Talk:Black people/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Remove self-reference

"There is some controversy, as will be seen if one traces the history of this article, as to whether the word ..." - one of Wikipedia's guidelines says that articles should not self-consciously refer to Wikipedia.

How about this?

I redirected the current article to black people (ethnicity and then we'll create another article called black people (generic) for the broader definition Some feel capitalization is too confusing and maybe they're right Gottoupload 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

i believe that is a better suggestionMuntuwandi 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OKay one person agrees with me. Does Ezeu and Fill agree that this article be divided into 2 separate articles black people (ethnicity) and black people (generic)? That way the editors who feel strongly that only African ancestry people are black can work on the black people (ethnicity) article, and those who feel strongly that Australian aboriginals and other dark skinned people are black can work on the black people (generic) article. That way both sides wont be competing to monopolize the same article. Gottoupload 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't particularly care if there are two articles, as long as both articles are objective. There will probably be some bickering over the wording of the disambiguation message, but perhaps that will be easier to solve than the current dispute. --Ezeu 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not care what you call the new articles. However, one should try to reduce confusion if possible, so adding the (ethnicity) and (generic) qualifiers is fairly reasonable I would think. Maybe someone will have a better idea for names. The ethnic one I like more than the generic one, to be honest. One could imagine black people (race) or "Groups called black people" I suppose. None of them grab me as much as Black people (ethnicity). One could have "black ethnic group" or or "Black Ethnic Groups" or Black people (US) and Black people (Australia) (pointed at Aborgines maybe), for example. I have no really strong feelings except that I like Black people (ethnicity) most.--Filll 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is "Black people (ethnicity)"? Black people are not an ethnic group. Black British people are an ethnic group. African Americans are a different ethnic group. Both of these groups are of recent African descent, but thhey are ethnically very disimilar. Indeed West Indian culture and society (ethnicity) is not at all like African American culture and society, and both are very different to modern African cultures and societies, which themselves are far from homogeneous. If "Black people (ethnicity)" is supposed to include all Black people of recent African descent then it cannot be given the label (ethnicity). Who would we include in a "Black people (ethnicity)" article? Who would we include in a "Black people (generic)" article? I'm asking because I do not understand what the distinction is supposed to be. I do not think there is such a thing as an ethnic group called "Black people". This does not mean that one doesn't exist of course, just because I don't think it exists doesn't mean that it doesn't, so I'm not looking for a fight, just clarification. Alun 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not completely clear what the editor has in mind either, but I think any reasonable division is worthwhile trying, given the level of confusion and fighting. My understanding is that the motivation is to use Black people (ethnic) to refer to African Americans and west Africans together, possibly with others of recent West African ancestry. This might sound flimsy to me and you, but if the editors can make a coherent case that this is a reasonable subcategory and a coherent ethnic group, then let them try. There certainly seem to be a few here on the talk pages who are frantic to redefine black people to mean that, and who want to reject all other meanings of the phrase "black people". This article would then mainly be about people who call themselves black or who have been called black. I have long advocated multiple overlapping pages so that the full range of what it means to be black or of African origin can be explored. So if they want to try, I say let them. It might fail, but why not try?--Filll 13:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

