in between North East Asians and Africans. Also the climate in which the caucasians evolved was not as warm as Africa, but not as freezing as North East Asia, so climatic selection pressures would have also caused caucasians to be in between Africans and North East Asians. Also since caucasians are geographically in between Africa and North East Asia, they would have recieved gene flow from both groups, which would further cause them to cluster in between and Africans and North East Asians. Timelist 09:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The second wave of migration out of Africa took a land route into central Asia. Then they did a star burst and one group did a left u-turn and headed into Europe. I guess I could redraw Wells's map and put it up. It's pretty crappy the way they did it in the book, anyway. P0M 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So what am I wrong about? Timelist 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So, far easterns and whites both "branched out" of a group in central Asia. And, Far East was populated earlier than Europe, hence it is impossible that Far Easterns "branched out" of whites...Hence, you are wrong...Lukas19 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Fig.2.3xxx.JPG

POM is right. The longest line between Blacks and Asians is the one between Mongol/Tungus and W. African. The mid point of this line is assumed as the genetic distance of this type of "Blasian" to Blacks. This distance is still LESS than the length of line between Sardinian and E African. The line between Sardinian and E African is the smallest one between Whites and Blacks. Lukas19 18:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The typical Black parent of a Blasian is African American which means 17% white. You have to factor that into genetic distance. Also the statement is meant to be taken as aproximate. Timelist 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If a black parent of "Blasian" is 17% white, that'd reduce the distance between Asian and Black and that makes you even more wrong. I'm going to delete that picture and explanation tomorrow. Lukas19 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the typical African American is West African and hence farther away from Whites than East Africans...Lukas19 19:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Another source claims caucasians are in between East Asians and Africans

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_gene.html

Quote taken from book review of "The history and geography of human genes"

How might European gene frequencies come to be part way between Chinese and African? Part of the explanation is simply geographical. The Caucasoids are located in between the territory of the Negroids and the Mongoloids, and presumably have received genes from both groups. The term Caucasoid is used instead of merely European because it is the Middle Eastern and Indian Caucasoids who are best located to exchange genes with both the Negroids and Mongoloids. However, a theory of Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza (1973), discussed in this book (p. 108) provides a mechanism for how the Europeans could come to be intermediate in gene frequencies. They argue on the basis of archeological evidence and gradients of gene frequencies in Europe that agriculture, after emerging in the Middle East, spread into Europe by demic diffusion. By demic diffusion is meant that the early farming populations expanded gradually with each new generation moving further into Europe, with the average rate being about one kilometer per year. The alternative to this account is that the technique of farming diffused without movement of peoples.'' Timelist 11:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not say that Caucasians are the descendants of African and Asian admixture. Indeed it is impossible that they are, people must have lived in the Near East and sub-continental India before they got to Asia, how else would Asia have been populated? Alun 11:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No one's claiming that caucasians are the descendants of an African and Asian admixture. All that's being said is that Caucasians (like Blasians) are intermediate between Africans and Asians. Timelist 12:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we saying this? I wonder what it's supposed to illustrate? How does it fit into a Black people article, and should it be there? "Race" is a social construct much more than a genetic one. Saying this seems to be denying "Blasian" people their own ethnic identity, even if it's not your intent. Alun 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are making my point. Race is partly a social construct, and that's why it's important to point out that people who are socially percieved as black (i.e. blasians) are genetically no more black than people who are socially percieved as white (europeans). We're all Africans under the skin, it's just a matter of degree. Timelist 12:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Race" is a social construct. Wht do you claim that they are "no more Black than Europeans". This is clearly nonsense, if "race" is a social concept, whic you claim to accept, and a "Blasian" person has a Black parent, then they are socially and genetically Black, they are also socially and genetically Asian. They are never socially or genetically European because they do not have European parents, or ancestors. They share some genes with Europeans, but then so do Asians and Africans, we are a single húman population, we are genetically not very diverse as a species, most variation is at the individual level and not the "population" level. Most of our genes occur throughout the whole human population. Alun 12:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But Alun, why censor the absurdities of the genetic views on race such as Whites being as genetically related to blacks as Blasians are. And I never said anything about Blasians being European. This is is a misunderstanding. Just because Blasians and Europeans are both in between Blacks and Orientals, does not mean they share the same genetic profile. Oceanic people are also in between blacks and orientals. Please study the chart. Timelist 12:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to censure anything. But I think these assumptions are based on the idea of "races" being "discrete populations", but they are not. It must be true that all non-African human populations are eually as related to African populations as each other. It must also be true that someone with an African parent is more African than someone without an African parent. I don't understand your reasoning at all. "Blasians" and Europeans are not "both in between Blacks and "Orientals"". This is clearly nonsense. There are no "in betweens", the human species is not divided into exclusive non-overlapping "races" from a genetic point of view. Surely it is simply a statement of the bleeding obvious to claim that any person has (about) half their mother's genes and half their father's genes, if their parents are from different "races" then they share genes from both "races". But the human population is not split up into "races" on the genetic level, genes are clinally distributed, not discreetly distributed. Caucasians have a closer genetic relationship to African than Asian people do because we are geographically adjacent, we are also geographically adjacent to Asia. The chances of gene flow between Caucasian people and Asian people and gene flow between Caucasian people and African people is clearly far greater than the cances of gene flow between Asian people and African people. But the statement that "Blasians" are no more Black than "Caucasians" is completelly nonsense because "Blasians" have recent Black origins, unlike Caucasians. I do not support the inclusion of this, it smacks of racism. Alun 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Blasians only have 1 parent of recent black origin. The other parent is 2 steps removed from Black origin. Thus on average Blasians are 1 full step removed from Black origin. By contrast Caucasians just have 2 parents who are 1 step removed from black origin and thus are also 1 step removed from Black origin just like Blasians. I think the unwillingness to admit that Caucasians are just as black as Blasians are is what smacks of racism, but I guess we can just agree to diagree on this minor point Timelist 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I also note that the quote states European gene frequencies come to be part way between Chinese and African, not equidistant, but part. It is just as true to point out that African-American gene frequencies come part way between African and European ones. What is it supposed to prove? Alun 12:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to prove that the superficial African appearance of Blasians does not make them anymore black then a blond blue eyed Sweedish person. We're all African under the skin. Not sure why that is such a scary concept Timelist 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's scary that you keep suggesting that people with Black parents should not be considered Black, that's why it's scary. I cannot accept that a person with a Black parent and an Asian parent should be considered no more black than a Swede. Do you also think that a person with a, say Nigerian father and a Finnish mother (I know such a couple) is not Black? Alun 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You find it scary. I find it provocative and interesting. Again, it's 1 tiny caption in a massive article. It's not like we're giving it undue weight. Timelist 13:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are right, so let's calm down a little. We all came from somewhere. We're all related. None of us are pure. Some "white" Americans, maybe Archy Bunker or Strom Thurmond among them, have in almost a third of their genetic heritage features that show recent ancestry in Africa. Afro-Americans typically have an even more cosmopolitan make-up. Perhaps most of the whites would want to deny their recent African ancestry. Perhaps most of the Afro-Americans would like to forget that their recent white ancestry came because some white slave owner took advantage of his slaves. But the facts are right there in the DNA. It is this very fact that makes any talk of tortured. Ethnic groups try to keep themselves "pure" by setting up social, linguistic, and religious barriers to exogamy. It just doesn't work perfectly, and the more amorous males from "the outside" who are wandering through some area, the more mixture there is.

So let's consider a case where there was 80,000 years of geographical isolation, Australia. First of all, we don't have any reason to believe that no individuals reached Australia from the outside during this period. But even so, what would the genetic constitutions of these people look like? Could they say, "We're not black?"

Maybe it took all of 10,000 years for people to have filled in coastal area after coastal area, felt population pressure, and then to have moved on toward the east until they finally reached Australia. During those 10,000 years they would have accumulated some genetic changes and the people back in Africa would have accumulated some changes. Maybe some of the Africans moved to the highest UV areas and grew even darker, for instance. Then over the next 70,000 years or so the two groups stayed in place, one in Africa and one in Australia. Sometimes people filtered back into Africa from the Middle East. But we're assuming nobody managed the make it to Australia again. (The oceans were rising, making the sea travel needed much more challenging.)

Just before the lusty European sailors made it to Australian shores, the lonely Australians had been apart from the Africans for 80,000 years. What grounds would they have had for saying, "We are not the descendants of Africans." How could they have said, "Look! We have evolved! We have double-jointed thumbs and Africans don't! We are the new people! How dare you sully our name by saying we are "Out of Africa?"

We are all different from each other, and we are all more like our relatives than we are like people with whom we share no recent relatives. Our differences are interesting and useful. Our similarities bind us together inextricably. is a social construct, and social constructs are generally one part fact and three parts fantasy. P0M 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Blasian illegitimate?

"Blasian" is not a legitimate category or label, please, we as a group should know better. Secondly, you can't lump all Europeans into one basket so to say, countless genetic studies have demonstrated that Germans, Russians and to a lesser extant the French, have a far greater Asian genetic influence than do for example Basques or Scots. I strongly suggest we drop the "Blasian" issue altogether, it's a very dead horse.--Albinomite 12:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Blasian" is not a legitimate category or label

Who says? Alun 12:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an entire article on Blasians. I'm curious as to why 1 small little caption has suddenly become so controversial. What's really going on here? Timelist 12:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said there aren't people who call or are called "Blasians," I meant to say that it is not a term frequently employed by scientists or academics. "Blasian" is simply a neologism for metis or mulatre.--Albinomite 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The term black is not frequesntly used by scientists either. Timelist 12:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also I was hoping to call a quorum, and vote on certain points which need resolving if this article is to have any future whatsoever...I was discussing this article with other long time wiki editors who were interested in participating but they wanted to first vote on certain matters and set a foundation and parameters from which editors would not be allowed to deviate. I think this is something frankly that this article is sorely lacking, structure, discipline and a firmer basis upon which to build on.--Albinomite 12:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Also I was hoping to call a quorum, and vote on certain points which need resolving if this article is to have any future whatsoever

No such thing exists. We make changes by consensus. "Voting" is a last resort and will take some time. If there are things you would like to discuss regarding the article discuss them here first. If you attempt to force a vote on issues that have not been extensively discussed then they will simply be reverted. Please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution Alun 13:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also for the record I'm going to do some edits to the article, LaBota and Balino-Antimod and M of Magencio might join me, do not be alarmed.--Albinomite 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do, it is your prerogative. Remember this article is very contentious, you have not been involved in the discussions very much, if you edit against consensus then your edits will likely get reverted. Alun 13:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why create controversy where none has existed? The article is fine. I'm tired of all the talk about how the article is doomed or has no future. The more you say it, the more it comes true. Timelist 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"The article is fine" <-- I do not agree. This article is full of statements that are not supported by verifiable and reliable sources. This article is edited by many people who do not seem interested in the requirement that the content of the article come from verifiable and reliable sources. --JWSchmidt 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The aricle is just a collection of opinions about how to define black people. Oprinions by definitions are unsupported conclusions, but that's what the article is about. Black people don't exist in factual reality, they're just a social construct, and this article simply documents the history of that social construct, and all the nutty ideas along the way Timelist 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JWSchmidt. Even if the article refers to an opinion, it must be cited. P0M 20:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the best cited aticles on wikipedia Timelist 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the statements of fact and the assertions regarding the opinions or judgments of various people that have to be cited. P0M 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Drastic edits

Drastic edits that replace the term "black people" with the word negritude which is a different concept, and remove big blocks of text including references, are not a good idea, unless they have been discussed first.--Filll 13:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't stand when people remove stuff forom articles or make massive changes. Several sections are very controversial and required cooperative editing on the part of people with opposing views. New editors making even small changes could very rapidly destabalize the article. Timelist 13:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I will not play the revert game but I will try to recruit more new editors (which is allowed) and the majority will win the day.--Albinomite 13:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No it's not, see WP:SOCK#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets. You can be banned for this. You have already broken enough rules to get a block I think. Whatever I've asked for the article to be protected from editing. Alun 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you want to "win"? You want to remove the phrase "black people" and replace it with "negritude"? Why? What do you want? And if you manage to get your changes put in for a few hours before getting them reverted, they will not last. Someone else will revert them. And if you become pushy, you will just get banned. So it is better to discuss these things first.--Filll 13:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice you do not like the introductory paragraph. The point of the introductory paragraph is to produce a very accessible introduction to the article so people can tell at a glance what it is about. And what it is about, is that no one agrees on who is black and who is not black. Also, the introductory paragraph points out that no humans have black skin. Humans have light skin or dark skin, but no human is really black. So from the outset, the term is sort of dumb. If we did what you want, it would make the article less accessible, and it would not describe the article. Of course, you might want to change the article drastically so it does not show that there is disagreement about the definition. If that is your intention, then you might have to consider another article, or to include your definition in the list. Because there are multiple definitions, like it or not. And they do not agree.--Filll 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

At last, someone who gets what the article is about. Timelist 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fill and Timelist. If there is a specific concept or theory you want to include in an article then feel free to create an article about it, or include it in this one, in addition to those already expressed. This is an encyclopaedia, it contains lots of information and it contains what people believe, it therefore covers diverse opinions and points of view, not specific single POVs. There are all sorts of articles that I personally think are about subjects that are nonsense, for example Intelligent Design or Nordicism, but they are valid subjects for an encyclopedia, my opinion of the subject matter is irrelevant to their inclusion, this does not preclude me from including a specific POV to the articles if I feel one is missing. Your ideas of a "Black race" do not necessarily fit in this article, it's about the various different ideas about Black people, and as Filll correctly says there is no single and universally accepted definition of who constitutes a Black person. Alun 20:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Friends let us stop with the Blasian nonsense, they have there own article, anyways Blasians are very small group, most Asians do not like to be with Blacks (it is almost as unheard of as a black and white sock pair; this is well known).--Balino-Antimod 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When I see comments like this, I have to admit the the "falangists" just seem like they are pulling our legs and are being funny. It is like one huge practical joke.--Filll 13:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Friend, when we say we're Nuevo Falangistas we're not joking, our project is to bring balance and reason to those wikipedia articles that have been contaminated by Communist and anti-Occidental subversive propaganda. Sugaar is one of the worst offenders, he ought to be persona non grata in wikipedia for his crimes against Spanish culture and nationhood.--Albinomite 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have made a single constructive comment since you have been here. Please keep your posts relevant to the article. We've seen your version of "balance and reason". I see neither therein. Alun 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Albinomite has been indef blocked. Joelito (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Captions for gallery