i'm not against the idea. I would call the article something else though, it's certainly not an ethnic group. There is already an African diaspora article, and as I pointed out there are Black British and African American articles si I don't know what would be included in this article. I would call it something like "Black people (African perspective)" or something like that, I'm open to suggestions, but the ethnic label is just wrong as far as I can see. On the whole it's not a bad idea, except that it doesn't really resolve the problem, and it makes little sense to me. It would be better just to include both POVs in this article, have a section about "Black people defined as recent African descent" and another section called something like "Black people as a generic label". I think having two broad sections giving both POVs would fit the NPOV policy better. I think it is important to include both POVs for neutrality, and the attempt to strictly define the article in terms of exclusively recent African origin is a clear breach of the NPOV policy. It is simply incorrect to claimt that the more generic meaning does not exist, we have enough definitions to prove that both points of view are valid. But I'm not going to stand int he way of a split if there is a consensus for one. Alun 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure the title is appropriate either. And I think that the generic article, which this would presumably become, would have to have short summary sections or at least a sentence describing the more restricted meaning, with a direction to the more extended article. Part of the reason to have a suite of articles is that this is a huge topic. There is no way it can be accommodated adequately in a single article, which I have been saying for several months now. For example, see my list above (which is probably just a tiny fraction of what exists or could exist). --Filll 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How about Black (African descent) and Black(African, Asian and Polynesian Descent)Muntuwandi 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Black (ethnicity) and Black (skin color).__ Whatdoyou 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity simply means people who are from the same part of the world. Black (ethnicity) describes people of equatorial African origin (not West African only). Not sure why Alun wants to separate the black ethnic group in to many different ethnic groups. We don't see it that way.__ Whatdoyou 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, black Africans are separated into hundreds of ethnic groups. Some of them are listed here. --Ezeu 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So Native American Indians are separated into many different ethnic groups too but that doesn't mean we can't speak collectively of Indians as Native Americans and distinguish them from Indians of India.__Whatdoyou 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black is clearly an ethnic group as evidenced by the fact that its listed in the U.S. census. Native American Indians are also an ethnic group too, and they're also composed of many different ethnic groups__Whatdoyou 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The article African American covers the "ethnic group" referred to in the US Census.--Ezeu 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It only covers members of that ethnic group who are U.S. citizens.__Whatdoyou 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also notice that statistics Canada has African as an ethnic origin and uses the term Black as a synomym for African[[1]]__Whatdoyou 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What does citizenship have to do with it? Ones ethnicity does not depend on citizensip. --Ezeu 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving / Splitting This Article

Please allow some time to discuss this proposed split before actually doing it. Creating new articles that are copies of the current article is not the correct route. -- tariqabjotu 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

U can never make everyone happy

I been away doing some serious work elsewhere, and i dont know why a n tag is on this article., I am sorry. Doesnt it discuss various opinions, I suggest removing it. Because there is a discussion doesnt mean the article is balanced. it is 100% more balanced than when i first saw it. Dont u realize it will never be perfect and this would go on and on and on and on and on?--Halaqah 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. One cannot make everyone happy. The article is becoming more balanced, but I suspect we could probably broaden it further to include a wider, fuller range of viewpoints. If the tag announces that we are still working on this, and this article is a work in progress, I see no harm. --Filll 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Put back in the Other arguments against

We need to hear what Diop and others said---Halaqah 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what that was. Did we lose something important? Actually from my time on this article, I think we have lost a LOT of important things. --Filll 13:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Halaqah isd referring to section that has been "removed" to a separate article by the Afro/Negroids-only police - viz Black as a skin color identity. Paul B 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with having an article refering to Black exclusively in an ethnic context? From my experience, this is by far and away the most common way the term is used. When people say someone is black, 9/10 they are saying that person is of African ancestry. Why confuse the issue by talking about other ideas about what black means? That's a separate topic.__Whatdoyou 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No it is not, as you well know because the arguments and evidence have been presented over and over and over to you. But you are a "fundamentalist" on this issue and will simply stop your ears to what you do not want to hear. Paul B 15:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. So the South Asians noticed that their natives had dark skin and called them aeta (which supposedly means black). Then centuries later, African diasporas people noticed that they had dark skin and called themselves black. We're talking about 2 separate groups who coincentally were called by the same name because they coincedentally looked similar. But is this a rational to lump them into the same article. Seems pretty confusing to me__Whatdoyou 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be disingenous. The point of an article is to explain the variety and complexity of usage in different contexts. It's not difficult. It's only the fact that you make a claiom to own the word Black that makes it problematic. Paul B 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with P0M on this one. The reason we have been to unproductive, and lost so much good material and wasted so much time and energy in fighting, is that some people want to claim ownership of "black". Instead, we have to recognize that there are a wide variety of different meanings, and produce a suite of articles to explore "blackness" in full.--Filll 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the 2 defintions must be separated