I really fail to see what is wrong or POV about these edits of mine. Timelist seems to think they are more POV than his version, but I can't see it. For example Timelist's edit makes a great deal of Michael Jackson's skin colour, but this is irrelevant, he is a Black person, so we can say this, it is not a POV but a fact, we can also observe that his skin colour is quite pale. Likewise we can state that Clinton is not black, we don't need to invoke definitions to say this, but I think we need to use more encyclopaedic language than he grew up poor (not all Black people are poor). Also Many dictionary, census, and biological definitions for Black people indicate an African ancestry is a prerequisite. is something of a distortion, dictionary.com states pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. which certainly includes Black Australians, and Merriam-Webster says a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes, b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin (2) : of or relating to the African-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture <trying to sound black> <tried to play blacker jazz> so these dictionaries both accept people of non-African origin as Black. So what's wrong with saying that it's only some definitions that exclude non-African people? Not to say this appears to support one definition over another. Finally using official census definitions census definitions are not official and are not universal, there are different criteria in different states. In the UK, where I come from, the the state does not collect "racial" data, bur ethnic identity data, one cannot identify as Black, one has to be "Black British" or "Afro-Carribean" or "Black African" or "Black other", a person who self identifies as Black but who is not of African descent is entitled to self define as Black on the census form. Census data are not good sources for articles like this that cover large numbers of people who do not live in the states that are defining the "group". All in all I think the article is very biased in favour of an Afrocentric definition of Black, whenever the term is used in the article it seems to indicate support for this exclusive definition. The whole section on Ethiopians seems to be specifically designed to show that they aren't Black, though I think by most definitions they are Black people. I would like to get a feel for what the consensus is. If there is a general feeling that my edits should be reverted then I'm happy to accept this, though I'd like to get some feedback about why they are considered so bad. Cheers. Alun 15:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ friend, by Jackson's own (self-racist) definition and performance he's not black. Although this does raise an interesting philosophical problem: Is Jackson insane for hating his innate blackness, or highly rational in seeing blackness as something undesirable and indeed odious?--Albinomite 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have made a single constructive comment since you have been here. Please keep your posts relevant to the article. Alun 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The current caption to the "Blasian" photo is mathematical nonsense. "According to Cavalli-Sforza's allele frequency data, Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as Whites are". If you actually graph it out on the chart given in the footnote, it does not work. The reason is that you are leaving out tens of thousands of years of genetic change. The current population of Africa and the current population of Asia have both changed over the past 100,000 years or so. On top of that, the European population has modified independently of both groups over the last 10,000 years or so since they first arrived in Europe. That means that the people who are now mixing genetic components that we can label geographically as "African₂₀₀₀" and "Asian₂₀₀₀" are not carrying the same genetic components (even statistically speaking0 as the groups that we can label as "African_-50,000" and "Asian_-45,000." P0M 18:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still talking about Blasians. All of the points you're making have been responded to above. Timelist 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do the math. The last time I suggested that the math was way off you commented on issues of affect. P0M 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I said that you have to consider that most black parents of blasians are 17% white so that affects genetic distance of offspring. Also, the statement is very approximate, the math doesn't have to work out 100%. Lastly, why do you care? Are you Blasian? I don't understand how passionate you are against this one little caption Timelist 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not "passsionate" against this "one little caption." I am passionate about the truth, and this caption distorts the truth. All you can reasonably say is that the so-called "white race" has a mixed genetic heritage with its original point of origin in ancient Africa and that the so-called "Blasians" have a mixed genetic heritage with its original point of origin in present-day Africa and present-day Asia. P0M 19:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's distorts the truth to you because you are ignoring the fact that A) the statement is very aproximate, and B) Black parents of Blasians are only 83% black Timelist 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they are "only" 83% Black? As I understand it this figure is for the "average" African America, so it has two problems. Why are you assuming that all "Blasians" have an African American parent? Why couldn't some have an African parent? And it is only an average figure, there must be many African Americans who have a much higher incidence of African ancestry, everyone is not "average". Alun 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I jsut feel like you are trying to rob African-descended people of the word black by expanding its meaning to include all these other people. You're so concerned with being politically correct, but seem to have no problem offending African Americans. And all because you are afraid of offending Australian aboriginals? But you are not Australian aboriginal so how can you speak for what they find offensive. For all you know they TOO find it offensive for this colonialist term to be used on them. I just don't get it. Timelist 18:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not about how you feel. This article is about Black people, not only about people of African descent. Many definitions, if not most do not mean African when they use Black, and it is incorrect to say that they do. I do not understand why you think this is offensive to African Americans, there is already an article about African Americans and you want this article to also be exclusively about African Americans, or at least to have a very Afrocentric North American bias. It is true that in North America the vast majority of Black people are of African descent, but this is not a universally accepted definition of Black, even if it is taken as a given in North America. Please see the two dictionary definitions above. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia I find it really hypocritical to claim that this article is about the various definitions/meanings of Black people, while also seeming to give a massive bias in favour of one definition over another. It's not neutral. Irrespective of this, my changes above are not particularly about the exclusive African origin of Black people, they are more an atempt to introduce a more neutral tone, so it's an irrelevant point for these changes, isn't it? Alun 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"This is not about how you feel. This article is about Black people, not only about people of direct African descent." (You need to change one word. We are all of African descent.) P0M 18:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, should have read "recent African descent". But you knew what I meant surely. Alun 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

'Twas a friendly ammendment. You and I know what you mean and what is involved, but I'm not sure that everybody else is clear that it makes a difference, i.e., that the average African of today is not the average African of 100,000 years ago. Peace. P0M 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many many definitions of black people, however one of the common demoninators in most of them is African ancestry. Find me a single census anywhere in the world that mentions a non-African descended group in their definition of black. There already is an article about African-Americans, but that is limited to Americans. Black is an ethnicity that trancends national borders. Your broader definition of black is supported by very few definitions and hence should not be given undue weight. Timelist 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• There are many many definitions of black people, however one of the common demoninators in most of them is African ancestry.

I don't quite know what you mean by this. All definitions include people of African descent, none ever claim that people of African descent are not Black. No one is trying to say that this is not the case. But this is not the same as saying that being of African descent is the only determining definition of a Black person. You are bringing bias into the article by implying that African descent is the correct definition, and Black people not of recent African descent are not "normally considered" Black. This may be true in North America, but it is not universal. Not only is this extremely racist, but it is simply not true. Alun 18:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Find me a single census anywhere in the world that mentions a non-African descended group in their definition of black.

Since when did census data become the defining medium for ethnic identity? Censuses all over the world use different criteria. If you want to include the US census definition of Black in the definition section then please do. There was a lot of incorrect information about the British census in the text before. Alun 18:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Black is an ethnicity that trancends national borders. Your broader definition of black is supported by very few definitions and hence should not be given undue weight.

I agree, but there is a difference between giving something undue weight on the one hand, and deviating from neutrality to such an extent that the article gives the impression that one POV is correct and another is incorrect. It may be true that Black people are more often considered to be of African descent, and this should be reflected in the article, but this does not mean that the article should imply that this is "correct" or "universally accepted", and I think that this is exactly what the article does at the moment. It is biased and clearly in breach of the NPOV policy. See NPOV: Bias, and especially NPOV: undue weight. Alun 18:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The article does NOT imply any definition is correct. And you are the one being racist by showing no respect at all for African descended people by using the term on non-Africans, many of whom don't even want to be called black. You are the one who thinks its okay to downplay census information just because it contradicts your POV. That's a viloation of wikipedia's reliable sources rule. Timelist 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The article certainly does imply this. I have a great deal of respect for many people including people of African descent, it doesn't mean that I have to agree with them does it? It is not "racist" for me to say that the term "Black" is not universally used exclusively for people of recent African descent. How can I be "downplaying" census data when I just asked you to include the census definition in the article? I simply stated that census data are notoriously difficult to use because the criteria are very different from country to country. No country will provide a definition that is universally accepted, but I think the definition should be included because it is refered to so much in the article. Alun 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that just about any person can be labeled "black" if the conditions are right: eg. he's a proud black man; he was known for his black-bilious manner; the blacks of India remain an underclass; he was black with rage, etc...The term is almost infinitely malleable--Cupidon 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Personally I think the article should be divided up based on definitions. Someone once said that they don't try to put Indians from India and Native American Indians into 1 article just because they're both called Indian. This article should be about African descended people, and there should be another article about dark skinned people in general. I mean, even if you limit the definition to African descent there's so much controversy about who is black: Are egyptians black? Are mulattoes black? Are quadroons black? Are Blasians black? Is Michael Jackson black? But when you totally confuse the issue by throwing in Australian aboriginals and folks from Southern India, it just creates a huge mess. Timelist 18:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't do that because Black people does not universally mean people of African descent. You would have people coming here to find out about Black people, only to get a distorted POV. Alun 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I for one second that. Let us focus on those of African descent, groups like the Australian Aborginals have always been marginal (to say the least) in discussions involving black people. A for good measure include note saying the definition is not meant to be all-inclusive or exhaustive, simply reasonable and efficient.--Cupidon 18:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alun, No word universally applies to any 1 definition, but if you're going to write an article you have to pick a definition and stick to it. We would simply have a disclaimer at the start of the article that says this article refers to people of recent African ancestry. For a broader discussuon on all dark skinned groups, see dark skinned people You wouldn't suggest that Native American Indians and India's Indians should share the same article would you? Please show people of African descent the same respect allow African descended people an exclusive space Timelist 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case the article could not mention "Blasians," could it. P0M 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Timelist said: "I said that you have to consider that most black parents of blasians are 17% white so that affects genetic distance of offspring. Also, the statement is very approximate, the math doesn't have to work out 100%. Lastly, why do you care? Are you Blasian? I don't understand how passionate you are against this one little caption"

If a black parent of "Blasian" is 17% white, that'd reduce the distance between Asian and Black and that makes you more wrong. I'm going to delete that picture and explanation tomorrow. Lukas19 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It reduces the distance between Asians and hybridized Blacks and increases the distance between Blasians and 100% Blacks to the point where it's roughly equal to the distance of whites and 100% blacks which proves the caption correct Timelist 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The typical African American is West African and hence farther away from Whites than East Africans are to Whites...Hence even with all those pre conditions (1- Blasian in question should be half Mongol, half W African while not all Blasians are like that. 2- Black parent must include some white admixture...etc..), you are wrong...Lukas19 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point about most African Americans being West African is a good one. I changed the caption to "almost as genetically distant as whites are". Timelist 19:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes by all means off with the "Blasian" picture, I can remove it now if so commissioned.--Cupidon 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Nelson Mandela not there? We have a couple of "celebs" but not the greatest living human being. Shame I say. Alun 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because no one wants to admit that whites are as close to blacks as a group of half-black people. Sad that in the 21st century, people are so still so disturbed by such issues. Timelist 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with saying that the so-called "White race" derives in two broad lines of family connections, one rather remotely from Africa via someplace in central Asia and one more directly from Africa via someplace in the Mid-East, and that the so-called "Blasians" derive from recent ancestry in Africa, recent ancestry in Asia, with some additional recent "white race" components.P0M 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But you DO see a problem with the slightest hint that white people could be almost as close to blacks as a person with a black parent. Really what's happening is deep down people are still obsessed with the one drop rule of the segregated south. The notion that even the smallest hint of black blood contaminated and moved one to the black side of the fence. Hence many whites are uncomfortable with the idea that they're almost as close to being black as the people who are stigmatized by the one drop rule. That's really why that 1 little caption has created weeks and weeks of non-stop controversy and analysis Timelist 20:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any problem with the outright assertion that we are all so mixed up that any talk of purity is a pipe dream. Rejecting one's actual genetic inheritance is not only a problem with ignorant white people. It's been a shock to see on this very discussion page how many people of ultimate African derivation (as we all are) are adamant in their denial of "being black." If their arguments were to hold any water at all I think I could deny being Caucasian on the ground that all my ancestors have been in the N. American continent for 4 generations now. Surely I've evolved beyond my roots. ;-) The controversy that I raised about that "one little caption" is that it is non properly sourced. Just look at what we've already established. Somebody even argued against me that the article cited was Time mistake because they misquoted Marks as attacking Cavalli-Sforza, which made it an even worse misattribution than I thought it was. Then you or somebody else tried to drag in the chart from C-S, which would have been o.k. except that conclusions were drawn from it that constitute (a) original research and (b) bad math.

One of the main problems behind this whole myth of is that people talk as though people get to Peru or wherever, propagate and differentiate in isolation, and become so different that it makes a difference in anything other than what we can see at a glance.

For years now I have been raising this challenge to the scientific racists: Tell me one thing that some has that is worth anything and is not possessed by other . The best I've come up with is something like sickle-cell anemia--and that helpful/hurtful trait skips from to to propagage itself in areas where malaria is a serious problem. Every single difference I've seen that matters does so because it is an adaptation to a specific environment. Once you're out of that environment is becomes more or less of a detriment.

First of all, as I see it, no has an advantageous trait of general importance. If it did, then unless they gelded all their young men who traveled abroad that trait would spread over the world since it would give advantages to their progeny.

Second, no is pure. The Australians had a shot at it before the trade and conquest open the place up. We draw neat charts that show main lines of descent, and we find Japanese on one little line, and European on another line. If we consider the marriage of a couple, one from each place, you have in miniature what happens all across the board. Each group sooner or later sends an "emissary" to all the other groups. In the chart below I've only started at the two ends to draw in all the connections that are going to occur unless you put all sailors and travelers in chastity belts. I gave up because with just two groups and two colors I had already covered the whole chart with too many lines to distinguish clearly. That shows just how "pure" we really are. I think I know my genetic heritage. Truth to tell I never saw my paternal grandfather. Maybe he was half American Indian and the family covered it up. I have some idea where my great grandparents came from, and assuming nobody lied to me there were no different looking folks among them. But beyond that who knows? Sooner or later I'm going to find that one out of the thousands of ancestors a dozen or so generations back found a mate from afar.

Note that the distances from right to left indicate the amount of genetic variation that occurs naturally over time. Whatever was at the right end of the chart is not found totally unchanged anywhere on the chart, even on the nearest to straight-line connection. P0M 20:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop being so passionate. Stop feeling like it's your job to educate everyone else. Stop accusing Blasians of denying their heritage. It's their heritage. If they want to deny it, that's none of your business You just worry about yourself. Don't worry about what race other people are or whether race exists at all Perosnally I think all this talk about humans are all so mixed that race can't exist is all a bunch of hooey. If race doesn't exist how come forensic experts are able to determine your continent of origin of a fossil with 80% accuracy just by looking at the skull? How come racial self identification correlates so strongly with genetic markers? How come we tell what part of the world someone's ancestors are just by looking at them. You just read a couple politically correct book by people who don't even believe what they are saying, and now you think your educated enough to overturn hundreds of years of science. You think your educated enough to tell black people they don't really exist and dismiss them as a social construct. Just take a deep breath and relax Timelist 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's rather ignorant to say race doesnt exist. Rather than educating, it's more like missionary preaches.

However:

But:

Yes races arent discrete and the definition is vague. However these dont mean race doesnt exist. Just because concepts of "old" and "young" are vague and not discrete doesnt mean that these concepts dont exist. It's all simple logic really. Maybe some people's reasoning skills are not advanced and they feel the need to accuse others of ignorancy to hide their weaknesses. Accusing others to cover up one's self is a common human psychologic response afterall. Lukas19 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above,

I don't see any problem with saying that the so-called "White race" derives in two broad lines of family connections, one rather remotely from Africa via someplace in central Asia and one more directly from Africa via someplace in the Mid-East, and that the so-called "Blasians" derive from recent ancestry in Africa, recent ancestry in Asia, with some additional recent "white race" components

I think that statement is as much as can be supported by quotations from recognized authorities. It's a useful challenge to those who support racist ideas because they (as far as I know) put great stock in purity. But it never helps one's case to go beyond the evidence and get called on that score. What's wrong with a caption that draws an analogy between the two kinds of mixing of family trees? P0M 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. But that analogy doesnt support your previous arguments. It's rather well...just an analogy. You can also draw analogies of family trees of humans and cockroaches via evolving from single cell organisms at oceans. You can also draw analogies of "family" trees of humans and chairs via Big Bang, since both are composed of matter and have to comply with physics laws of our universe. And all matter and physics laws as we know it today were created out of Singularity during Big Bang. So you share some "ancestry" with chairs as well...However, since sharing "ancestry" billions of years ago has a completely different magnitude than your shared ancestry with a sibling, sharing ancestry 100,000 years ago (Africa) is also quite different than the case of Blasians...Lukas19 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Wow it sure looks to me like there is a lot more heat than light here. It would be difficult to say that people with darker skin and people with lighter skin do not exist. Of course some people have darker skin and some people have lighter skin. And skin color tends to be sort of inherited, but there are definitely exceptions. I am not trying to take the notion of having a darker color and even the idea of a separate culture away from black people, although there are many aspects of modern black American culture that are very corrosive and unproductive, frankly. However, as the NPR site shows, there are a lot of people that are not so easy to classify. For example, many people were shocked to realized that Barak Obama was claiming to be a "black" man when he was running for congress. They had thought he was white. I have met several people in my life whose "race" was not at all clear. Some of these people suffered terribly because of this. They did not fit in any group, and those with "black pride" frankly acted like complete jerks to these people who were supposed to be "black" by ancestry but had skin like snow white, whiter than the average white person's skin. And I have seen "white pride" and "black pride" and "Asian pride" and "Jewish pride" etc have VERY ugly sides sometimes. Also, I do agree that one can sometimes attribute a "race" by examining skeletal remains, although I suspect there are probably a lot of difficulties for people who are of "mixed" or nonstandard backgrounds. There were a lot of previous studies decades ago that showed differences in microscopic muscle structure between races but I do not know the current status of that area. The reason that people say that "race" is a bit difficult to define is the realization that

• the within group variance is so much larger than the between group variance.
• the high dimensional geometry of racial genetics is a bit more complicated than we would have suspected
• there are huge social factors that have an influence over behavior and abilities, and it is difficult to separate them.
• although the "means" of the distributions of various abilities and traits across populations might be slightly different, the distributions overlap so much and the distributions are so heavy-tailed, that it is a bit difficult to apply any of that to individuals.

Part of my uncomfortableness with the concept of "race" as well comes from the negative attributes that outside groups are glad to assign to any group that self-identifies as a "race", or that others identify as a "race". We have been down that road way too many times, and it is not pretty. People love to have "pride", but often that is a codeword for hating others, and becomes an excuse for others to hate them.--Filll 05:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was already thinking about the five children of a missionary couple in Taiwan. The father's mother was Chinese and his father was a Texan. The mother was a Texan too. I got to know them well because I tutored one of their children in remedial reading, having learned how from a SNCC project in East Palo Alto. They mentioned that their children were not accepted as white and were not accepted as Chinese. They had the warm love of both parents and they were wonderful kids so I guess they did not suffer greatly for it. But I could see the potential for harm.

Chinese people treated me very well during the seven years I lived in Taiwan. I never felt that I was discriminated against because of . I found that little kids had a delightful openness about their curiosity regarding difference. Adults seemed to me to judge people not by but by whether one was enculturated. If one could acquit oneself well by their cultural standards, that was enough for them. For my part, I had to realize that I was a guest in their country and so would be well advised to play by their rules whenever I could without bending my own deepest standards.

One of the martyrs to hatred in the United States, Hakim A. Jamal, quoted Malcolm X as follows on page 82 of his book From the Dead Level--Malcolm X and Me: "No man or race of people can ever possibly change if he uses, and continues to use, himself as a model!" I would add that one should not use one's oppressor as a model either. P0M 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much that has been said recently, in the sense that I believe that "races" are real. Also I think that people here have been avoiding some very essential though to be sure controversial topics. I once read in a book (I'll try to search or recall the title) that the Mediterranean climate and sun had allowed had been very conducive to the evolution of those physical traits which we have to associate with "classical beauty," indeed that from an least purely aesthetic position, as far as physical beauty was concerned the Mediterranean Type had reached a sort of apex in this regard (if true, we may want to somehow include this, however tangentially in this article). Note, the book and thus my remarks are in no way concerned with human intelligence, physical stamina or agility, or "civilizational genius."--Cupidon 06:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

1) "the within group variance is so much larger than the between group variance." This has been addressed and answered above.

2) I dont see how Barak Obama can be mistaken for a white.Lukas19 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And what did the learned discussion here decide about within group variance and how it was "answered"? I guess I was asleep or too stupid to understand it (this is sarcasm in case you do not get it).--Filll 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I much agree. His face is almost invariably negroid, though his skin could be darker to be sure.--Cupidon 13:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So you people think you could always tell what "race" someone is from how they look? And the people I heard interviewed about Barak Obama are just stupid crackers or people who secretly knew he was black but pretended to be surprised when they were interviewed to be politically correct? If you guys are so sure of yourselves and your ability to tell races from looking at people, why do you not take this test?--Filll 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a good friend whose parents are from India. He has pretty dark skin, but more or less European features. When we both moved to the US, the "black" Americans were complete jerks to him because they did not understand that you could have dark skin and not be an African American. This had them all completely puzzled. They did not understand who or what he was or where his ancesters were from. This happened OVER and OVER and OVER among educated African Americans at some of the most elite American institutions. This reminds me of the rules that the Germans had for deciding who was a Jew by measuring skull dimensions, nose length, and so on. I wonder if Senator George Allen, who we now find out is a member of the Jewish race, would have passed these Nazi tests or not? Also, remember George Allen's mother comes from Africa. So does that give him African roots? --Filll 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know George Allen. I also dont claim to be "so sure of myself and my ability to tell races from looking at people". I might not seperate an Indian from an African but I can tell a white from a non-white. I've seen Obama and it's quite clear he's non-white.

About your sarcasm, read the above section. Lukas19 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a link to see George Allen to test your skills at detecting races. He was a Senator from Virginia who lost a very close re-election race recently, WIDELY known to be considering a race for US presidency in 2008 and is well known for making racial faux pas, calling black people niggers, using the term "macaca", etc. So you never heard of him huh? Interesting. That speaks volumes. So you can always tell a white from a nonwhite? What about the PBS quiz? How did you do? What about the black people that can "pass" for white? And I read the section above. It mainly sounds like whining from people who do not have a clue. It does not answer anything.--Filll 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The pic you gave was inadequate. He's wearing a big hat and the pic is taken from distance. And there is only 1 pic, I can only see one angle of his face. I dont really follow US politics so I dont know him and what "volumes this speak", besides the fact that I'm not interested. PBS quiz is based on Federal US goverment categories. An authority I do not recognize. I'd classify most of those people as mixed and some hispanics as white, some as mixed and some as black. I do not recognize Mid Easterns as white and neither most North Europeans would, IMO, unlike your Census.

I also find it quite hilarious that you think the paper of A. W. F. Edwards - a British statistician, geneticist, and evolutionary biologist who is a Life Fellow of Gonville and Caius College and retired Professor of Biometry at the University of Cambridge and a pupil of R.A. Fisher, and who has written several books and numerous scientific papers - "sounds like whining from people who do not have a clue". It rather reflects your own ignorancy. Lukas19 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. So if you had more pictures you would be able to tell if Senator Allen was a Jew or not? Interesting. And here you do not recognize the US government categories, but we have other editors here on the page ready to tear anyone to shreds who does not shut up and accept those government standards as the only worthwhile standards. Which proves my point. That is, no one agrees. And from the sounds of it, you did not do so great on the test. Wow is that ever a surprise to me !!!! (Not). And of course you have different opinions about Arabs and Jews, being a nice unbiased European. We know your nice European history in that regard. Again, it proves my point that NO ONE AGREES. Do you dispute that people do not agree? Well you are free to argue that everyone agrees, like the other editor who is doing the same on this page but whose views are opposite yours. And what does that show me? THAT NO ONE AGREES. I was not aware that A. W. F. Edwards was contributing to the discussion above. What esteemed company, but if he wrote some of what we see above, he might be getting a bit senile. I am not referring to his book, which I was not aware was reproduced in full on the page above. And I would point out that on racial issues, R. A. Fischer was well known to have produced completely embarassing rubbish by all modern stasticians, besmirching an otherwise admirable career. This is very well known among professional statisticians. You did not know that? Oh my. That does speak further volumes.--Filll 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1)Read what's being said before you answer. I said: "I might not seperate an Indian from an African but I can tell a white from a non-white." As you can see I didnt claim to "tell if Senator Allen was a Jew or not". Just if he is white or not.

2) If your only argument is a test of TV channel...Wow is that ever a surprise to me !!!! (Not).

3) Again, people dont agree on who is young and who is old. This does not mean old and young concepts do not exist.

4) A. W. F. Edwards was not contributing above but I was making direct quotes of him. You seem to still have not read the section I had pointed out before or have not understood it. You seem to make stupid points just to be sarcastic but again, it reflects on you. Not on Edward's senility....Lukas19 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1)Well your racial radar is not very good if you cannot tell he has an African background as well as being Jewish. Which was exactly my point.

It's good enough for me. Jewish is not a race. As for African background, insufficient pictures, as I said.Lukas19 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So of course what you say goes, since you are such an authority. And we should all follow whatever you say. I see. So all the people who claimed that Jews were a separate race, including Jews and those who persecuted them were wrong. Including the group at Oxford studying Jewish genetic history. All wrong because Lukas19 has spoken. I will call the research team at Oxford, and tell them to quit their jobs. And tell all my Jewish friends. And all those neoNazis and falangists. Many many people they can tell a Jew immediately from their looks, just as you claim you have 100% accuracy at detecting people from Subsaharan Africa, even those with 99% European heritage. I have no reason to doubt your claims but I should reject all those claims of people who claim to be able to detect Jews by sight since you have claimed it is crap. But you are tuned so you can only tell people of African origin and always are correct, even if they have only 1% African ancestry. Wow. Even if they have very white skin, whiter than yours. And blonde hair and blue eyes. I am impressed. And I suppose you can tell by sight if a dark skinned person is from Australia or from the mountainous regions of China or the Phillipines. It must make you feel good to have such incredible powers. But frankly, I don't believe it. Pretend I am from Missouri, the ShowMe State.--Filll 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

2)You are free to dismiss the documentary that appeared on PBS. Being from Europe, and being very young, you might not realize what PBS is. That is ok. However, that does not dismiss my point, that it is not always easy to define who is black and who is not, and to be able to tell. What about albinos? What about people with vitilago? What about people with mixed parentage? What about people who can pass? What about the Shan or the Aeta or the Aborigines? What about the natives of Paraguay? Some Inuit look not too dissimilar from dark skinned peoples from Africa? Some Berbers from Africa look pretty white. What about the Ainu? They look pretty European. My point is, this is not easy always. And the people who claim it is, usually have some negative agenda in mind. Like hatred of groups different than themselves. The point is, people that are difficult to classify exist. I have met many in my life. I do not care if 1% of the population is hard to classify or 0.1% or 10% (although I suspect it is higher than that, because I have personally met several people like this). The point is, our cherished idea that we can always tell others of another race is wrong. Even if it is in a minority of cases. I have seen pictures of Berbers that look awfully white to me. I would not have a clue that they were not regular white people of European extraction. I have seen many "black" models that I would not have known if they were African American unless they told me. Colin Powell looks a heck of a lot whiter than most Italians I know, and a fair number of white members of my family. Ask most Japanese, and they claim that it is obvious that Koreans look nothing like them, but genetic tests and reality demonstrate that this is not at all true. The autochthonous people of Japan, the Ainu look awfully European, but genetically they are quite distant. Although the Lemba (who look just like a Bushman tribe) look far less Jewish than the average white Italian, they are in fact far closer genetically by some measures. Kennewick man appears to demonstrate that Caucasians were present in the Americas 10,000 years ago. The indigenous people of the Arctic are all supposed to be darker skinned, but the Saami do not fit this model. The point is, things are more complicated and ambiguous and contradictory than we want to believe with our nice neat models. There are counterexamples. There are intermediate cases. Our racial groups are not discrete and well-separated. It is naive to believe that things are so nice and neat, the way the Klu Klux Klan claims, and the way Black Pride activists want to claim. Sure one can tell some people by their looks. But it is not quite that simple, and to claim it is, is to be mired in the past, and sort of wishful thinking.

Your points are irrelevant to me as they are your anectodal experiences. I havent met anyone whom I cant tell if he is white or not. If you think Colin Powell looks more white than Italians, it means your "race-dar" sucks, IMO. Maybe it is because you are American and Americans consider some people who wouldnt be considered white in Europe as white. Also many whites in USA are actually mixed. 1/3rd of white Americans have less than 90% European ancestry. Lukas19 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You can reject whatever you like. I would be glad to heap personal insults on you like you seem to do to others here, but it is pointless and a waste of time. In your case, it would be far too easy to reply in kind as well. What is the challenge in that? Like taking candy from a baby. And that is not what Misplaced Pages is for. And I think some things are finally penetrating into your skull however. You stated:

Americans consider some people who wouldnt be considered white in Europe as white.

Yes that is it exactly. You might be starting to get it. And the same with black people. Because as I have said over and over, trying to get people here to understand:NO ONE AGREES ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF BLACK PEOPLE (AND WHITE PEOPLE). I do not know why this is so hard for you to understand or accept. People do not agree. And that is what the article is about. I am not sure about your statistics about African parentage for American "whites", but I would not be surprised. The same is true of American "blacks". And it is all sort of stupid, since the genetics of Africans and Europeans is so similar anyway. As I have said over and over trying to get people like you to understand. You can sit there pleased with yourself that you are racially "pure" and you have an eagle eye for detecting those "filthy" blacks who are so different than you, but I think we all know what your agenda is. You have revealed it in ample measure here. --20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

3)The point is NOT that biological characteristics like skin color and age do not exist. The point is that DIFFERENT PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE ON WHO IS BLACK because that is a sort of arbitrary category and social construct. And also, is it useful? It is somewhat biologically useful to know someone's age, but it does not determine everything. Not all women get osteoporosis at the same age. Not all women start their menses at the same age. Not all men get prostate cancer at the same age. Not everyone gets Alzheimer's disease at the same age. And on and on and on. There are no nice clean categories and nice clean rules and universal agreement for racial categories, just like there are not for age.

If people dont agree on definition it still doesnt meant Black people dont exist. It rather means we should include all sourced claims...Lukas19 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well duh. Of course, that is the point of the article, or did you just think of that? Should I give you a silver star? My gosh.--Filll 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

4)I admit that in the huge mess that this page has turned into, I did miss the quote from A. W. F. Edwards. He does claim that in fact the statements that within group variance is greater than between group variance are wrong. Without digging into this for untold hours, it is a bit difficult to know what this means. Are the scientists who make the opposite claim wrong? Stupid? Did they have bad data? Or, are we comparing apples to oranges here? After all, we do not have a definition of the "groups" involved. That is the entire point of this article, as I have said over and over and over:THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT ABOUT WHO IS BLACK. I will also point out that just claiming variance alone is not sufficient to make sense of the statement. Variance of what trait or collection of traits? And how were the data processed or culled or projected or transformed to produce the variables on which this statement is based? Without knowing all this we cannot really understand what is being said.