The word Indian has 2 meanings: Defintion 1: Someone from India. Definition 2: A native American. These are 2 totally separate ethnic groups and they deserve separate articles. Does anyone think it would make any sense to put Indians from India and Native American Indians into one article? So why put the 2 definitions of black people into one article. One definition is for people of recent African origina (an ethnic racial definition), the other definition is for any dark skinned person (a generic descriptive definition). These 2 definitions are conceptually distinct and used in totally different contexts. The fact that the aeta may derive from a word that means black in tagalog has nothing to do with African diasporas ethnicity adopting the term black in the 1960s. It's just a coincedence that both groups have dark skin and were called black. It's absurd to try to merge totally different ethnic groups into one article as if we're discussing a single unified concept __Whatdoyou 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit this makes a lot of sense and will definitely help in the defense against charges of forking.--Filll 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no sense. Indian used for a Native of the Americas had a totally distinct meaning from Indian meaning "a person from India". This is very different from the use of "black" as a racial label. No one has ever proposed a "pan Indian" identity in the way that various activists propose an interntional Black identity. There was never a notion of "indian" conciousness that united the two. There was never a racialist model that merged Americans and indians as a single "indian race". Paul B 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The impression I get is that the international black identity issue needs to be treated at a more descriptive article title than "black people". The generic description article should really be nothing more than a disambiguation list of peoples referred to as black (throughout history and now). If anything, there needs to be an article black people (terminology) devoted purely to the terminology of the phrase 'black people'. Carcharoth 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposed black people (terminology) article is one of the best ideas I have heard here in a long time. I agree completely. I was just contemplating something like that myself. --Filll 19:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It is immensely gratifying to see a seed sprout so quickly like that! Did you get the material from that article from somewhere else, or did you write it out from scratch? If it was from another article, it might be an idea to do a dummy edit to attribute where it came from. Carcharoth 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the secret is that a lot of that material was from the history of this article. If you look through the history and the archives, you will find a gold mine of amazing material that was edited out and has been deleted. The part about pejorization I learned from some conversations with a Linguistics professor friend of mine. It is just a rough start. It needs a lot more. --Filll 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there are sources out there for the history of the terminology? What did the Romans call other races, and in particular the Nubians? Carcharoth 22:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is also a good question. I do not know but there is probably some. It would be good to have a history section or a separate history article.--Filll 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

I recently discovered black people (disambiguation). This should really be linked from black people, as otherwise there is no point in having that disambiguation page. What should be done here? Carcharoth 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and if people could agree on an article titled "Black Africans", I believe this issue would be more or less solved. --Ezeu 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no dont start with that Black African language, oh no dont u start that racist language. Unless i will add a Yellow Chinese one and a Brown Indian one. this is 2006 leave that slave language on the Amistad.--Halaqah 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Chinese? Usually people say Han Chinese to distinguish them from the many minority groups that are also citizens of the Peoples Republic of China. There are Chinese nationals (Uighurs in particular) who have light skins and even blue eyes. One of my teachers attended a government function in which members of all nationality groups were assembled (this was some time before the end of World War II I believe) and reported with amusement that some of the Han Chinese attendees could not understand what the "foreigners" were doing in the conference. Such a recognition of the complex family histories (in the case of the "blue eyed foreigners" going back to Turkik groups) is not racist. It just recognizes genetic complexity (and often it is involved with cultural complexity too). P0M 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a racist is a flamebait I will not fall for. --Ezeu 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though "Black African" is a very common term in many places in the world, it appears that it offends Halaqah. I accept that, but this is part of the trouble here. To some people it is a term of ignomy and some it is a term of pride. So they fight. When the real answer is NOT EVERYONE AGREES ON WHAT BLACK MEANS.--Filll 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

People want an article that focuses on "Black people" but only on those "Black people" who have rather direct African ancestry. Possibly they want to exclude Ethiopians, and possibly they want to exclude Egyptians and other groups bordering on the Mediterranian. How can we label that lower-right quadrant in the C-S chart? P0M 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