Dont blame the page. It was your own stupid mistake. Especially considering that quotes were written between huge purple wiki-quotes, it was easy to spot. I directed you to it several times and you kept missing it and answering with sarcastic comments which became much more ironic after your admission. Edwards made his paper in 2003 so it hasnt been popularized like Lewontin's arguments which was made in 1970's.Lukas19 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to know we are in the presence of someone who never makes a mistake about anything. And after having read your two contradictory references, it really does not tell me very much. Except that you are confused and overconfident.--Filll 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Further: Looking at the two references you quoted, which I think are very useful to bring to the article instead of some of the warmed-over sludge that we have, instead of puncturing my arguments, bolster them. For example, from Jorde and Woodson :

a. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.

b. Among both the scientific and lay communities, the notion that humans can be grouped into different races has been enshrined by some and dismissed by others. Even the definition of race varies considerably, depending on context and criteria2, 3. Nevertheless, race continues to be used in a variety of applications. Forensic databases in the US are typically organized according to traditional racial and ethnic categories (e.g., African-American, European-American, Hispanic). Investigators funded by the US National Institutes of Health are required to show that minority populations are adequately represented in biomedical studies. Responses to medical therapies, such as drugs, are often compared among populations that are divided according to traditional racial divisions. Among the general public, the validity of racial categories is often taken for granted.

c. Not surprisingly, biomedical scientists are divided in their opinions about race. Some characterize it as "biologically meaningless"4 or "not based on scientific evidence"5, whereas others advocate the use of race in making decisions about medical treatment or the design of research studies6, 7, 8

d. In other words, approx90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only approx10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans.

e. At least two such studies have concluded that the observed clustering patterns do not correspond well to the subjects' geographic origins or 'ethnic labels'30, 31.

f. Thus, the South Indian individuals do not fall neatly into one of the categories usually conceived as a 'race'. In addition, examination of the posterior probabilities estimated by structure shows that most individuals in Figure 3 are not classified with 100% probability into one of the main clusters32 (similar results were obtained in ref. 33). In other words, each individual within a cluster shares most, but not all, of his or her ancestry with other members of the cluster (e.g., a member of the European cluster might have a posterior probability of 90% for assignment to that cluster, with 5% probability of assignment into each of the other two clusters in Fig. 3a). Ancestry, then, is a more subtle and complex description of an individual's genetic makeup than is race41.

g. Thus, populations are never 'pure' in a genetic sense, and definite boundaries between individuals or populations (e.g., 'races') will be necessarily somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary.

h. At face value, such results could be interpreted as supporting the use of race in evaluating medical treatment options. But race and ancestry are not equivalent. Many polymorphisms are required to estimate an individual's ancestry, whereas the number of genes involved in mediating a specific drug response may be relatively small50. If disease-associated alleles are common (and thus of clinical significance), they are likely to be relatively ancient and therefore shared among multiple populations51, 52. Consequently, an individual's population affiliation would often be a faulty indicator of the presence or absence of an allele related to diagnosis or drug response.

i. Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations.

j. because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.

k. When it finally becomes feasible and available, individual genetic assessment of relevant genes will probably prove more useful than race in medical decision making.

l. But the potential usefulness of race must be balanced against potential hazards. Ignorance of the shared nature of population variation can lead to diagnostic errors (e.g., the failure to diagnose sickle-cell disease in a European individual or cystic fibrosis in an Asian individual) or to inappropriate treatment or drug prescription.

m. Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, nonoverlapping entities. Furthermore, by offering the means to assess disease-related variation at the individual level, new genetic technologies may eventually render race largely irrelevant in the clinical setting. Thus, genetics can and should be an important tool in helping to both illuminate and defuse the race issue.

Quotes a, k and m echo exactly what I have said repeatedly on this page about the use of race being replaced in medicine by more accurate individual genetics. Quotes b, c, g, h, and e support what I have said over and over on this page, apparently to people who do not want to hear it:THERE IS DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHO IS BLACK. Quotes a, d, f, j and l among others assert that there is a big spread of traits and that there are not clear racial boundaries. Quotes a, d, i seem to support the position that within group variance is larger than between group variance. I suspect the reason for the apparent disagreement with the statements of Edwards is probably a matter of definition, than a real disagreement. Quotes b, e, f, g, i, and j seem to suggest that the concept of "race" as a nice discrete readily identifiable category is problematic. All of these are positions that I have held here over and over. Introducing more of this kind of material into the article will help it considerably, in my opinion. --Filll 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you are still unable to locate Edwards arguments online and still come up with silly lines such as "I suspect the reason for the apparent disagreement with the statements of Edwards is probably a matter of definition, than a real disagreement"...

It should be also noted that the article which you say supports you DOES NOT consider about Edwards' claims. And even it says:

Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless."

Also, all these info are outdated since:

Hence, finally, as I said before...Saying that race is a myth is IGNORANT and STUPID.........Lukas19 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are free to defend whatever views you want. However, not everyone agrees with you, clearly. Even the article from Jorde and Woodson makes that eminently clear. And I guess those two scientists have no idea of who Edwards is, and their arguments should be rejected because they were too incompetent to read him. Or maybe it is because there is some other explanation? Like NO ONE AGREES , maybe because of the definitional, rhetorical and tautological reasons I stated. Or maybe we could just postulate that every scientist who agrees with you and your perfect race-detecting eyes from your position of pure white Caucasian European racial superiority and omniscience is unquestionably correct, and every scientist who disagrees with you is an incompetent fool. How about that? Sound better to you, oh pure one? And from reading your cherished quote from Edwards, I can see that some of the problem here. It is a question of robustness and departures from a diagonal covariance matrix. Are you an expert in developing robust techniques in these cases? Do you have a Phd in mathematical statistics? If you are not, then I suggest you have not the ability to decide who is correct and not. And I think your arrogance is a bit misplaced. Because if you want to go head to head, you will have quite a suprise, young man. So I suggest you retreat gracefully. I just would not be too confident about claiming anyone who finds problems with racial categorization is "IGNORANT AND STUPID" because that includes a lot of learned people with far more background and experience than you. But go ahead. It reveals your true nature. I hope you are proud of yourself.--Filll 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is great. I wish you wouldn't make so many changes Alun Timelist 14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you might think it is great Timelist, but it seems like not everyone agrees.--Filll 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm going to put a POV tag on this article. I think it suffers massively from a North American bias. In some ways this is normal for wikipedia articles, North America has the greatest number of English speaking internet users. But I think the systemic bias here is huge, the article suffers from a problem of POV due to this. I think that in North America all (or the overwhelming majority) Black people are or recent West Africa origin, so it is accepted there that Black is synonymous with West African origin, but this is merely a local perception and is not globally accepted. I do not think this is a neutral point of view. Indeed I think that the article seems little more than an attempt to define Black people as of recent West African origin, it strongly supports this definition above other definitions to the extent that it is little more than an attempt to discredit other definitions. This is a clear breach of neutrality. This article is not about African Americans, it is about all Black people. The article is so biased that for a long time there were not even any pictures of even African people in the gallery, except for Ethiopian Black people, and that was simply to reinforce the POV that "they are not really Black" because they are from East Africa. This article therefore suffers from a bias that only people of recent "West African" origin are Black. I do not believe this is a world view. The article is also hopelessly confused. Often it uses genetic data, but these are biased in themselves, because a person cannot be genetically "Black", it suffers from the distorted idea that a "Black person" is universally identified as a person of recent West African origin, and it uses genetic data specific for people with ancestry from this geographical location to define Black on a genetic level. We need to use more neutral language. I also think this article could do with a massive clean up, it's a mess, is full of poor English and the structure is terrible. I also think it could do with going for Peer review.Alun 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

1. When we say a Black person it should mean any person who can identify as black according to any definition, that is we need to be inclusive (inclusivity is the key to avoiding a racialist point of view). If we want to be more specific we need to use more specific language. For example we need to differentiate between people who are African American, or as West African, or as East African (who are considered Black by most defintions whatever the POV of this article).Alun 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
2. We need to avoid use of the term "Black" as a racial epithet, except when we are specifically refering to it as such, and it should be made clear in this usage.Alun 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
3. We could probably do with a synopsis of who is considered Black in different cultures and societies, and by different organisations.Alun 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
4. If we need a gallery there should be more prominent people, especially more from outside of the USA. For example Paul Boateng the first Black British Cabinet Minister, or Bill Morris the veteran British trade unionist (former general secretary of the TGWU), who is now a member of the House of Lords as a Life Peer (though unfortunately there is no picture of him here as yet). What about Kofi Anan? Another African who is ignored in favour of North Americans. We could even have Condolezza Rice, I dislike her politics a great deal, but there is no doubt that she is a prominent Black person.Alun 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree with this point: We need to avoid use of the term "Black" as a racial epithet, except when we are specifically refering to it as such, and it should be made clear in this usage--Halaqah 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Aluns comments. Several editors (including African Americans) have made attempts to make this article more neutral from African American bias, but a very small number of editors, who have taken ownership of this article, have made it almost impossible. A more global perspective on Black People has been almost embargoed, or limited to the section "Other viewpoints" (previously called Alternative viewpoints). Peer review is a good idea. And yes, this article should be tagged as {{POV}}, or at least as {{Globalize}}. --Ezeu 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If it suffers from North American bias, it doesnt mean it's not from NPOV. It means it just doesnt represent a worldwide view. Use correct tags...Lukas19 14:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article suffers in many aspects, but the basic direction is not too horrendous. The claim is that no one agrees on who is black. Does anyone actually believe that there is some agreement about who is black or what the term black people means?--Filll 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article should include some discussion of more current scientific thought and discussion about different features such as "black pride" and "blacks who can pass" and discrimination against other blacks by blacks over color, and a lot of other material I have seen here on the talk pages. I would like something similar to the PBS test demonstrating how difficult and arbitrary it is to classify people as belonging to a "race" in some cases. Jablonski's work would be nice to include. Of course, with all this stuff to put in, it might get too long so that has to be considered as well. --Filll 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All those topics are interesting Fill, but this article really just serves as an introduction to the topic. Hence I think the primary focus should be on how the word has been defined by various people. There are other articles on passing. As far as sicence goes, I think that's only relevant to the extent that science has been used to define what a black person is. There are other articles that go into the indepth science behind racial genetics, but all we need to do is state the various definitions in a neutral way. And I think this article does that__ Whatdoyou 15:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, we really do not have space to address all the topics that might be germane and appropriate here. We can, however, provide links to these topics and material so that someone who wants to learn about them can. I personally liked the picture that we used to have of the Egyptian statue showing a black person sitting on a throne next to a white person, or the statue in the German church of the black saint in armor. But we do not have enough room to include everything.--Filll 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alun's idea that anyone who can be called black by any definition should be described by black in the article is a huge violation of NPOV. The article is not here to describe who is black, it's simply here to describe various perspectives on who is black and who is NOT black. Descibing people as black because they're considered black by at least 1 definition is POV because it implies that the definitions that say said person is NOT black are wrong. I don't know where Alun gets this ridiculous idea that the article is saying you have to be West African to be black. I don't even think the term West African is used even once in the article, and Nelson Mandela is not West African. Some people say you have to be Sub-Saharan African, but no one says you have to be West African. Please read the article before you trash it Alun. And just because Alun is ideologically opposed to genetic definitions of black does not give him a right to censor them. Alun complains that the article has a North American bias but he is trying to impose a European bias. __Whatdoyou 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Alun's idea that anyone who can be called black by any definition should be described by black in the article is a huge violation of NPOV.

This doesn't make sense, and it's not what I said. What I said was when we use the term Black in the article it should be used in the most inclusive sense, because otherwise no one knows who we are talking about, for the simple reason that there is no consensus. In most cases we should avoid use of the word altogether. It's not pOV, it's common sense, any other interpretation means that the article is favouring one definition over another. Alun 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The article is not here to describe who is black, it's simply here to describe various perspectives on who is black and who is NOT black.

Well the article doesn't do that. The article says people of recent West African descent are Black, and all other definitions are wrong. This is incorrect and a POV. Alun 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• And just because Alun is ideologically opposed to genetic definitions of black does not give him a right to censor them.

We can't have a genetic definition of Black because many people who are Black are not genetically related, and even come from different continents. Again, the genetic definition of Black used here presupposes that all Black people are the recent descendants of West African people. This is not correct. Alun 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a European bias, it's his own...Lukas19 15:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So I ask again, does anyone think that there is any agreement about who is a black person?--Filll 15:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I think everyone can agree that anyone with a high percentage of recent sub-Saharan ancestry is black. But now we seem to have a White European editor on a crusade to have the POV that Australian aboriginals and South Asians are black forced down everyone's throat even though these groups have no genetic connection to Africans, African-Americans, Afro-British, or Black Caribeans, and even though this idea is extremely offensive to people of African origin. But who cares what people of African ancestry think? We wouldn't want to offend the White European editor who feel African-Americans don't know anything about what it means to be black. Whatdoyou 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• But now we seem to have a White European editor on a crusade to have the POV that Australian aboriginals and South Asians are black forced down everyone's throat even though these groups have no genetic connection to Africans, African-Americans, Afro-British, or Black Caribeans, and even though this idea is extremely offensive to people of African origin.

Ok so maybe most people's definitions might include people who recently came from a certain part of Africa. But obviously there are lots of other definitions. And attacking someone who is white for their editing here is a bit ludicrous. Anyone can edit any article. You think there would be agreement if people you decided were black were allowed to edit? That is complete nonsense. I have been here long enough to see that blacks themselves do not agree about who is black. Some blacks think the word black is ugly, so they want to restrict its use and minimize it. Some blacks think that the word black has a bad connotation because American blacks have been such jerks and it is too much of an American term. Some think that black refers only to African Americans, or that African Americans invented the term. Some think that the term black was invented by whites to refer to blacks to discriminate against them. Some blacks want to believe that there is a black consciousness that includes people from all over the world including the Dalit in India and the Tamils and the Aeta and the Australian Aborigines. And none of them agree and they all were very angry at each other. Just read the archives. It was very ugly.--Filll 16:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course anyone has a right to edit the article. But it's bad enough when Africans get offended by who is and isn't considered black, but for a white editor to tell black editors that an article about black people is not politically correct enough is just funny to me. People must have way too much time on their hands is alls I can say.__Whatdoyou 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have quite alot of time on your hands as well. Fill is merely stating the obvious. Whatever little consensus there is here, it is irrespective of whether one is black or white. --Ezeu 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Examining Alun's comment

Well let's take a look at what he really said:

• Defining blacks as only being from West Africa is too limiting: I have to agree. Do you not?

The article doesn't even mention West Africans so why is he even mentioning them? Is he trying to drag the whole "true/classical negro" controversy into the talk page too so we'll have more stuff to fight over.__ Whatdoyou

I guess you have not bothered to read the page above where this was a big topic of discussion. That is why he brought it up. And I have no idea what you are talking about with the "true/classic negro" controversy. But it is another example probably of how people do not agree about who is a black person. --Filll 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The article has a North American bias: I have to agree. Don't you?

Not at all. I think it has an Australian bias. Australian aboriginals are mentioned in an article about black people? North Americans consider only African ancestry people black Whatdoyou 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you live in Australia, Australians call Aborigines black. Aborigines call themselves black. This apparently predates the American usage, or at least its popularity since the 1960s. And the "black pride" and "global black consciousness" crowd frantically want to include the Aborigines as black people. But of course there is a huge fight in the talk page archives about this, since no one agrees about this. And it is not important what North Americans think. The article is not about what North Americans think, or at least it is not about what North Americans only think. --Filll 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

People are not genetically black

• People are not genetically black: My understanding of the current status of science is that this is true. You do not think so?

Of course people are genetically black. People of sub-Saharan ancestry give birth to people of sub-Saharan ancestry so obviously its genetic. DNA tests correlate very well with self-identification. The FBI can look a a piece of DNA and then tell the police if the suspect is black, white, Asian, or Australian aboriginal. Of course being black is genetic. You would have to be dumb to think otherwise__ Whatdoyou 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are not following the current scientific literature. And the discussions here on the talk pages. You can find the genes for skin color and test for that of course, but that still does not necessarily correlate very well with who self-identifies as black, or who is considered black under various rules. Again, take a look at the PBS test. There are too many exceptions to these rules and too much confusion. If there was a nice simple test to see who is black or not, this would be far simpler. That is why people disagree. And why current scientists have decided that race is mainly a social construct.--Filll 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you follow the current scientific literature? Please try not to sound so ridiculous when you are accusing others. It has a bad reflection on your own comments:

"Nevertheless, recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population." Lukas19 17:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not relevant. We do not accept Black as a racial classification. In North America nearly all Black people are of recent west African descent, and are therefore from geographically similar areas. Also being Black has a lot to do with the selective pressure strong UV light has on skin colour. There ia a host of information on this if you can be bothered to think outside of your narrow racialist perspective Thulean. Distorting biomedical research to try to support your dodgy racialist ideas is what you seem to do best. Go on accuse me of a personal attack, but read WP:SPADE first and look at your edit history. Alun 18:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Other genetic cluster studies also put all Sub-Saharan Africans as together, seperate from Australian Aborigines. And who is this "we" you are talking about? Also, cease personal attacks....Lukas19 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly the point, that Black doesn't refer to a "racial" group? Black people live on many continents and are biologically, culturally and genetically diverse. People of recent West African origin are not the only Black people, they represent a sub-group of Black people. There are other Black people in the world that come from different continents, but are still Black. Black is not a definition of any "population", or ethnic group or culture or society. Black people is used for massively diverse people from Indigenous Australians to Negritos to Ethiopians to West Africans, these people do not form homogeneous cultural, ethnic or population groups, but they are all considered Black by some societies. The "we" is the editors of the article, it is clear in the several definitions of Black from dictionaries that Black is not defined as people of recent West African origin. Indeed you should loook at the Oxford English Dictionary definition, you were very keen to include the OED definition of "white" in the White people article, all of a sudden you do not seem to accept it as such a reliable source when it diverges from your POV. How hypocritical is that? Alun 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said "People of recent West African origin are the only black people"? Did I claim such a thing that you are writing to me as if I made such a claim. Please try to read what's being said before you answer. Also, please do not speak in the name of all editors in this article, it sounds megalomaniac.