the soln like Han Chinese is simple. If you talk about Han Chinese for Chinese then you cant talk about Black African, you can say Somali African or Afar African, or Amhara African. I didnt call u racist, far from it, u just dont know better. big difference. racist language doesnt mean u r racist. I called people Eskimos i didnt know it was wrong. There needs to be logic behind reason. U cant have people called black and exclude another group which is also called black, because we rep a world view. Now i believe most of these issues can be solved be debate and logic. We r not suppose to all agree but add the diversity of opinions to the discussion. American Africans or African in America, or African Americans might want to "copyright" black, then say that what they want. and offer their view in the article. But i have to put down my foot at these strange terms, because many use it dont make it correct, a few years back Negro was used, today it is offensive, so is black African. it doesn’t match the trend anywhere else in the world. brown Indians, no Punjabi Indians, Silet Bengalis, popularity doesnt bring justification, just like the N-word. should we use it just because J-lo does? shes popular.lets be progressive how do you think societies evolve?--Halaqah 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Halaqah. If we go with what is popular at the moment we go with emotions. If we want to start someplace it is better to start with a clear discussion of what is first, and then when we get that as clear as we can we can ask what various people call these groups. We have a great new opportunity since for the first time we begin to get a picture of how the members of his huge family of man are actually related. So for Africa it would make sense to me to look at the ancient San as the core population, see how it has evolved down to the modern San, see how, along the way, side shoots developed that produced klados that evolved to fit into other environments (darker skins for higher UV, probably would be one). It may be that some groups that are genetically quite closely related don't get along well together and like to be called by different names. It may be that some groups have taken over the language of another group and maybe even the culture and so appear to fit in with some populations that are genetically rather more remote from them. But at least we would have something that can be carried down to empirical observations. P0M 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We should organize this collection of material in some reasonable fashion that makes sense, and still keeps people from wanting to beat each other to a pulp. There is so much work to be done, we just do not have the time and energy to spare to waste it in meaningless fighting.--Filll 04:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

solution

have a bullet point or todo list of all the "major" issues. and discuss them point by point. look at the camps arguing and c what they want and listen to their voice. baka!--Halaqah 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think there is a need to organize these topics. The more I look into this, the more I realize we have a huge number of related articles, and a huge amount of material on this page that was deleted. I would propose that we use some of the energy that is being wasted in arguing and deleting material here to clean up this article and the others. Lots of the related articles need more work. This article can be one of the "overview" articles. I propose that this article be focused on "who is black?" and have links or connections to other articles, such as African American and List of topics related to Black and African people. I might even suggest another article on Dark skinned people. I think that this is a better name that Black as a skin color identity, frankly. We have a huge amount of material. We have to organize it and be smart about how to make it accessible. Along those lines, I notice that in our "edit wars" we have lost quite a bit of our Gallery. I also propose that people who only want to argue have no place on the article and they should be encouraged to edit the appropriate article from the list instead of this one, which should be one of the general articles. I propose that African people be one of the other general articles, but I am open to other ideas.--Filll 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We must be careful and not create to many articles, i am def against "Dark Skin People" because some would argue most humans have pigmented skin, or maybe we should have an article on thin nose people. or big bottom people (joke, i coulnt help it) But African People is a good one.--Halaqah 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

On too many articles: I think if you look at List of topics related to Black and African people, there are already probably hundreds of articles, particularly if you include all the articles related to African Americans and also to Pan-Africanism (see the infoboxes and links including the list in the African American infobox). I am just scratching the surface for tracking down related articles. This is a huge area already on Wikipedia. We just haven't organized the materia very well yet. We need to clean up some of these articles. More articles need to be written to fill in some gaps as well. So you dont like the name dark skinned people ? But what about the name Black as a skin color identity? Don't you think that is a bit awkward?--Filll 04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

White people

Out of curiosity I am wondering why the white people article has not attracted as much attention and controversy as this article. I think who is white is just as complicated as who is black.Muntuwandi 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you look into it, the White people article has been just as wrought with controversy as this one. There are a huge number of white supremacists and other assorted trouble makers who are drawn to that page, and therefore, there is trouble there too. In fact, some of the same trouble makers here have also caused havoc on the white people page--Filll 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