I was just answering to the claim that "People are not genetically black". I assumed dark skinned people of mostly sub-Saharan ancestry are called Black. And those people do form a genetic cluster. Therefore it's ignorant to say "People are not genetically black". I thought Australian Aborigines were not called Black but simply as Aborigines. Instead of writing rather silly personal attacks and directing to me to essays instead of Wiki policies, maybe you should have pointed to Oxford definition earlier. However, it still does not invalidate my original point. If Black refers to "relating to a human group having dark-coloured skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry", people are still genetically black which is either Sub-Saharan race or Native Ocenian race. So maybe instead of a Black race, there are Black races. But it's still ignorant to say "People are not genetically black".

And please dont accuse me of "distorting biomedical research", Armand Marie Leroi, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Imperial College in London also has a similar interpretation about the cited material. Perhaps it might be you who do not understand these researches? Lukas19 13:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The data in this study only include sub-Saharan African people. They do not include other people who are considered Black. They do not include Negritoes, and they do not include Aboriginal Australians. According to the OED both Negritoes and Australian Aborigines are Black people. This study excludes them Hoe does this study define sub-Saharan Africans? Does it have a proper cross section of all of the peoples that live south of the Sahara? Does it include East Africans, who are also considerd Black, at least here in Finland where we have a rather large Somali community. People are not genetically Black, how do you define this? If you mean that all Black people are more genetically similar to each other than to any other groups then this is clearly untrue. People have very dark skin colour because it protects them from UV radiation. This adaptation has occuerd independently many times according to a paper I was reading recently, it's in the archive now, probably at the end of the last one. So your study concerns a group of Black people that live in sub-Saharan Africa, it does not concern all Black people. As a consequence if it has any merit for this article it is only to show that people in sub-Saharan Africa are more genetically related to each other than they are to other groups. So what does this mean regarding Black people? Well not very much, because it does not include all groups that are considered Black. It only refers to sub-Saharan Africans, so maybe not even to all Black Africans. So whay is your point? Alun 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are people on this talk page, and have been for months, that claim that black=SubSaharan African or black=West SubSaharan African. If you disagree with that statement, then you agree with what the article currently states and with me and with alun/wobble. And there are other black groups besides the SubSaharan Africans. And they have been called black for hundreds if not thousands of years. You can produce a genetic test for skin color, but there are many people with very light skin, even lighter skin than you probably, who are still called "black". So it is more of a social construct than anything else. There are not nice clean boundaries. There are contradictions. And the references you cite confirm that there is plenty of controversy and disagreement in the biological community on this issue. Which just serves to bolster my argument which people do not seem to understand: THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ABOUT WHO IS A BLACK PERSON IS.--Filll 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think one can tell certain things from genetic studies, obviously. We can tell that the Lemba] are genetically "Jewish". How Jewish do the Lemba look to you? There are numerous groups with dark skin around the world, each of which might be determined genetically, including the West Africans. But there are many who have some sort of mixed ancestry which make it far harder to tell. And some who look white who are of African ancestry, or some other disagreement between appearance and ancestry, or genetic data. One of the main driving forces behind this is to try to improve medical care for those of different races. Jews of Ashkenazi origin are more likely to be carriers of Tay Sachs than other groups. American blacks seem to be more prone to heart attacks and diabetes than whites. Some native American groups seem to be more prone to diabetes than other groups. Some aboriginal peoples seem more prone to alcoholism. Some Africans seem to have different musculature than other groups. Those of African origin seem to have less resistance to AIDS than other groups. Sickle cell anemia is mainly a disease that strikes those of African ancestry. Some of these are connected with social and environmental factors, so it is a bit difficult to tease out the actual influence of genes themselves. However, all of this is going to be obsolete pretty quickly. In a few short years, your own individual genetics will be used to determine the prognosis of your diseases, your likelihood of affliction, and the best course of treatment for any particular ailment. This will be far more accurate and far more useful than relying on something as arbitrary and confusing and ambiguous as "race". A doctor will not look at an unconscious patient and try to guess if he is an Aeta or an Ainu or a Gambian or an Aborigine or an Ethiopian or a Dalit or a Tamil or Semangs etc. The doctor will not do a genetic test to determine what race the person is, or mix of races, and then try to guess what treatment is appropriate. The doctor will know exactly what the person's individual genetic makeup is and be able to prescribe a treatment accordingly.--Filll 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this issue seems to be so contentious, it might be worth a sentence or two describing the differing opinions on the genetic evidence for race. But I have the distinct impression that this is highly controversial. And this is not an area that is settled yet scientifically by any means. I would also caution people who are so frantic to use the existence of the "black race" as some seem to want to do that this has, and very easily again could be used as a weapon against you. Even on this page I suspect we have had a few "white supremacist" types. And the black pride people want to accept the seperateness that Rushton wants to confer on them, but reject all his statements about how stupid they are. It seems a bit like picking and choosing to me. And so the black pride crowd here is grasping at straws, since I see plenty of people in the scientific community who are not particularly convinced by Rushton's arguments. And I am not that impressed with his work either, from the point of view of science. I might have to compile a more extensive discussion of this, given the rancor that this point seems to be generating.--Filll 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously African black people are genetically black. However, since genetical differences between (within) black Africans are as varied as the differences between Africans and whites, the whole discourse seems somewhat discordant. --Ezeu 19:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No that's not true. Look at the chart. Look at the yellow circle around Africans in the bootom right quadrent compared to the circle around whites in the top right quadrent. Is the difference within the African circle greater than the difference between the African circle and White circle. I think not. Kobrakid 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have said over and over, I would not stake too much on that chart. For one thing, there are no error bars. And until one of you can even explain to me how that chart was derived, it is basically like a bunch of monkeys arguing about the purpose of a pair of pliers they found on the ground.--Filll 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already been explained Fill. Cavali Sforza took his matrix of genetic distances between the populations he studied and transformed it into a correlational matrix. He then applied PC analysis and extracted 2 factors that accounted for most of the variation in the world's ethnic groups. The first factor is climate, those who rank low on the Y axis of the chart appear to be in warm climates, those who rank high tend to be from cold climates. The second huge source of genetic variation in the world's populations in geographic migration distance from Africa. Those who rank low on the X axis moved far away from Africa. Those who rank high, tend to have stayed close. As you can see all the many different kinds of people in the world are not all independent groups, but can be grouped into a small nuumber of races based on genetic propinquity Kobrakid 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what Cavali and Sforza said they did. What I want to know is if you can explain to me:

• what is a "matrix" of genetic distances
• what genetic distance was used and why and what the problems with it were or could be
• what is a "correlational matrix"
• what is PC analysis
• how do you extract out 2 factors that account for most of the variation
• Are you sure that the factors are climate and distance from Africa? That does not sound like PC to me. If that is all you needed to do to see the grouping, you would not need to go through those other handstands first. Why were they done then? Or why not just identify one group as representing an arbitrary origin in this 2D space, and then correlate the genetic distance with distance in this 2D space?
• Where are the error bars (2nd moments) in this analysis? What about higher order moments? Can you do a robust analysis on this data and how would it change?
• What is varimax analysis? What are the alternatives?
• Is this the optimal separation of the "races"? Is there any bias being introduced unwittingly by the analysis? Is there any Winsorizing involved here?

I could go on and on. People are arguing like madmen about this picture as though it was the Holy Grail. And my point is, most people here could not tell me what it is. They have no idea where the picture came from or what its problems might be. They want to measure distances down to a fraction of a millimeter as though this means something. This is just a projection or nonlinear transformation of very high dimensional data into a plane that shows things tend to separate out in a suggestive way. Ok that is a nice result, but I would not fight too much based on this one picture, or draw detailed conclusions about distances of distant races from each other from it quite yet.--Filll 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As another nice example, consider lactose intolerance. Most people of African origin are lactose intolerant. But a lot of African Americans are not lactose intolerant. One strong contradiction exists with the Masai, who are often lactose intolerant by our tests, but subsist mainly on milk (sometimes mixed with blood). Some estimates I pulled from the web to give an idea:

• Swedes: 2-4% lactose intolerant
• Danes: 2% lactose intolerant
• All whites: 25% lactose intolerant
• Africans: 95% lactose intolerant
• African Fukani tribe: 25% lactose intolerant
• Zambians 100% lactose intolerant
• African Americans: 75% lactose intolerant
• Asian Americans: 90% lactose intolerant
• White Americans: 12% lactose intolerant
• Australian Aborigines: 85% lactose intolerant
• Masai: 62% lactose intolerant

There is a big swath of land in Central Africa where the population is mainly lactose tolerant. North and South Africans are mainly lactose intolerant. Tribes that are lactose intolerant are right next to tribes that are lactose tolerant throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East. What makes this even more complicated is that there is more than one type of lactose intolerance. So for this one trait, can we decide who is black and who is not? Can we decide who is of African descent and who is not? This is just too complicated in too many ways. And when one examines a lot of traits, I suspect similar things exist. It is just too complicated to draw nice neat conclusions, that most people seem to want to do, both those that think blacks are inferior and maybe not even human, and those who want to believe that blacks are superior and believe in black pride. This is just not a simple subject.--Filll 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Other comments about Alun's statement

• There are a lot of strange comments about how Ethiopians are not black: This is true I think. You do not think the article has a lot of this material?

There's also a whole section about how Ethiopians DEFINED black people in the ancient world. I think it's a perfect balance. Show both sides__ Whatdoyou 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are a lot more than two sides here. If you think there are only two sides, you have not been following this discussion very carefully. Ethiopians might be important from a number of perspectives, but lots of people disagree with that.--Filll 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The English is poor: I have to agree. It is poorly written. That is "alls" I can say. You disagree?

It's poorly written because there's been so many disagreements and counter-arguments. This can sometimes hurt the flow. Not a huge problem __Whatdoyou 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a written document. So bad writing is a problem. It is meant to be accessible. So bad writing is a problem. It is supposed to be scholarly. So bad writing is a problem. Of course it is impossible to clean up the English when people are fighting so much. That is just reality. And you are one of the people fighting.--Filll 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So what is so bad about what he said? I disagree with some of what he says, but I think he makes some good points. I do not care if he is white or not.--Filll

Virtually nothing he had to say is even remotely worthwhile.__Whatdoyou 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a ludicrous statement. See above.--Filll 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you to read WP:NPOV An agreement among all editors isnt required to write article from NPOV. Lukas19 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let this article be hereby known by the title of Bleople

I propose we contract the title article to Bleople and start a new trend. Let us make linguistic history--Cupidon 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. — Matt Crypto 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that bleople might be a useful term in the future, once we have decided that "colored", "negro", "black", "Afro American", "african American", and assorted other names are too old fashioned and too associated with negative connotations to use. But this venue is not the proper place to try to introduce it.--Filll 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Or just stick to calling people by their ethnic group names; Fulani, Zulu, Baganda, Oromo, Koori etc. African Americans have mostly lost the connection to their African tribal origins, but seem content with that epithet "African Americans", so why not keep it. In any case lets not add another word to the already existing, more or less colourful (pun intended) bouquets of neologisms (ie. Blasian). --Ezeu 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am being slightly sarcastic. EVERY term will probably eventually become freighted with negative connotations and therefore need to be replaced. So there is a constant need for new terms that are politically correct.--Filll 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well for the record I think it is just as offensive to be called White. I don't think in terms of colours. People are people, I don't think the fact that I can be "classified" as "white" says anything important about me, the only thing you would know about me was the colour of my skin and that my ancestors were probably from Europe. So the best name for the article would be "People" actually, and everyone can go in there. Alun 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "People" may be pure, simple and all inclussive, but unfortunately it is not a sufficient and plausible classification, as people need to belong to, and self identify with specific groups. The problem, as exemplied by the arguments on this page, is that epithets delineating homogeneity are sometimes ambiguous, and when they are claimed by several groups, it gets messy. The epithet "Black" for example, is also used to describe peoples with ancestry other than African, but this article effectively denies this reality, because individuals within the group with most leverage (especially those individuals with a limited worldview) is able to dictate the conditions of its usage .--Ezeu 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the suggestion of using the term "people" was meant as a tongue-in-cheek joke. The ambiguity and disagreements are what are driving the conflict on the talk page. But the article is about a diversity and nonuniformity of opinions, which is clearly accurate, and this article can accommodate the wide variety of views that exist. In fact, I would like to have more in the article. --Filll 20:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems every other group gets to have a word to describe themselves except those of African ancestry. Europeans don't have to share the word "White" with Northern Chinese even though Northern Chinese have whiter skin. But African-Americans are being asked to share the word black with Australian aboriginals just because the early White settlers thought the the natives they were killing off looked like Africans. Well African-Americans want a right to our own unique global ethnic identity. We want the right to group ourselves based on our bond with our brothers and sisters in Africa. We don't want to see the name diluted to include people we have no genetic or historical relationship with us, and Australian aboriginals don't want to be confused with Africans either (they are proud to be the natives of Australia). The fact that Australian aboriginals were called black is a mistake of history that most people no longer recognize. So if you want us to call Australian aboriginals black, then what are people of African ancestry supposed to call ourselves to describe our African ethnicity. African-American? I don't live in America. African? I don't live in Africa ether? Nigger? WOULD YOU LIKE US TO CALL OURSELVES NIGGERS??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kobrakid 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please try to contain yourself. If you are from country X, and you are of African origin, what is wrong with African-X? Good heavens. Or maybe you are trying to make some kind of joke, like many people on this page. --Filll 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell Black people what to call ourselves. It's not our fault a few rednecks in Australia can't tell the difference between Africans and Australian aboriginals. Why don't you just stop lumping all dark skinned people into one category, as all prejudice people do. Kobrakid 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not care. You can do whatever you want. But the problem is, people who are black or who self identify as black or who are of recent African ancestry do not agree with each other about any of these issues. At all. You think they do? Are you paying attention AT ALL???