white created white as a way of "purity" so white is almost a term of exclusion rather, where black is a term of inclusion. i.e. u rnt white ur ... Africans arent going to be up there editing and complaining, but guess who comes here often to remind the African he has absolutly no agency with even who and what he/she is... --Halaqah 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be a phenomenon that only occurs in the USA. In my country it is alarmingly frequent for families to want to disclaim relationship to some of their relatives. If any violet mutants appear, then I am sure that white people will want to disown them too.  ;-) P0M 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you equating blacks with violent mutants? In the US they may be violent (or at least give that impression), but no one has ever claimed they're mutants. Were not talking Planet of Apes for God's sake, it's just a first world/third world dichotomy with may be some genetic predisposition throne in.--SanIsidro 00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think of the possible confusion between violet and violent. Sorry. I almost said blue humans, but there are some white families who have blue-skinned progeny, and I didn't want to drag real people into the discussion. My point was that, genetically speaking at least, the white klados of humans hasn't produced a substantial side-shoot as yet, so we have no "relatives" to disown. P0M 04:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"throne in"?? Would that be intended to mean "thown in"? Your posts sure are clear evidence of the intellectual superiority of the White Master Race. Paul B 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not call people down on spelling errors. P0M 04:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew there was something funny about that Planet of the apes movie, were the monkeys suppose to rep Black people?--Halaqah 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes is an allegory about racism, in which the chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans stand for different human races - with actual humans put in the position of apes. Paul B 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah but in the end the humans were found to be superior so who do the humans represent in this race things?--Halaqah 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I never saw the movie, but I think the point may have been to put white people in the position of the despised minority for once just to let them see what they would feel like. Steven Barnes has done a fine job of that in a two-volume set of "alternate history" science fiction novels, Lion's Blood and Zulu Heart. In his book Caesar gets tangled up in Africa, Africa takes over the leadership of the world, Europe declines, Africa colonizes the New World, and a far-seeing African Muslim starts to see beyond the blinders of his society, the society that has enslaved whites. There was a famous experiment, done in Iowa if I remember correctly, in which a grade school teacher divided her class into the privileged brown-eyed kids and the dastardly blue-eyed rotters, let the brown-eyed white kids lord it over the blue-eyed kids for a period of time and then switched roles. She demonstrated that the ones who had first been discriminated against were much kinder to the "lower class" when they got on top than those who simply started in that position without any real understanding of what it felt like to be the abused party. Since moving to "the south" in the U.S. I've had near-violent confrontations with four different white men (one with a guy who let his German Shepherds roam to keep the "riff-raff" off his grass), but nothing but good will from the African-Americans (and I started out in life with almost white hair so there has never been any doubt about which group I fit into on the basis of "marker traits."). So I think the basic psychological observation is doubly proven, and maybe movies like Planet of the Apes can have a positive effect. P0M 04:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ist Humor verboten hier?

White people are already a minority in the world. With around 16% of the world population. Asians are the majority...Lukas19 12:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets agree on one thing and move on

his article refers to black as a racial or ethnic term defined by African origin ethnicity. For a discussion of how the term black can also be used as a trans-ethnic label for dark skinned identity (regardless of African ancestry) see Black as a skin color identity. There is no universally agreed upon standard for how much African ancestry is required to be Black nor is there agreement on how much of Africa is considered Black (some limit the term Black to those of African ethnicity, while others expand the definition of Black Africa to include ancient Egypt).

I think 100% the above view is arrogant and if this is one of the opinions being debated here causing problems then lets curb it ASAP. Wikipedia is very clear about WORLD VIEW. Black people in a WORLD VIEW context can never be "people from Africa." So why r we having this problem? It is the same as looking up slavery and it only talks about African-American slavery. Can people look beyond their little hill? we can say, some people think: the above madness--Halaqah 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a different division? Let's use this article (plain "black people") for ALL people who call themselves black or who have been called black. Let's make "black people (US meaning)" be the article for the US only. And there, it is done. What do you think?--Filll 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Paul B 13:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An alternative might be black people (US ethnic group). I think the name "black as a skin color identity" is just a bit too stilted to fly. --Filll 13:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is state that in the definitions, and guess what All African Americans dont go along with it, although i beleive it is a Pan-Americanism (i.e. Blackness) people in Africa rarely call themselves black. Caribbean do but not like AA (because Caribbean pep r a majority--why would u) And we need to add the whole Brazil dynamic because there are more Black People in Brazil than in America 4 sure, so why is it always about America? with its minority AA population?--Halaqah 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course halaqh. The problem is, there are MANY African Americans on this site and visiting this article. There are more of them than anyone else probably. And as you can tell, they are often REALLY angry about something or other. Usually that the rest of the world is not ready to go along with them. They feel they have the right to do what they want. They have earned it because they are Americans and their ancestors were slaves. So if you object, they claim you are racist. It is a common and understandable tactic. Looking at this page, I say we have two main camps. The inclusive camp and the restricted camp. Most but not all African Americans fall in the restricted camp. So maybe we can solve this by giving them their own page. And keeping this page as an inclusive article. And then farming out other parts to other pages, as I have started to compile at List of topics related to Black and African people. You see? --Filll 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I say it is time for change and they need to stop thinking local and realize they many people in the world outside of America and these people are VALID TOO!--Halaqah 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

off topic, i gotinto a debat with an AA and they were thinking the whole Pan-African and progressive Africanist came from them, i just had to show them how many of those people were African And African Caribbean, they can be so arrogant that they absorb other peoples genius into their passportand forget that these people come from Africa and the Caribbean, Diop, Ivan Van Sertima, Garvey the list is long, Belefonte, on and on, The world is richer if we look beyond our doorstep.--Halaqah 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree but we cannot force them. They are surrounded with a certain mind set. This is reinforced constantly in the media and in the US universities. They are rich, relatively speaking. They are all over the internet. So we have to compromise. And if they accept a separate article, fine.--Filll 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also unfair to lump African Americans together and asign to them a certain perspective. There have certainly been several African Americans here that have had a broad view. There are mainly three African Americans here, two of whom attend the same Black Consciousness class (by their own admission), that are intent on pushing a particular POV. Another African American recently said that based on the discussions here, he'd abandoned his previous perspective. --Ezeu 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said above. I do not think all AA are in favor of a restrictive view. EO, or Deeceevoice I think leaned more towards a global view. But definitely some want a restrictive view. So you can tell me that there are only three self-identified AA? I find that a bit hard to believe. And that if we proceed with just one inclusive article that there will not be trouble? I am glad to accept anything as long as others will. I do not want some AA showing up again extremely upset since they have a different definition of "black" and insist that all other definitions be stomped out. We have seen way too many people here who want to declare that everyone else's definition of black is crap and that there is no disagreement since I have declared it to be true by fiat. --Filll 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

British census

Here's a summary of results for "Other" groups, like "White Other" and "Black Other".[2] It's clear that anyone who self describes as Black can include themselves in this category. Indeed although most people who describe themselves as "Black Other" are of recent African descent, it is clear that people from Oceanea or Asia can identify here if they so wish. Indeed on the White British article it clearly states that self identity is the requirement. There is no coercion in the UK, indeed we don't think in terms of "race" so much as "ethnicity", the census does not collect data on race, neither does it narrowly define what group any person may fit into. Usually there is a space for people to indicate their identity as they see fit. Alun 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

i say again ethnicity is Bengali, Somali, Ethiopian, Amhara, Gurage, Sindi, this is ethnicity, Black is not an ethnic group, its just a broad label for a collection of ethnic groups. Is it me or am i making sense. That British things is a constant battle ground. see www.ligali.org and even the report which came out of the mayors office, the Mayor of London, cant remember it but it was a diversity study. They uses the term Asian and African, and replaced the usage of the word black.black is very dated and many people have issues with it, it is just the media have power and final voice, the whole issue with black lowercase, i mean it makes no sense, so why lowercase, because so stupid tradition in chicago says so, is that a reason in 2007 for something which makes no sense? the world needs to move forward man--Halaqah 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also agree with this. However, most African Americans and other Africans that have been gone from Africa for many generations do not know their ancestral ethnicity. So they invent one. And you see it in the USA. "Black" culture. Jazz. Hip hop. Rap. Gangstas. Pimpin'. Ebonics. Etc. And they are told over and over to be proud. There is a "Black History Month" celebrated every year. The US government has a "Black Caucus". You will not easily get African American blacks to give this label up since it is everywhere around them, embedded in the culture and the government. And Americans in general are completely ignorant of the world outside of the US. A large fraction of the US population cannot even find the US on a map of the world, according to some studies. So they do not know what black means in the rest of the world nor do they care since they are Americans and the attitude in the US comes from being told over and over that the US is the best country and no other contries matter. So is it surprising what they think about "black"? In the US, "Black" is a label of pride. "Black" is a term used to intimidate others, often. "Black" is used as a powerful political weapon, a phrase used to get your own way. Because the US civil rights movement flowered when "black" was the preferred term in the US (not negro, not colored, not Afro American, not African American), the word "black" has an almost mythic quality in the US. If you in Africa object, it is irrelevant almost because Africa has this mythic quality that has nothing to do with reality. With the mess that African Americans have made of Liberia for instance. In some ways, I suspect African Americans do not care what Africans think, because they are primitive and poor. And they probably believe all that they need to do is enlighten the Africans so they can be like African Americans, wearing their grills and pimpin'. "Yo yo in da house wha up mo fo? Shee..." --Filll 14:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does Filll get away with saying things we can't?--4.245.143.127 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Who are you and what do you want to say? I think that there are plenty of problems with African American culture, and American culture, but a lot of good things too. I do not believe any group is all good or all bad. That is too simplistic. And I have no problem pointing this out.-Filll 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because he does not resort to insult. I remember the last time I was in the US, I heard a news report about some new drug, which might help to "save the lives of thousands of Americans". I remember thinking how odd it was to report the news in this way. In Britain the BBC would never say "this new drug could save the lives of thousands of Britons" it would just say "this new drug could save thousands of lives". I don't think the report meant to imply that non-American lives were worthless, it just seemed to take for granted that only Americans were worth mentioning. Whenever I am in the US, I do find the particular US obsession with race to ber very bizarre, along with the unrelenting obsession with how wonderful the US is. This strange need to endless tell themselves how great they are started to seem pathological after a while - as though there was a need for enmdless reassurance. Paul B 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed this and mentioned it on this page.***NOTE: NOT ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS DO THIS. BUT SOME SURE DO.*** I live in a neighborhood that is about 70% African American. If I talk about Europe, they OFTEN assume that it is also about 70% African American. If I talk about Canada, they assume it is also about 70% African American. If there are Mexicans immigrants here, they assume that Mexico has black-white racial problems like the US does. If you mention Japan or China or India, the first thing African Americans want to know about is the problem between the blacks and whites in China or Japan or India. It is the prism through which they view the entire world. If there is a new drug treatment found that will mainly work with caucasians and not so well for Africans, they charge racism. If there are only 42 members of the US Congress out of 435, they assume it is because of racism. Not that there are only 9-13% African Americans in the country as a whole. They think that there should be 300 or so African Americans in Congress, so it should be more like what they see in their own neighborhood. I do not fault them because they do not know. But to argue against them is hopeless because they are sure you are lying to them because you are racist. Even if you are another minority. They see the world as black and white, not as a palette of colors. ***NOTE: NOT ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS DO THIS. BUT SOME SURE DO.***--Filll 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry to be bad again, but African Americans have a 100% reason to feel this way Fill, take a look at their history, everything bad that has happen to them was tied to that "black" skin. They fill the prisons, they fill the unemployment line, they r not in the UNiversities, they ( r made2 ) fight Americas wars against other "black" people. My world would b pretty black white if i was an AA. --Halaqah 17:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah you are definitely correct. African Americans have had the short end of the stick and are jailed at much higher rates than other groups, and are much more poorly educated than other groups. Do you know that the average African American in my area (a huge population of a few million) reads at about a grade 3 level? So....I do not say there are not reasons for this, and good reasons. It just is what it is.--Filll 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to disrupt this anti-American (and especially anti-African-American) rant, however, please note that this is a talk page regarding this article. Discussion should be limited to constructive dialogue about how to improve the article and to resolve disputes regarding its text. If you wish to continue with this line of discussion please take it to the appropriate forum (your talk pages or e-mail). --Strothra 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

True, this is getting off topic. I am starting a thread below that specifically adresses the lead paragraphs of this article. --Ezeu 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely correct. Keep us on topic.--Filll 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Currently, the lead paragraph says that "Black people" is a "strange term", which it arguably isn't, so I've edited that out. Furthermore, as evident in the discussions above, the lead paragraph should in a neutral way explain (or at least mention) the ambiguities and disparities regarding the term "black people" – and which is the reason for the disputes on this page and elsewhere. My edit of the lead paragraph (diff) is an attempt to reflect the discussion on this page. --Ezeu 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange term? haha..well I guess it is a matter of opinion. Because really, is any person REALLY black? Hair can be black I guess.--Filll 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Timelist said in his edit summary that we agreed to create two separate articles. The issue has been discussed, but there is obviously no consensus to create separate articles. The consensus, as far as I can deduce, is that creating separate articles may quell the dispute, but it would not adress or clear the issue of POV, and furthermore it would be an abdication to systemic bias.--Ezeu 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So then, what is a "black person"?

• someone with dark skin?
• someone of African Ancestry ?
• someone with dark skin and african Ancestry?
• someone with dark skin and African Ancestry from a certain part of Africa?
• someone with African Ancestry of a certain part of Africa?
• someone with recent african Ancestry only? How recent?
• someone with dark skin? how dark?
• someone who self identifies as black?
• someone with dark skin who self identifies as black?
• someone other groups call black?
• someone who has been called black by others?

And on and on and on. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF A BLACK PERSON. I live in the US. I am sitting in a library in a "white" area. I guarantee that if right now, through that door over there a full-blooded, dark skinned Aborigine walked in, everyone in this library, Caucasian American and African American would call them black. NO QUESTION. Not even a moment's hesitation. And I know from talking to them and reading the literature, that in Australia, they refer to themselves as "black fellas". But according to many on this page, and according to the way that the article is written sometimes, there is no way that this person is black and in fact we would all know it immediately when we looked at this Aborigine. I dispute that quite vigorously. Why are there elements here who want to insist that there is no disagreement? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT? What evidence for the nonexistence of disagreement do you have? Since I have been reading this page for the last FIVE MONTHS there has been nothing but disagreement from Africans, African Americans, Black Europeans, Caucasians, Asians, South Asians, etc. How can you imply there is no disgreement? What are your reasons? Why try to stomp out disagreement? Do you think that this will make it true somehow?--Filll 20:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to ask. WHAT IS WRONG WITH AN ARTICLE THAT SHOWS REALITY? AND THE REALITY IS THAT NO ONE AGREES WITH EACH OTHER. Why are people so hostile to this truth?--Filll 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We should'nt constantly need to shout out loud that "black people" is a term that is not, and will never be defined to the acceptance of everyone. That is quite obvious (constantly writing it out in capitals and boldface is tedious). We merely need to state in the article the fact that there are differing views. What some people do not understand is; that one leans towards one viewpoint shouldn't necessarily mean that one refutes or abhorres other opinions. --Ezeu 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my repetition of this statement over and over in large capital letters and bold lettering is tedious. But I am trying to make a point. I am glad Ezeu at least agrees with me that this statement is fairly obvious. Which I think it is, from anyone who has read these pages carefully. I think that some people would like to avoid this "inconvenient truth". Now given that there is disagreement, the best we can hope for is to have an article that reflects this. People arguing for their own personal definition or viewpoint will never convince the others. It will never make the fact of disagreement disappear.--Filll 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, one potential partial resolution is to make a collection of black and African people articles that reflects the disagreements and differing definitions that exist. Take a look at the list I started at List of topics related to Black and African people. If you look at African American and all its list of topics associated with it, and Pan-Africanism and all the list of topics associated with it, and all the related topics that are associated with each of these articles, it is clear that we have literally HUNDREDS upon hundreds of articles about Black and African people. They are not well organized and cross-linked etc. Some articles are in bad shape. Some are stubs. Some need editing. Some new articles need to be written. But given that African Americans are so prominent on Wikipedia and the internet, I would argue that for that subset of African Americans that want to define black people in an African American way, there should be no problem with allowing them to have a separate article, say Black people (US meaning) or something comparable. Then the history of the use of the phrase "black people" in an African American context can be fully explored and described. And this article can be reserved for a more general viewpoint. An alternative is to turn this page into a disambiguation page, and move the present article to Who is a black person? or Black people (global meaning) or Meaning of the term "black people" or something similar. That way the short name "black people" that everyone wants to fight about would be available to none, and used for disambiguation. This is more a Solomon-type solution: "cut the baby in half".--Filll 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)