And hyphenating my African ancestry with my country of citizenship further isolates me from my brothers and sisters in Africa. I don't want to be isolated. We are the same race. Why don't you call Austrtalian aboriginals white. They're genetically closer to whites than they are to me, but heaven forbid we disrupt the purity of the White race by allowing in a group of dark skinned natives. But it's okay to violate the purity of the African ancestry people (see I don't even a word to call us thanks to people like you). Kobrakid 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok make up a word. I do not care. Use Bleople for us people of color. Let's reclaim another racist term like jigaboo or jungle bunny or porch monkey or some other slur someone lumped on us. This is so stupid. I did not steal your name. You do not agree with other dark skinned peoples, or even other African Americans or even others of African descent. Do not blame me or other blacks or whites around you or whites 500 years ago or whites 2000 years ago. That is too easy to say that it is all the white man's fault. Always someone else's fault. Those unfair Aborigines. Those awful Europeans. Those ugly Arabs. What a crock.--Filll 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the people I blame are the people right here on this board who are telling my people we don't own the word. I don't blame the rest of the world, because the rest of the world agrees with me. It's wikipedians who are trying to distort reality and redefine ethnic boundaries Kobrakid 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So the rest of the world agrees with you, huh? Well we had several African people on this page who were extremely angry at African Americans wanting to call African people "black". There were huge fights. Check the fights. I do not think they all agree with you, for example. They just think it is another example of obnoxious pushy arrogant African Americans. And if everyone agreed with you, this article would already be written the way you want it. And we have plenty of quotes of others who disagree with you in the article. I saw many other editors making the same claim as you, that the whole world agreed with them, and that the term black applied to everyone around the planet, in spite of evidence to the contrary. They also used the same charges as you, that everyone who disagreed with them was racist or not a true black. All it proves to me is what I said before: NO ONE AGREES ON WHAT IS A BLACK PERSON. --Filll 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Be black. Who is denying you the right to be black?. How does anyone else's blacknes reduce your blacknes? On the contrary, your insistence that other people's blackness deprives you of your own blackness is paranoid, and an affirmation of an inferiority complex. And please do not throw the appellation "Afrocentric" in my face anymore. If anything you are the Afrocentric by claiming that black is a term excusive to black Africans (except apparently Ethiopians). And also I am sick and tired of you alleging that one is an "insecure black", or a white supremacist - because they disagree with you. --Ezeu 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the race card always get played in these discussions. Someone all of a sudden decides that if others do not agree with them, even if they are fellow people of color or other people of African descent, they must be racist. I get tired of so many racist charges being thrown. It is like the complaints that someone is an Oreo. It is just pure nonsense.--Filll 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not playing the race card and I find that term offensive. It's just a way of dismissing the honest concerns of people of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry (still no word to call ourselves) Kobrakid 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What term do you find offensive? Black? African American? Afrocentric? Race card? Race? Oreo? Be clear if you want to debate.--Filll 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are obstructing peoples of African ancestry to unite under the term black by robbing it of any meaning. You are destroying the group cohesion of the African ethnicity by diluting the most common term we unite under. Sub-Saharans Africans and their descendents around the globe feel a unique kinship with one another and have an intimate bond and we would like to use the word black to describe it if it's okay with you. We don't want the beautiful meaning of the word destroyed by watering it down to the point that any dark skinned person can claim blackness. The light skinned races of the world don't have to share one identity (Orientals are Orientals and Whites are Whites). But people feel the need to lump all the dark skinned groups together under the label black. The mentality seems to be "Oh they're all just dark skinned savages so why bother to make distinctions". Well peoples of African ancestry have no relationship at all to Australian aboriginals, so trying to categorize us both in to the same ethnicity because we share a similar skin tone, is not only offensive, it's stupid. You seem to be saying that people of African ancestry are not entitled to their own global African identity. We must either adopt separate ethnic labels (African American, African British) but if we to use a global term like Black, you're trying to force us to include groups like Australian aboriginals who have no relationship to us. How humiliating for people of African ancestry that we're the only ethnicity on Earth that gets so little respect that people try to deny us a term by which to call ourselves. No wonder the hip-hop community keeps using the word nigger. It seems to be the only global identity we're allowed. Kobrakid 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Black is not an ethnicity. Refrain from lumping Africans into your perception of reality. We do not need, and have neer needed your flawed advocacy. And please keep your hip-hop, nigger etc. allusions out of our face. --Ezeu 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Black is indeed an ethnicity, and one I am proud to belong to and don't appreciate you diluting. To those of us who are proud of our unique African ancestry, Black = African ethnicity, and we'd appreciate if you'd strop throwing your Australian aboriginals in our face. And btw, Australian aboriginals don't need your flawed advocacy. They're proud of their unique identity too Kobrakid 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Black is an ethnicity only in the American psyche, because black Americans have no other ethnicity to refer to. Africans in Africa who are the majority of blacks do not use the term "black" as an ethnicity, because the are well rootet in their own ethnic cultures and have no need for substitute terms. --Ezeu 06:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know the history of the word in the US? It was not always preferred. It was chosen by African Americans themselves to replace older terms that seemed archaic, and had too many negative connotations associated with them. And it fell out of favor a bit, like all these terms do, when it too developed negative connotations, in the 1970s (it is interesting to contemplate WHY it fell out of favor. Maybe it had something to do with what was in the news at the time? Hmm...) That is why the term "Afro American" was coined, just before it was replaced by "African American". Black replaced Negro (as in United Negro College Fund) which replaced Colored (as in NAACP). I am not diluting your term. It was diluted before "you" chose it. I do not think you are old enough to have been part of the group who "chose" it in the 1960s. You can define it as recent African ancestry if you like, but you have to know that this is not uniformly accepted arond the world. And this encyclopedia is for the whole world, not just the US. Sorry if that offends your provincial viewpoints. For example, South Asians are typically called "black" in England. Did you know that? This has been true for a long long time. Since before the US existed, possibly. I am not throwing the Aborigines in your face. But I am not going to deny they exist. And you cannot either. There are other dark skinned people in the rest of the world, no matter how that hurts your personal feelings. And how dark are you anyway? If you are like most African Americans, you probably might be viewed as very light skinned in many societies. Maybe not even of true African descent. I am not advocating anything special for Aborigines. You think that noting that they are called black in their native land by Europeans (which they are) is somehow advocating for them? What sort of warped reality is this? Wow--Filll 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask people of African ancestry how dark they are. An African-American with light skin, blue eyes, and 3 White grandparents is infinitely blacker than the darkest skinned 100% pure Australian aboriginal. Why? Because being black has NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP to do with color. It has EVERYTHING to do with African ancestry. I could be greener than the incredible hulk, whiter than the winter snow, but I'll always be BLACK because my ancestors stayed in Mother Africa while the rest of humanity abandoned it. I couldn't care less what they do in England. First of all, England just does whatever America tells it to do, and that's why the British census does not recognize South Asians as black. It's against British law for South Asians to self-identify as black on the census regardless of what the ignorant commoners may call them. Australian aboriginals are not black on the Australian census. The term black came out of the civil rights movement. It may not be a perfect word, but it's the only word people of recent sub-Saharan ancestry have to describe our ethnicity on a global scale, and I'll be damned if I surrender it to a few Australian red necks who mistook their natives for Africans. Kobrakid 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And why should I not ask a person of African ancestry how dark they are? Because this is a source of internal tension in the "black" community. Well, well. Isn't that interesting? Just like American blacks brand each other as high yellow or cafe au lait or oreos etc. Obsessed with tiny variations of color. However, I am glad to see we agree on something, namely:

An African-American with light skin, blue eyes, and 3 White grandparents is infinitely blacker than the darkest skinned 100% pure Australian aboriginal. Why? Because being black has NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP to do with color.

It is a social construct. It often has very little to do with color. I agree completely. However, you make some other very strange statements:

I couldn't care less what they do in England. First of all, England just does whatever America tells it to do, and that's why the British census does not recognize South Asians as black.

Well you should care what they do in the UK because WIKIPEDIA IS NOT ONLY FOR ThE USA. Do you understand that this is a global enterprise? You can hold your breath until you turn blue, but it is not for the US only. So give it up. And that is one of the most inflammatory statements I have ever heard, that the UK does just what the US tells them to do. Also, have you ever looked at the UK census rules? Well I have. The categories in 2001 were:

• A White. Tick box options of: British; Irish or Any other White background (please write in).
• B Mixed. Tick box options of: White and Black Caribbean; White and Black African; White and Asian or any other Mixed background (please write in).
• C Asian or Asian British. Tick box options of: Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Any other Asian background (please write in).
• D Black or Black British. Tick box options of: Caribbean; African; Any other Black background (please write in).
• E Chinese or other ethnic group. Tick box options of: Chinese; Any other (please write in).
  

And guess what? In the UK, you can be Caribbean black, African black or other kinds of black. And guess what people chose in 2001? About 665,000 chose Caribbean black, about 544,000 chose African black and about 121,000 chose other kinds of black. So it does not sound like your claims are that accurate, once again. However, typical usage in the media and by the police and other government agencies, including the general public is to use black to refer to south Asians. You also state that

It's against British law for South Asians to self-identify as black on the census regardless of what the ignorant commoners may call them.

Oh so there is a serious penalty for a South Asian to call themselves black? I guess that explains why 390,000 people in the UK claimed they had a religion of "Jedi Knight". And it is against the law with serious penalties for an Asian to call themselves black, the same serious lawbreaking I would be engaged in if I misidentified myself on the US census? Have you looked at the Australian Census rules? They have done a lot of fine tuning, removing the use of the words "race" or "racial" to try to avoid offending anyone, and finding that this produced much better compliance. Also, you would not be called "black" or even African under Australian Census rules, but lumped in with other Americans and Canadians, according to their rules published in 2000. Hmmm...Also, it sounds pretty elitist and obnoxious for you to call people that disagree with you "ignorant commoners" and "redneck Australians". Not much different than you playing the race card against people that dare to disagree with you. The term "black" or its equivalent in other languages has been around a long time. For example, H. Imbert, a French anthropologist reported:

"In the earliest Chinese history, several texts in classic books spoke of these diminutive blacks; thus the Tcheu-Li composed under the dynasty of Tcheu (1122-249 B. C.) gives a description of the inhabitants with black and oily skin…The Prince Liu-Nan, who died in 122 B.C., speaks of a kingdom of diminutive blacks in the southwest of China.".

Some speculate that there were blacks in Japan before the Japanese arrived from Korea. There is a Japanese proverb which states: "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of Black blood." Another recording of the proverb is: "Half the blood in one's veins must be Black to make a good Samurai." It is fine that a few African Americans decided they would use the word "black" because they were tired of "negro" and "colored". But I notice that they did not change the names of the NAACP and the United Negro College Fund.--Filll 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How am I obstructing people of African ancestry to unite under the term black? What did "I" do? I did not write hardly any of the article, except for making a few minor attempts to try to turn the language into something that more closely resembles English, since this is the English version of Misplaced Pages. It might be nice to have an Ebonics version of Misplaced Pages, or a Pidgin English version of Misplaced Pages, as was suggested earlier by OJPimp'son. And maybe eventually these will exist. I do not know. But there are people, including people of African descent, and African Americans and people who are pushing for global black pride and global black consciousness who want to include other dark skinned people in the word black. And some of those people self-identified as black, sometimes long before the popular use of the word black in the US in the 1960s. Or were called black by others, such as the "negritos" and other dark-skinned people that predated the Chinese in China and Taiwan. If you want to have a very restricted definition of what black means, maybe you should try to write your own page with your own definition and keep it from getting deleted. Because that is not what this page is about. This page is about the fact that NO ONE AGREES ON WHAT A BLACK PERSON IS. Not white people. Not asian people. Not black people. Not African Americans. Not African people. Not people in the past. Not people currently. Not scientists. Not black supremacists. Not black pride people. Not black muslims. Not black racists. Not politically correct liberals. Not governments. Not white racists. Not white supremacists. Nobody. If you want a different theme, write a different article. You can write your own definition that is very restrictive of your own group, and call it "People of subSaharan Ancestry who do not want to let others into their special club and are proud of it" or something like that. You can even call yourselves black* or something like that. But sorry, you cannot appropriate the term black for yourselves and your group because you do not own it, and you never owned it, and history demonstrates that very effectively.--Filll 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh utter nonsense. Everyone who counts agrees that Black = African ethnicity. Look at the U.S. census, look at the British census, look at the biological definitions of black. I couldn't care less if a few racist explorers said "hey those native South East Asians sure look like little niggers, lets call them negritoes." I also couldn't care less if a bunch of Australian rednecks had so little respect for the native people that they called them black because they were too ignorant to distinguish them from Africans. I also couldn't care less if a few self-hating African ancestry people are so desperate to lump themselves in with a non-African group that they're trying to popularize this all inclusive mindless definition of black. We African ancestry people own the word black if we claim it, and we have official government census, the founders of anthropology, and modern DNA studies to back us up! Kobrakid 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who counts huh? So Australia does not count? The Philippine people with the use of the word Aeta do not count? The Chinese with the Semang do not count? Both of these last two predate the existence of the US and were even well before Columbus, it appears. You seem to be a bit ignorant of history and geography, but I would expect this from someone of American background. And so you have decided that 100 years ago Australians should have known that you would decide to claim the word black for your personal exclusive use to refer to people of a particular origin from a particular part of Africa? And how were they supposed to know that? And I guess you have not canvassed other Black Consciousness people here on this talk page and in many Black Studies departments in US Universitites that want to talk about Universal Black Consciousness Raising. Just look at some of the proposed versions of this article from some of them. Do not argue with me. Argue with them. But it just proves my point: NO ONE AGREES. I also was not aware that the modern DNA studies "proved" that ALL PEOPLE EVER CALLED BLACKS HAD ANCESTORS WHO CAME RECENTLY FROM AFRICA. I also was not aware that this was one of the tenets of the founders of anthropology, who obviously stated that IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT BLACK CAN ONLY BE APPLIED TO PEOPLE WiTH RECENT ANCESTORS FROM AFRICA. Wow what an interesting revelation (this is sarcastic in case you cannot tell). And why does the US Census Bureau definitions prove anything to you? Why are they more substantial than the UK Census Bureau, or some other country's Census Bureau, or some other government departments? You seem pretty desperate to claim that word for your own and erase history and current reality in the process.--Filll 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Australians used the word based on ignorance. They actually believed at the time that Australian aboriginals and Africans were part of the same race. It was never a formal classification, just informal ignorance. It's like the racists who call Arabs sand niggers. So by your logioc Arabs should be black cause well someone said it. As for the aeta, there's no proof that ther term means black. Some have SPECULATED that the term comes from a root word that means black in tagalog but it's only speculation. Modern DNA studies prove that sub-Saharan Africans define a unique race totally different from Australian aboriginals, and people who speak of blacks in a biological context use the term exclusively to refer to Africans. It has no other biological meaning because the other groups mistaken for blacks have no genetic connection to Africans beyond the basic connection all humans share. And the U.S. census AND the U.K census agree that Black = African. And the founders of anthropology equated black with African. Have you not even read the intro to the article. I don't have to erase history. I actually know history. Kobrakid 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is because you prefer your own definition that black refers only to a "race" of Africans. Black is much more than that, and irespective of how many times you bring up your beloved U.S. census, that is a fact you will never eliminate. No one has ever claimed that Australian aboriginals are Africans, but that they are black. It seems you have to obfuscate the issue in order to make your point. --Ezeu 06:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, the UK census does not equate BLACK and African. This is just some desperate claim you are making. It is not true. I looked it up. And the details are copied above. Why are you so frantic to set SubSaharan Africans or even SubSaharan WEST Africans apart from the rest of humanity, and claim the name black exclusively for them, even when many of them who were on this page objected to it being applied to them? To them, it was just more evidence of obnoxious American imperialism. A little like American blacks who went back to Liberia and acted like complete jerks to the Africans living there. It is still going on even now, well over a hundred years later, I notice. Arrogant African Americans expressing animosity and worse to their dear African "brothers". And I am not sure that the US census use of the term is anything more than an attempt to keep African Americans from exploding in rage over something, like they do about just about anything. They have not kept up with changing times, to rename the category more politically correct, because they are a big slow stupid government bureaucracy. And I am not aware of "black" being a current biological term. In fact, it sounds like nonsense to me. Show me a reference to a biology textbook with that as a formal definition. And what on earth does the genetic distance between Aborigines and SubSaharan Africans have to do with anything? So what? I don't care. And no one should. This is just more evidence of how complicated the history of the human race is. From a Stanford University website on the history of South Asia, there is a nice bit of history of the nation of Funan about 2000 years ago. It is noted that

Funan had a Malay upper class, but most of the population was Negrito. A Chinese ambassador was offended by Negritos who were "ugly and black" with frizzy hair, who walked around naked.

It is also noted on this Stanford University site that the Indian Kerala region at the formation of Israel had both "black Jews" and "brown Jews" who moved to Israel between 1948 and 1955. These black and brown Jews moved to Israel where they are now known as Cochini Jews. I have found MANY MANY examples of people being called black by others for the color of their skin for hundreds of years. Not just white crackers. Not just ignorant Australians. Not just Europeans. Not just people aping the arrogant African American Black Pride clowns. If we threw all that other stuff out, there would be NO REASON for this article to even exist, since there is already an article on African Americans. You want to shoot your mouth off about your crazy racial theories? Go and do it at that article. However, I am not sure you will get too far because there are African American Black pride people who have a much more inclusive agenda than your restrictive elitist viewpoint. And they are just as skilled as you at using the race card constantly at people who do not agree with them, like all African Americans. Only problem is, you do not agree with them.--Filll 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I do not think that the hip hop community or rap community grabbed the word "nigger" because the awful white man would not let them have their own name (after all, who used the word nigger more often before? ). It is meant to shock and garner attention, like the homosexuals using the words "gay", "queer" and "faggot" to refer to themselves, or feminists and lesbians using the words "dyke" and "bitch" and "cunt" to refer to themselves. The rap community after all likes to talk about cop killing, and pimping, and call their women "bitches and hos" and use the phrase "mo-fo" all the time for the same reason. They are choosing the most powerful shocking words they can think of to get attention. And to a certain extent, it works.--Filll 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Purity of African ancestry people

From Kobrakid: But it's okay to violate the purity of the African ancestry people
What the heck does THIS mean? How "pure" do you think the "African ancestry people" are? Starts to sound a little bit like the pure Aryan race of the Nazis. Or like that great quote from Dr. Strangelove, about the

international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

--Filll 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparing other editors to nazis. That's a real sign of intelligence Fill. Yup, you're really interested in maintaining an intellectually honest civil debate. So not only have my people been subject to far more opression than any other group, but now we're being compared to some of the worst oppressors of all, and all because we want the same right to a unique global ethnicty that every other ethnic group on earth has. You take the term "pure" out of context and try to call me a nazi. Your cheap political tricks don't scare me. BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kobrakid 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why always compare racists to Nazis, the true and actual menace continues to be the Communists, i.e. Castro, Chavez, Morales, Zapatero, etc...The fact that Communists are less racist means they are only more dangerous cause it makes their spread and acceptance more possible (though it is ironic to be sure).--Cupidon 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am definitely being sarcastic here. My comments were definitely meant to highlight the irony of the situation, with someone claiming that his "race" is "pure" somehow, whatever that means. I do not claim that Kobrakid is a Nazi. After all, it is not necessary to brand people as Nazis when we have had some people that really claimed to espouse Fascist and Nazi goals here on the page, and were proud of it, although we do not seem to have heard from them lately since one of their group was banned from contributing. But racial purity arguments really reek, for the reasons I stated. Others who want to get so worked up about racial purity have not had the best of intentions. So I do not think you will find this a very fruitful line of argument, if you want to pursue it. But be my guest, if you want to find out where it will lead. Proclaim yourself as championing the interests of Black Racial Purity. Maybe you can even start a new page about this? I would be glad to help you if you need help. Kubrick was making a wisecrack to demonstrate how stupid statements about purity were in his Strangelove film, which is why it is such a well-remembered quote. It demonstrates how ludicrous these kinds of claims are. So tell me Kobrakid, since I seem to be so stupid that I misunderstood, what do you mean when you talk about "black racial purity"? Explain yourself and enlighten the rest of us uneducated unwashed masses.--Filll 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill that test proves NOTHING

I just took that race test you provided. It was fun and entertaining but not particularly relevant. The photos they asked us to classify were not randomly selected. It's very easy to find exceptions to a general rule and then conclude that the rule is not valid, but you could use such faulty logic to disprove anything. The people they selected for that test were selected BECAUSE they are hard to classify. It wasn't a random sample. If I took a photo of the first 20 people who walked into a shopping mall and then asked each one what their race is, and then created a test on-line, I guarantee people would score close to 100% on my test. Why? Because my test would be based on a random selection of people. I would not be selecting the most hard to classify, most racially ambiguous people I could find, just to make a point. The people in the test you cited represent probably less than 1% of the population. The vast majority of us are very easy to classify Kobrakid

Of course that is not a random sample. Of course they were chosen to be hard to classify. The point is, people like that exist. I have met many in my life. I do not care if 1% of the population is hard to classify or 0.1% or 10% (although I suspect it is higher than that, because I have personally met several people like this). The point is, our cherished idea that we can always tell others of another race is wrong. Even if it is in a minority of cases. I have seen pictures of Berbers that look awfully white to me. I would not have a clue that they were not regular white people of European extraction. I have seen many "black" models that I would not have known if they were African American unless they told me. Colin Powell looks a heck of a lot whiter than most Italians I know, and a fair number of white members of my family. Ask most Japanese, and they claim that it is obvious that Koreans look nothing like them, but genetic tests and reality demonstrate that this is not at all true. The autochthonous people of Japan, the Ainu look awfully European, but genetically they are quite distant. Although the Lemba (who look just like a Bushman tribe) look far less Jewish than the average white Italian, they are in fact far closer genetically by some measures. Kennewick man appears to demonstrate that Caucasians were present in the Americas 10,000 years ago. The indigenous people of the Arctic are all supposed to be darker skinned, but the Saami do not fit this model. The point is, things are more complicated and ambiguous and contradictory than we want to believe with our nice neat models. There are counterexamples. There are intermediate cases. Our racial groups are not discrete and well-separated. It is naive to believe that things are so nice and neat, the way the Klu Klux Klan claims, and the way Black Pride activists want to claim. Sure one can tell some people by their looks. But it is not quite that simple, and to claim it is, is to be mired in the past, and sort of wishful thinking. --Filll 04:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill all you are saying is the totally obvious point that human races blend into each other. But this is true of ALL biological classifications and proves absolutely nothing. The existence of intermediates like Lemas, Ethiopians, and Blasians no more disproves the existence of race then the intermediate shades in a rainbow disprove the existence of color. The overwhelming majority of people can be racially classified just by looking at them and those racial classifications have exceedingly high correlations with actual DNA. Kobrakid 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. It is more complicated than just saying they "blend into each other". But they do "blend into each other". A lot. That is the whole point of the "within group variance" and the "between group variance". And even if only a few percent are difficult to classify by looks alone, they still exist. Ever talk to one of them? Get their views on "race"? I suspect not. You cannot equate something discrete like the three types of cones on the back of the human retina with the far more complicated situation with genetics, in very high dimensional spaces and intermixed human populations. They are not even at all comparable. Sorry. And what is your purpose to divide people up into "races"? How many races should there be? 4? 6? 50? 100? It can be done of course. I can come up with some fairly complicated and detailed criteria to make some arbitrary division. And what is the purpose of this exercise? What is usually done is to do that to prove that one group or another is inferior and deserves to be treated more poorly than other groups. So what is your purpose? As I said above, one might have been able to make the case for possibly different medical treatments, but this window will soon be closing with individualized and far more accurate treatments in very short order. So it is basically of no value except for the purposes of discrimination, fighting for resources and spreading hatred.--Filll 05:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are moral arguments not scientific arguments. You have no scientific arguments. And if you feel classying people as black serves no purpose, then what purpose does this article serve? __Whatdoyou 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

So this is how I see it. There is no consensus here and we have two very different points of view. We need to include both points of view, I don't care if some people are "offended" by this, it is clear that wikipedia policy encourages all significan points of view. There is no doubt that the point of view that Black people do indeed form a "race" that is of recent West African origin is prevelant in North America, all of the genetic data used are used from this point of view. So I suggest we broadly split the article into two. We have a section about the idea that Black people are a specific people with recent origins in West Africa, we can include much of the genetic data and other definitions of this more exclusive concept in this section. Then we have an equal section wich gives the other point of view, that Black is also used, usually outside of North America to mean diverse and non related groups of people from various parts of the world that happen to share the traight of having dark skin. Given that we have to include all points if view I don't see that there should be a problem with this. There is no point in arguing about who is right or wrong, there is no right and wrong, there are merely different points of view. We could even have two sets of galleries. How does this sound? Alun 06:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are more than 2 different views here to accommodate. The entire point of the article is to demonstrate that NO ONE AGREES ON WHO IS A BLACK PERSON. Now the arguing on the talk page is with people who want to push one particular definition over the others. I would prefer giving everyone and all points of view an airing.--Filll 07:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it's just a suggestion, there are clearly two general positions here. Some people equate Black with a recent West African origin, other people take a different view. There are other points of view, to be sure, but from what I've read of the talk page these are the source of the greatest disagreements. Alun 07:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense but I think this project is fastly becoming a fool's errand, people keep falling into the trap of equating blackness with dark-skin pigmentation tout court, for the majority of people across the world blackness is equated with (recent) SubSaharan African origin. Why's it so difficult for some people to understand this? I repeat Ghandi was not black, Gaddafi is not black, nor are Rushdie or Naipaul. I do concede that in America the definition of blackness is more inclusive but only to the extent that people of partial (known and/or evident) African ancestry are automatically determined "black" (e.g. Barack Obama), not even Americans go so far as to include Indians or Pakistanis or Filipinos or Australian Aborginals in there definition of blackness, so why do we?--Cupidon 06:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghandi was not black, and neither are Gaddafi, Rushdie or Naipaul, and no one ever claimed they are. How Americans decide to use the term "black" does not dictate how it is used in a global perspective. --Ezeu 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point exaclty. Glad we agree (with Ezeu I mean). By the way are you black or African-American (just wondering)? Regards.--Cupidon 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm African. --Ezeu 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not confuse systemic bias and your POV for a global perspective, read the dictionary definitions. And yes, in many ways the whole of wikipedia is a fools errand. We come here to make an encyclopaedia, but the vast majority of articles are rubbish and will probably never be any good. There are all sorts of people here who want to push their own personal opinions, or who want to impose a specific point of view. We reach consensus by cooperation and compromise. You need to accept that your point of view, while a valid point of view, is not the only point of view. You may fervently believe that Black people are all of recent West African origin, you may even believe that this is a global view, but you need to accept that this article is not only about what you believe. There are other people out there who actually do hold different points of view, and hold them strongly, equally as strongly as you. You must see that your point of view about Black people is not universal, the people here who are giving the opposite point of view are proving this too you again and again. We do not hold our different points of view just to upset you, we do not hold them because we want to be difficult. We hold them because many of us come from different parts of the world, where there are different people who have different perspectives. Because more than one point of view exists (and it does) we need to include all significant points of view, this is wikipedia policy. You may not like it, it may offend you, but there you are, you cannot change it. There are plenty of sources that contradict you when you claim to have a global perspective, not least the OED, which is by no means the font of all knowledge, but certainly shows that Black people does not specifically refer to a "race" of people form West Africa. You can have your point of view in the article, be happy about that, do not try to tell other people that their point of view is not correct, this is an encyclopaedia, it contains all relevant points of view, in many ways there is no right and wrong here. Alun 07:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• for the majority of people across the world blackness is equated with (recent) SubSaharan African origin.

How do you know this? If you want to claim this in the article you need to find a source that supports it, the source would need to be a global one and not one only for North America. Even if it's true, we need to include minority opinion here anyway, as per WP:NPOV. Alun 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a nonsense statement. We have had other African American editors here claiming the opposite, also with no references quoted, just as fervently. And also using the race card and throwing tantrums when others did not just roll over and agree with them, and allowing them to write a single POV article. The real answer, which I have been arguing for months, is what I believe is obvious:NO ONE AGREES ON WHO IS A BLACK PERSON. Maybe if I repeat it enough, some of the people fighting this so desperately might absorb the reality of the situation, instead of insisting that the entire world is the same as East St. Louis or Compton, California, or the South Side of Chicago. I have seen this where I live near Washington DC as well. Since African Americans are the majority of the population here, they assume that all of the US and in fact all of the world must look exactly like this area does. And when I mention to them that African Americans only represent about 10% of the US population, they are stunned and they refuse to believe it because that is not what they see around them in this immediate area. They had thought that the reason all the people on the television were not black was because of those disgusting racist whities and "mofo" crackers that were keeping the black man down. And when someone goes to China or Japan, they assume that those societies revolve around a conflict between blacks and whites, because that is all they can understand. The idea that there are different places in the world with different dynamics is just beyond them. They cannot grasp any type of conflict anywhere in the world that is not between blacks and whites. They cannot understand tensions over religions or languages or between other groups, because all they are familiar with is a division into blacks and whites. So they make these sweeping generalizations based on almost zero knowledge.--Filll 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More definitions of black

I also will note that when I lived in the New York Metropolitan area, it was very common for Jamaicans to call the much lighter skinned African Americans as "blacks". Jamaicans were not called black or regarded as blacks by anyone, including African Americans or the media. In fact, it was common for Jamaican parents to warn their Jamaican children to stay away from the "blacks", referring to the light skinned African Americans. And there were battles between gangs of Jamaicans and "blacks". So this is another example of how NOBODY AGREES ON WHAT IS A BLACK and also that black is often just a social construct. Also from the talk page of African American we see thes e contributions:

What about the term "black". Is that inappropriate to be used? I have had an interesting time in the "black people" article, where some contributors (A Canadian and Yemeni) have advocated that ultimately the term "black" is nothing more than a slavery term and should not be used to describe the people in question. What are the opinions of those here? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

and from an African, speaking of the term "black":

am so happy that the term is dying and being replaced by African American, just listen to the ring African American. It makes sense, African poeple in America. black, a color, what does that tell me about you? nada---Halaqah 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also:

Race and ethnicity are completely different each other. Race refers to people that have similar pyhsical appearances and the same ancestry. Ethnicity refers to people that have a specific heritage, culture, language and tradition. Blacks from the U.S. and blacks from Jamaica are of the same race because we are black and we are of African ancestry. We are ethnically different. The culture, heritage and history of black people in these nations are different. Blacks in the U.S. started the civil rights movement and created rap and jazz music. Blacks in Jamaica created reggae music and gained independence from Britain. There never were any blacks from Jamaica that participated in the American civil rights movement, and no blacks from the U.S. participated in Jamaica'a independence from Britain. African American is an ethnicity, not a race. It applies to black Americans. Read the definition, or read mine. An African American is a black person born in the United States of America, or an American-born black person, who is of African ancestry, or a descendant of enslaved Africans brought to the U.S. during the Atlantic Slave Trade. If a white person comes from Italy to the U.S., that person is an Italian-American, not European American. If a black person comes from Nigeria to the U.S., that person is Nigerian-American, not African American. Europe and Africa are continents, Italy and Nigeria are countries. A person's nationality refers to the country of their birth. Italian, Nigerian, American, German, Ethiopian, and Canadian are nationalities. European, African, and Asian are not nationalities. The term African refers to the indigenous peoples that makeup the continent Africa. They are the ethnic African tribes like Yoruba, Zulu and Ashanti. These people are also black people. They, along with others, don't consider other people to be African. You have to look at this historically, racially and scientifically. Yes, humanity started in that part of the world, but when humans went to other lands, they became their own race: white/Caucasian, Indigenous American, Arab, Asian and black/African. That's how it is. Besides, the term was used by Malcolm X and pro-black groups towards themselves and other black Americans before it became acceptable. One more thing, why do you think the Cherokee and the Apache are known as Native Americans? Because they were in the U.S. and the Western Hemisphere first.Also, black people in other countries created ethnic terms that combines their African ancestry and their nationality. For example, blacks in Brazil are also known as Afro-Brazilians. I also don't hear some complaints about people of East Asian ancestry calling themselves Asian American considering the fact that the Middle East and South Asia also makeup the continent Asia, and a lot of people don't just call them Asian American. In some cases, they just call them Asian.Cclass 22:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

On your first question, I believe the prevailing term is "Afro-Canadians", but, of course, there aren't many; "Black Canadians" is broader, and can include dark-skinned people from South Asia. No, they are not generally considered African American, unless they are relatively recent immigrants (a generation or two) from the U.S. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Now as I survey these and other things, the only conclusion I can reach is what I have said over and over:NO ONE AGREES ON THE DEFINITION OF BLACK PEOPLE.--Filll 07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point, you mention some black people (Jamaicans) calling other black people black but not wanting to be called themselves black. What's your point? Anyway in Spain we don't have Jamaicans (at least not many), though many people do like Bob Marley, but I still miss your point entirely. Let's keep the perspective global like someone said. Also in Spanish we differentiate between moros and negros, most people seem to prefer negros over moros and affectionately call them negritos, little black ones, moros on the other hand are almost universally detested which is strange in a way since they're less dark.--Cupidon 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll has written his point out in bold lettering, how can you not get it? There is no agreement about who is Black. Is this not clear enough for you? Alun 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Alun is completely correct. I guess I have to keep repeating my point: NO ONE AGREES ON WHO iS BLACK. What is it about that statement that you have a problem with, or are not quite understanding?--Filll 07:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cupidon. Also his point about moros and negros is very pertinent and describes well the reality of Spain. I would only add that moros doesn't necessarily mean moorish it rather means now brown person, usually originally from India, Pakistan, Egypt, Las Filipinas, sometimes dark Arabs, to be sure Moroccans and Tunisians, and mulatos. It does not includes Lebanese people, Iranians, Syrians or Armenians, these we call turcos.Regards.--Magencio 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is fine if his statement describes Spain. But Spain is not the whole world. Spain is a small small place. The use of the terms "negro" and negrito" in Spain might not be well defined, but if they are, they probably do not agree with the use of the term "black" in other places. I have known many "black" people whose skin is far lighter than the average Spaniard. There are many people in the US (and maybe in northern Europe too??) who view a lot of Spanish as "black" in fact (and there are plenty of racial slurs about Hispanics that support this). The reason for this confusion is what I have stated over and over, but people do not quite seem to understand:NO ONE AGREES ON WHO IS BLACK.--Filll 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense but it seems you know little about Spain and are confusing us for a Latin American banana republic, which we are not. Spain is the eight economic power, it is home to many multinationals like Telefónica, La Caixa, Banco Santander Central Hispano, etc...Also many many Spaniards are blond and blue-eyed and even more are so as children, no Spaniard who is no a mulatto would ever be confused for a black, not even Spanish gypsys, although there is some residual Moorish blood in Andalucía and even Valencia, but in Cataluña the gallic influence is predominant. In the Basque lands you have some swarthy and even almost green-skinned (verde-oliva) types, that is very strange to look at. These Hispanics in the U.S. you speak of of course are not Spaniards and probably are either mestizo or mulato or even pure Indian or Black, so the confusion is understandable. Regards.--Magencio 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know about Spain. I spent two weeks in Spain. I know that there are many people with very white skin in Spain, but there are also those with more olive or swarthy skin. I am not confused about the difference between Spanish speaking Mexicans and South Americans and Spanish people from Spain. And I am not kidding when I say that many American "blacks" are lighter than many people from Spain. And that some Americans might definitely view some Spanish people, even from Spain, as "dark skinned" or even use racial epithets to that effect. --Filll 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "black" refers to something other than just the natural darkness of one's skin. --Melanin D. Ficiente

EXACTLY! Black refers to African ancestry. People think it refers to dark skin but that's a complete misunderstanding.__Whatdoyou 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Melanin D. Ficiente /Ed Poor, I think you get it. It is sometimes (not always) more of a social construct. But not everyone agrees. Which is why I say:THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF BLACK PEOPLE.--Filll 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll, mate, calm down. You are absolutely right. Many people, maybe not most, but a significant minority agree wholeheartedly with you. Take a deep breath. I am of the opinion that Cupidon (who vandalised my user page earlier) and Magencio are part of the same meatpuppet group that included Albinomite and the other falagists, so they may well just be trying to stir it up a bit. Love the nom de guerre Melanin D. Ficiente. Alun 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

THere may not be any agreement in your country but most of the world agrees tha Blacks are people of African ancestry. Stop pushing your cultural values into this artilce. __Whatdoyou 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You just want to do what? Rewrite the article so it only applies to African Americans? Then I have a suggestion for you. Go to African Americans. Easy? --Filll 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am calm. I am positive that these are the same "falangist" characters. I still have not decided if the "falangists" are just pulling our legs or not. But I figured there is no problem with pulling their legs back, since they seem to be so worried about "blacks" and impure races. Spaniards are viewed in a certain manner, and I might as well be honest with them. And see how they like it.--Filll 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The UK census does equate black with African ancestry

"The other other black background" on the UK census is not for Asutalian aboriginals or South Asians. It's for people of African ancestry who don't fit any of the previously listed categories. There's not a census in the world that classifies Australian aboriginals as Black.__Whatdoyou 23:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you can try to stand on your head to explain away the categories that the UK has in their census. I think they speak for themselves.--Filll 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill where does the UK census mention Australian aboriginals or any other non-African ancestry group in their definition of black. They don't. Those groups have other categories on the UK census they are classified in. You are creating disagreement where none exists. __Whatdoyou 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They have three types of blacks you can choose from, if you want to choose. So what is your problem?--Filll 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And not all people of African ancestry fit into 1 of those 3 types and so they select the "other black background category" That category is not for Australian aboriginals or South Asians. That's laughable. Here's an article from the BBC that makes clear beyond any reasonable doubt that for the purpose of official statistics, the term Black refers to African ancestry people ONLY. Other dark skinned groups like South Asians are in a separate category] You guys are using informal anecdotes to imply that black has no clear meaning and spreading misinformation just so you can deny people of African ancestry of their identity. It's sickening__Whatdoyou 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Not all people of African ancestry can fit in 1 of the three categories? Did you not even read the three categories above for Blacks?

• African blacks
• Caribbean blacks
• Other blacks

So that is African black is not a useful category for African blacks huh? Very interesting. I really do not know what to say to you under these circumstances.--Filll 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So what if your a person of African ancestry who is coming to England from the U.S. or Brazil or France etc? Such people exist you know, and they select the "other black bacground" category. That category is not for dark skinned people of non-African ancestry. Dark skinned people of non-African ancestry are not considered black except among people who don't know anything.__Whatdoyou 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I am impressed by your incredible powers of reasoning. Yes you really got me. You have proved me wrong. Wow.--Filll 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you had no argument to begin with, it wasn't hard__Whatdoyou 00:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You go right on believing that. I am sure whitie is doing something bad behind your back right now. Watch out for dem crackers ! --Filll 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Fill is so embarassed by how the BBC article exposed his ignorance that he is trying to mock the way blacks talk about whites__Whatdoyou 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that is it. You got me. I am sure everyone can tell. --Filll 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No Way Out?

Is this a "No Exit" case? Is there no way out of this imbroglio? If so, what is the problem?

Western culture is strongly geared to dichotomizing. We not only "tomize," we even imply that there are natural divisions in the structure of the Universe. If you start out believing that there are discrete entities where none exist then one spends time trying to bring unity where none is perceived, and to explain a jagged collection of disparate beings in the "uni-verse."

莊子 (Zhuang Zi, or "Chuang Tzu" if you're a bit old-fashioned) saw past the Platonism that distorts our own thinking. His description of the myriad phenomenal beings in the universe was "大同小異" (da tong xiao yi), which basically means that on the whole everything is the same and that in respect of minor features everything is different.

All of this was brought to mind when something started nagging at my unconscious: There is no pre-existing boundary between "black people" and "non-black people." Every person who asserts that a boundary exists has determined what that boundary shall be for him or her. Having decided for myself where that boundary is, I then naturally tend to reject the boundaries drawn in other places by other people.

If we ever recover DNA from the earliest group of Homo sapiens sapiens we will discover that not a single one of u s is "black" on the basis of that standard, and except for the aliens who monitor this debate (C'mon bems, 'fess up!) we are all "black" to some extent.

How do you crowd all of the content about all of the "lighter shades of dark" into a single article? The first step is to outline the essential problem discussed here. Then second step is to farm out broad sub-groups to subsidiary articles. (Maybe one article for each group on the C-S square chart) P0M 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Several times in the past few months I have made this same suggestion.--Filll 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't so called politically correct editors like Wobble just have enough respect for African ancestry people to allow them the exclusive right to a black identity that most of the world acknowledges. He's just on some crusade to deconstruct the concept of race by lumping unrelated people (Australian aboriginals, Africans) into 1 racial category so he can claim that race is nonsense, and he is robbing African ancestry people of their identity in the process. It's really an abuse of wikipedia. I'm sick of black identity being exploited for everyone's political agenda. Why doesn't he use the White people article to pursue this crap?__Whatdoyou 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the San, the Mbuti, the Nilo-Saharan, the West Africans, and the East Africans would each reject the company of all the others (and anybody not currently African) as "not truly black" -- unless, of course, they are more civilized than most of the rest of us. P0M 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a fantasy that African Americans have that there is one big happy family of Africans just waiting to welcome them into the fold, and only the White Man is stopping it from happening. This denies the wide number of wars in Africa right now, and the Hutus and the Tutsis slaughtering each other in Rwanda, and the warlords stopping the food shipments in Somalia to starve the citizens, and Idi Amin and the Darfur mess and the treatment of native Africans by returning freed American slaves in Liberia and many many other bad examples. All caused by the White Man of course, preventing them all from living together in peace and harmony and brotherly love. But they all are full of black pride and respect for each other. Obviously.--Filll 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

All races have internal conflict, but it's nowhere near the amount of conflict BETWEEN races. People have evolved to favour their own kind. When everyone is African (as in Africa) there will be genocide between different kinds of Africans (i.e. Rwanda). However when Africans are placed in a multi-racial environment with Orientals and Whites and South Asians and Australian aboriginals, all teh African ethnicties tend to stick together and see the others as outsiders. The problem is a few people want to imply that Australian aboriginals because of their dark skin are part of the same club as Africans are part of. Nothing could be further from the truth__Whatdoyou 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is it. All the conflict in the world is black-white conflict. I have heard that one before. And I am sure that the Tutsis and Hutus did not see each other negatively. You just keep telling yourself that. And the whole problem can be traced back to the Aborigines and how they happen to have dark skin. Oh the shame of it !!!-Filll 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We could all leave this article except for various extremists. And let you beat each other silly. Because you do not agree with each other, in case you had not noticed. Or we could divide the article up into different POV, which I gather is against Misplaced Pages policies. I am not sure how to keep you calm. However, I have seen examples of your reasoning above, and I do not really know what to say to you in light of that.--Filll 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just let the black people article be for people of African ancestry. Australian aboriginals already have their own article. South Asians can have their own article. Who are these white people with so much free time that they are passionate about the right of Australian aboriginals and South Asians to be called black? The last time the article called a South Asian black a Tamil editor became so outraged that he unleashed a massive racial attack on people of African ancestry. HELLO! They don't WANT to be called black. I think you guys want to pit one dark skinned ethnic group against another and sit back and watch the sparks fly.__Whatdoyou 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow it is hard for me to take these tantrums seriously. I think you make about as much sense as our friends the falangists.--Filll 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We are all of African ancestry. Ethiopians are of African ancestry. San are of African ancestry..... P0M 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We all lived in the ocean if you go back far enough in time. What's your point? Tired of the PC nonsense__Whatdoyou 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer an article with a wide variety of viewpoints, including useful scientific and cultural information, and for it to be written without the editors ripping each other to shreds. And you cannot tell who is black or not, or who is African American or not, among the editors. I am a minority, but that should not matter in writing this article. And we have lots more. And guess what? They still do not agree with each other. But you are free to believe that if you want.--Filll 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article IS written with a variety of view points. But I feel very strongly that most common definition of black (African ancestry) is not given enough weight, and there's a movement by Wobble to give fringe views such as Australian aboriginals being black, undue weight__Whatdoyou 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is more closely related to you, a second cousin all of whose ancestors 10 generations back are Ainu like yours, or your half-sibling one of whose parents is Chinese? P0M 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen evidence of this. What did wobble do? What movement does he have going on? And the article still does not have much modern scientific material in it, and balancing viewpoints. It mostly reads like a rant from some black racists angry at the world.--Filll 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's not a science article__Whatdoyou 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, science and genetics and anthropology have no bearing whatsoever on an article about a race. Yes that makes a lot of sense.--Filll 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to acknowledge that the article sounds like the rants of black racists. And I guess that was your intent. I know you have a bit of that in you, clearly. No one is that frantic for racial purity unless they have a bit of that in them. Maybe you could start a page on black supremacy? I will help you if you want. And you can spew there and spin your theories there.--Filll 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the consequences of defining "black people" very narrowly is that it would eliminate Afro-Americans. And defining it even more narrowly would split off the non-San people from what may arguably be the direct line of descent of the earliest Homo sapiens sapiens population.

I just found another neat map, one that uses genetic information to show how we are all related.P0M 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Falangists MUST be a joke

That last comment, edited out by Ezeu, definitely demonstrates that these guys are just trying to make a few jokes and pull our legs. There is no way they are serious. The problem with trying to be funny like that is if you go a bit too far, it becomes obvious that you are not serious. Next time, try to not to go to such extremes because you ruin the joke. Some of the other comments I see here as well are so outrageous and extreme that I do not believe they are real either. Just a good place to come and make fun of others I guess. But it would be nice to write an article too. --Filll 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They are obviously trolling. Their objective is to disrupt this page an nothing else. --Ezeu 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a bunch of fraternity brothers just having some laughs at out expense.--Filll 05:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding yourselves. These people really exist, they really hold these views. We have mass graves and extermination camps to prove that these people exist. fascism may be nasty, but we shouldn't put it down to student high jinks just because we feel uncomfortable about it. Alun 05:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Article is stable

The only reason the article is "stable" is that for the last few months it has either been locked for weeks on end because there was so much fighting over it, and people edit-warring, or a cadre of reverters has been blocking any change to the article at all. It probably took me 10 tries to get a tiny bit of corrected grammar into the article because there was so much reverting. I think this article needs to get some more attention from new editors because it reads poorly, it is unbalanced, it is missing a lot of material and has only limited scientific material in it. Misplaced Pages articles not supposed to be recruiting tools for either white racists or black supremacists. So lets try not to push for either extreme so hard.--Filll 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is in no way my intention to offend any of the people who have so far contributed to this article, but I am going to be honest and direct, as it stands the piece is a joke and a foul cross between a pc banner and an amateurish and outmoded collection of subpar "race" articles that have been circulating freely across the internet for years. Also, I second Lukas19 in protesting the grotesque demonizing and nazi-izing of certain editors by other editors, this is simply intolerable by any standards. As to the topic in question: I think the obvious course to take—in dealing with a subject of such controversy—is a conservative one that remains centered around a core definition of blackness or negressence as an essentially sub-Saharan African designation or classification; one that to be sure is shared by the greater (sub-Saharan) diaspora principally located in the Americas and Europe. The gallery as it stands is, to put it bluntly, a gallery of freaks (in the Baroque sense of excentric examples) and in no way an accurate representation of the majority of blacks (an extremely varied group to be sure), and yet I think it could be saved if we were to "populate it" with representative "faces" of some of the more important African ethnic groups, this would I think prove extremely enlightening to a great number of people who upon hearing the word black picture some "notorious" African-American rapper, athlete, or, yes, murderer. My general impression is that reason and logic long ago fell by the wayside during what has become an increasingly tortuous definitional odyssey. (For those who are wondering: yes I do belong to the dreaded "Falangists" and this is an assumed name I will be changing periodically as a precaution against those who futilely think they can block and ban the truth). Cheers, note I have tried to communicate this in the most neutral tone possible.--SanIsidro 07:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000&pageNumber=2&catID=2

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics