Talk:Black people/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

whats up with the image: Do not delete the image!!! It has not been written off yet

where is the image---Halaqah 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the image since it does not qualify for public domain. It will be deleted soon. Joelito (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well i dont think it will be deleted as i have addressed the issues so i have put it back-thank you-so please dont delete it without discussion because it didnt take long to fix the issues. Thank you again.--Halaqah 18:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete the image!!! It has not been written off yet as a violation, the issues have been fixed, look before you jump!--Halaqah 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw the same image. I have cleared my system's cache and the new image has appeared. Joelito (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks U very much for understanding because it took my time to create it for this site.--Halaqah 18:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this kind of thing happen with my own images. I posted something early on before the was of putting up copyright permissions was sort of automated for us, didn't do it right, didn't put the image on my watch list, and somebody deleted it. If that had been the only copy of the image it would have been gone forever.

The moral of the story is: Always keep backup copies of important things on your own hard drive. P0M 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't take out major chunks unless concensus is reached

!!!

--24.131.34.59 02:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
--Filll 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Verification needed

The article currently states

South Africa's Black Economic Empowerment Charter stated: "'Black people', 'black persons', or 'blacks' are generic terms which mean Africans, Coloureds and Indians who are South African citizens by birth or who have obtained citizenship prior 27 April 1994. This term does not include juristic persons or any form of enterprise other than a sole proprietor.

This was cited to a blind URL, http://www.thedti.gov.za/bee/codes/58_67statem040.pdf, which I followed up and annotated accordingly: it is

Statement 040 Glossary, BEE Codes of Good Practice, Department of trade and industry (South Africa). (Draft.)

However, unless I am very much missing something, it appear not to contain the language that is supposedly quoted from it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You will find the paragraph page 3. Or have a look at page 5 in this [1] document. Perhaps it's better to use the second source because of the "citizenship prior 27 April 1994" part SecurID 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a Dravidian and am quite disguested with the fact that some afrocentric people are trying to lump up dravidians into the black race.If you are quoting that there are 2 sepreate black people one with straight hair,aquiline nose,thin lips that is the dravidians then will you say there are 2 types of white people one is staright hair,almond eyes,and small nose (chinese)?.when there is a difference then there is a difference.Also Me and my family have olive skins and we are no where near the black people but we are dravidians.Ofcourse there are dark skined Dravidians and they certainly dont look like africans.There facial features,body structure,hair texture differs very much.Please note this saying "A Black skin means membership in a race of men which has never created a civilization of any kind." — John Burgess, 20th century scholar and founder, Political Science Quarterly[3] All learnered people know that Dravidians created the highest Indus valley civilisation and also they have well,defined languages,music,art form and temple structures/architecture.Afrocentrics pls dont Hijack us and put us in an entirly different place where we dont belong.Pls note that Indians are not homogenous and their skin types vary from very light skin to dark.That is how we are made.So would you people place all our fair skined people as whites????. Saying dravidians as black people is as stupid as saying chinese(light skin) belongs to the white race.

The article is not saying that Dravidians are black, it's simply citing the opinion of a notable though controversial figure who says they are black. It also cites people who say only sub-Saharan Africans (and their descendants) are black. The article cites all views on the subject, and is extremely well balanced. Timelist 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am quite happy to own up to having a genetic heritage that goes back to the same source as all other human beings. My understanding is that my darker skinned ancestors got themselves to central Asia and then split up migration paths. Some of them headed north-west and got into territory where the sun doesn't shine very strongly and had difficulty surviving, given what they were eating, because they were vitamin D deficient. Somebody was born with a mutation that decreased skin pigmentation and helped the vitamin D problem. (It also makes us more susceptible to skin cancers of various kinds, but usually we reproduce before we die of skin cancer, and not all people suffer that outcome.) Another fork of my ancestors' migration group headed on east, accumulating a few mutations along the way, populated East Asia, jumped over to the Americas, so even the American Indians down near the South Pole are my cousins too. Now as to skin color, some of the second fork people got themselves to Japan early on and there appears to have been a separate mutation that gave them white skins. Irony of ironies, the later arrivals with darker skins regarded (and sometime still regard them) as those who are uncivilized, uncouth, etc., etc., i.e., the usual crap.

What you will find, to reduce the picture to the most simple elemeents, is that when a migration gets started a wave of people moves forward and hardly any of them "wash back," so that the likelihood is that any mutations are carried forward and not washed back. The arrival of people in North America (apparently in two waves) happened at a time when travel was easier. Conditions changed and it became very difficult to make it over the Bering Strait. So after around 20000 years ago there was little contact with the outside, and even less possibility that mutations would be carried back to Asia or forward to Europe until world-wide sea traffic opened up.

What that scenario indicates is that there are certain "marker genes" or mutations that are carried by descendants of Amerinds, so if you have that gene you have to have an Amerind in your family tree somewhere. In other places one can ask, e.g., whether a favorable mutation that occurred in Indonesia could spread, marriage by marriage and/or intrepid wanderer by intrepid wanderer, back to Africa or up to Sweden. I guess if you had some idea of how far somebody might walk to find a suitable mate, you could work out a minimum time it would take for a mutation to spread generation by generation (under the most favorable conditions) from Indonesia to Iceland or from Peru to Portugal. It seems that the minimum time would be quite large.

What you will find when you examine the genetic markers of any individual in the world is that they indicate a common ancestry and some "trail" of changes as people moved off by different paths from the original center. What happened at the center is also interesting because people may well have continued to adapt to that environmnet over the 120,000 or so years since the first migrations went forward. One result may have been even darker skins for people living in high places and/or places nearest the Equator.P0M 17:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

                                          JUST SO PEOPLE KNOW

Here is the correct racial demographics of "Indians" who are not a race, but simply a geo-political entitiy:

Sudras are Black - Anthropological investigations have revealed that the Sudras consist of several Black races akin to Aborigines. Recent genetic analyses have confirmed this. Sudras have Negroid anthropology and appearance such as the flat Sudric nose and thick lips.

Indo-Aryans - The Indo-Aryans are of Caucasoid stock, not related to the black-skinned aboriginal Negroid-Aborigines. Linguistically, appearance-wise and genetically the Indo-Aryans are closely related to southeast Europeans.

Rajputs are Scythians - The Rajputs are descendants of Scythians (Iranian/Turk/Greek/Eastern European) immigrants who entered India very recently, right before the Muslims arrived. Although false genealogies were invented by Brahmins in order to subvert the Rajput religion of Solarism (`Saura'). Detailed analysis proves that the Rajputs are Scythians.

The Indo-Islamic (Mughalloid) Race - The Muslims of South Asia are overwhelmingly descendants of `Foreign Mussulman Immigrants', ie. Arabic, Iranian and Turkic races. Even in Bangladesh, more than half of the Muslims are of `Aristocratic Foreign' descent.

Mongoloids - Pure Mongoloids inhabit the Himalayas, and in the northeast of India. Their apperance and genetic analyses have shown them to be more closely related to Chinese and Japanese people.

Bigoted and delusional Brahmin clowns stating that there is an "Indian Race" is nonsense. It's just one more way for them to erase the diverse ancestral origin of the people in India, so they might be controlled under a type of "Brahmin Communism".

From the Greek, Roman and Persian types who make up Rajputs and Bollywood actors to the short, black-skinned and flat-nosed native Black Indian Dravidians to the Mongoloid Oriental Nagas, they all come from diverse origins, spanning back to other parts of the world. One must understand that the region where South Asia is, was at one time extremely loaded with resources which attracted settlers, invaders, migrants and immigrants from all surrounding directions. South Asia is right in the middle of East Asia, Africa, The Middle East, Central Asia, Russia-Europe and Australia/Pacific/Polynesia. So of course South Asia has Black, White, Oriental and Aborigine people as well as all types of mixes amongst the between the four primary Races of India.

habesha/ethiopians

I think we should be more specific when talking about ethiopians. It isn't a purely homogenous contry, there are different ethnic grops. plus when people talk about ethiopians being caucasian i think they're referring to habesha not oromo, so why is there a picture of oromo boys. something should be done to correct these inaccuracies. I would appreciate user:yom's input

All the genetic studies I've seen are based on amharas and oromos but a lot of people would argue that race is just a social construct so genetics are not relevant. Coon would have considered the kids in that picture caucasoid because of their elongated facial features but others argue that's nonsense. Look, there's no point debating this because there are no right or wrong answers. It all depends on how you want to define black people. I think the article does a good job showing all opinions, but opinions are all they are. Timelist 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why a footnote to this effect cannot be included so someone who wants to investigate further has some place to start. People want to have nice neat simple answers, and reality is often far more complicated.--Filll 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Habesha/Ethiopians black?

I am still dissapointed that noone wants to talk about the inaccuracies within the ethiopian section.If we are to make this a legitamite and scholarly article we must adress the fact that ethiopia does not consist of a single ethnic group, there are habesha,afar,oromo,gambella and many more.correct me if i'm wrong but when people debte as to whether ethiopians are black or notthey are quite probably referring to habesha. If this is true will someone tell me why there is a picture of oromo children, i am ethiopian/habesha and i can assure i do not look like those young boys. also if we want to decide who is black or not we must define what black is. Is it cultural,genetic,geographic or a combination?.Once we come to a defintion or a set of opposing definitions that are too diferrent to reconcile (as most often happens) we can then show what groups would be defined as black.We should attempt to make sections that adress these issues thereby enhancing the legitimacy of this article.

sorry i didn't realize i created the same article twice, nevertheless i would appreciate people's input danya 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I responded before just above. I do believe that the fact that Ethiopia is not monolithic should definitely be discussed. If there is not room in the article, put it in a footnote or another article, linked to this one.--Filll 00:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The genetic studies of Ethiopians are based on the general Ethiopian population not just the subset you belong to, thus it makes sense to pick a very typical Ethiopian group like the oromo. I know there are some ethiopians (especially in the North) that do have a lot of Arab blood, but we don't want to give a skewed impression of the general population. That picture is perfect because it shows the ambiguity of their appearance in that their facial feautures are Caucasoid, but their skin and hair texture is negroid. Timelist 01:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly we don't exactly have arab blood but we can talk about that later, you are right when you say we don't want to give a skewed version of what ethiopians look like timelist, so i propose that we put up a picture that shows the variation within the ethiopian population, for instance a picture with a dark skinned ethiopians, a light skinned ethiopian, ethiopians with certain facial features and so on... i would do it myself but i'm a new member and i do not have the facilities to do so.74.96.108.178 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been arguing this point since i arrived at this page. Ethiopians are so diverse, it is as one historian said "A museum of people" you travel from Aksum to Araba Minch and you wouldnt believe you are in the same country. The Arab blood nonsense is as that guy Shahadah said to remove agency from Africa because it just so happens Ethiopian civilization is the most advanced in so-called Sub-Africa. It is such a problem topic it shouldnt be included here, it is an exotic discussion which should be on an exotic page as it causes to much focus and distracts from the article.--Halaqah 12:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the variation of peoples inside Ethiopia is very interesting. However, as Halaqah says, it might not belong on this page. It sounds like a huge amount of detail that might be better suited to a specialized page on Ethiopian peoples, linked to this page. Also, do we have a reference that shows exactly which peoples in Ethiopia were included in the Ethiopian genetic study and what variations within Ethiopia were found? Or are we just talking nonsense based on no information?--Filll 12:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I looked at the article and reference. Surely there are other references besides this one, however, this reference makes me think that people are all upset about nothing. This study looked at ONLY 48 Ethiopians from a very small area. It was found that for this characteristic they were studying, 62% of the study group had characteristics closer to a group that was mainly European and 24% had characteristics that were closer to a group that was mainly Bantu. But this was not all genetic characteristics. This was not all Ethiopians. This was just a few more than half of a very small group of Ethiopians compared to small groups of Europeans and Bantu in one very restricted characteristic. So what? Please why are people so upset? This is interesting, but I would not expect anything different. Would you? Why woud you be surprised at that? Why should the color of anyone's skin have anything to do with ALL the thousands of gentic variations that exist? That viewpoint sounds very

outdated and unscientific
racist

to me.--Filll 13:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you claimed on the talk page that the 2002 Oxford study was unscientific and racist. However the Oxford study is simply replicating previous findings that Ethiopians have substantial Caucasoid propinquity:

Genetic studies of autosomal loci have estimated that 40% of the DNA is of Caucasoid
origin while 60% is African (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). A recent study of mtDNA and Y-chromosome polymorphisms predicts approximately the same degree of admixture (Passarino et al. 1998). The mitochondrial DNA types of the Ethiopian population can be assigned to one of four broad groups: African (25%), Caucasoid (25%), Indian Caucasoid (20%) and 30% that cannot be attributed to specific
geographical areas. [[2]]

So taking the male and female lines together, about 40% of the Ethiopian gene pool comes from Caucasoid sources. But on top of that, you must consider that the Eurasian Adam originated in Ethiopia, so what some people describe as proto-caucasoids (in the form of elongated Africans) are arguabley indigenous to Ethiopia. This explains why only about a quarter of Ethiopians are black, according to Oxford. But again, there are no right or wrong answers here because many people argue that genetics is not relevant because race is a social construct. Oxford is cited in the article because they are simply the most notable of those who argue this view point, but it's just one of the many, many controversial viewpoints cited in the article. Timelist 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

you guys are right we should make a seperate article,i'm too timid to start it off myself but i would be willing to contribute if someone got it off the ground first. plus half this talk page seems to be about people fighting over whether ethiopians are black or not.74.96.108.178 02:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not difficult to make a new article. I think many ethiopians have dark skin, but not all. Whether they are black or not depends on what definition you want to use. But what I do know is, that Ethiopians are human beings; homo sapiens sapiens.--Filll 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No we don't need a new article. Everything is fine as it is. The fact of the matter is the most reliable source in the whole article (Oxford) says Ethiopians are not black and that has been cited, along with critcism by those who think the motive is racist. It's also been cited that Ethiopians were considered black in the ancient world, so the article is balanced. Kobrakid 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

i still think a picture should be added showing habesha who look less african to show what we mean when they say ethiopians might not be black74.96.108.178 01:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What they mean is that they don't have broad features or large jaws. The kids in the photo have narrow delicate features, which some people think is caucasoid, but at the same time they have dark skin and tight curly hair which has long been associated with negroid. If we showed a lighter skin more hybridized Ethiopian, we would be pushing the POV that Ethiopians get most of their caucasoid features from external sources, but it's more accurate to show that even indigenous dark skinned Ethiopians have elongated features, since the Eurasian Adam lived in Africa. Timelist 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction

It was claimed that I stated that the 2002 Oxford study was unscientific and racist. This is not correct; far from it. In fact, I think the 2002 Oxford study is great, but nothing to get upset about. So many people seem to get upset over NOTHING. What I wrote is, if you read it carefully, is that: Why should the color of anyone's skin have anything to do with ALL the thousands of gentic variations that exist? That viewpoint sounds very

outdated and unscientific
racist

to me. What I am trying to argue is that you cannot tell much from the color of a person's skin. You can tell a little, but not that much. Skin color is sort of nonsense. And this 2002 study is not conclusive, but it does sort of support that notion. Skin color is a stupid thing to worry about since it does NOT divide humans into races. And someone who wants to claim that skin color divides humans into races sounds sort of outdated and unscientific to me and sort of racist to me. Skin color has very little to do with race, at least in my opinion. Getting in a frenzy over skin color makes you not very different from the Klu Klux Klan or aparthied types. --Filll 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't tell very much by the appearance of one characteristic in a phenotype. The white skin-color people aboriginal to Japan,the Ainu, are white but nobody looks at their other characterists and asks how Norwegians got all the way over to Japan so many tens of thousands of years ago. On the other hand, there are some people in the U.S. with blue skin color. The color is heritable, but we know that their ancestors were of ordinary European stock. Only one mutation occurred, and the rest of the genetic characteristics they display are typical of the population of humans in the midst of which they appeared. But if you didn't know their ancestry then there would be no way to learn their characteristics except by examining these individuals point by point. The idea of "race" being a social construct is that a huge story is cooked up out of a few scrawny facts. If you want to know whether an individual can sing with perfect pitch you don't look at his/her skin color or the shape of his/her incisors. You ask the individual to sing something in a certain key and then you measure the frequencies actually sung. The same goes for any other characteristic. Even in the case of certain groups being more highly susceptible to certain diseases you still have to look at the individual. It would be ridiculous even to treat my identical twin for skin cancer just because I've suffered the disease. (It may make sense to spend some public health funds telling low-pigment people to stay out of the noonday sun.) P0M 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But Fill if skin color is silly then invisible genetics is even sillier. Clearly we will respond to skin color before genes as we can see it. An African American in Ethiopia or Sudan or Congo clearly is "of the same race" because of similar features (physical not genetic). The irony is genetically some AA have 30% European blood and look "blacker" (whatever that is) than some people in Niger. I think the race thing is like living with a bad habit. We cant deny it, and we cant ignore it. But the more you look at it the only reason we go along with it is because it has been used to divide and destroy the world. 4 me African people (people native to Africa) have a broad cultural unity, and a common history. This is the racial family. beyond that i really dont know, because race is so in our minds. Even today you can see 1 family produce children of different races, so how does this factor into our "perfect" concepts?--Halaqah 14:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

When I was in Chiangmai, Thailand in 1966 I met a young lady whose father was British (so she spoke excellent English, a help since I spoke no Thai) and whose mother was Thai. She invited me for lunch and I got to meet her boyfriend. I saw a tall, very handsome, black man. I guessed that he was an American soldier or an African. It turned out he was neither. He was Shan, a minority group that ranged the mountains on both sides of the borders of Burma and Thailand. If he were plunked down on the streets of New York people who treat him as they treat other "black" people. Race is a myth (or at least nothing more than a social construct), but racism is a reality. What needs to happen is for all people to look beyond the color of one's skin to understand the human being within that skin.P0M 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Halaqah that people react to skin color because they can see it. But I am doubtful of claims that having darker skin proves a person is stupider than a person with light skin. I am doubtful of claims that a person having darker skin is more likely to be dishonest than a person with light skin. I am doubtful of claims that a person with darker skin is more interested in sex than a person with light skin. I am doubtful of claims that a person with light skin is a more natural leader than a person with dark skin. And so on. You can tell a little about a person with darker skin, but not a lot. Darker skin tells you that the person's skin is darker. A lot of the other things are not proven, or just assumed, or based on very poor science and statistics, etc. It does not mean that they are true. However, it often means and has meant that the person with darker skin will be treated different by society. As for being able to tell where a person's ancestors come from by skin color plus lip size plus hair type plus eyes etc, it is possible sometimes to do this. Other times it is not possible at all. So as I said, skin color can tell you a little, but not a lot.--Filll 14:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And America is "wonderful." Even the racists can turn out to have a hefty share of the genetic inheritance that disturbs them so much when possessed by other people. P0M 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about skin color? Obviously Oxford educated geneticists are aware of the fact that Ethiopians have very dark skin, their point in saying they're not black is that according to their study, they don't cluster with other sub-Saharans genetically. They are using the term black in a racial genetic sense, not in a color sense. Kobrakid 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have some better-defined terms, wouldn't it. The trouble is that when we try to pin down terms like "race" we find a big mess. If we just look at populations that were separated from the rest of the world for long periods of time we find two things: (1) Lots of inherited variations within that group. (For instance, the aboriginal people in Australia were not all the same height or weight. There was a big spread among them, just as there has always been among other populations.) (2) Lots of inherited commonalities among members of that population and humans from all other areas of the world. Since the Australians arrived on that continent around 80,000 years ago and the oceans rose afterwards and made it much harder to get back and forth between Australia and the rest of the world, they should be an ideal test case for examining the idea that we can define "racial" identities. But what happens to the violet-eyed aboriginal natives of that continent? Is one uncommon characteristic enough to determine a difference of "race"? If so, then everybody (except for identical twins) is a member of his/her individual race. And on the other hand, how about the people who migrated down to the jump-off point to Australia and just stayed there for the next 80,000 years. Are they the same "race" or a different "race"? Probably they have accumulated a few genetic characteristics that are not represented in Australia. Would a single differentiating characteristic force us to call them a member of a "different" race? Maybe they have some individuals who cannot digest all the proteins in asparagus but all aboriginal Australians can eat asparagus without producing the funny smelling urine I get when I eat it. Is that enough to make them two different "races"? Or do we need two, ten, a hundred? How many characteristics are enough?

As for not clustering "with other sub-Saharans genetically," that's what I've just been describing in other terms. With what group or groups do these people cluster more closely?

It would be interesting to know more about the genetic history of these people, however. Does the genetic record indicate that they moved out of the original center of human life, migrated to that area and accumulated mutations of the millenia that made them the people that they are today? Does the record indicate that a group moved outside Africa, changed in response to other environmental conditions and then migrated back again? Does it indicate that 20,000 years or so ago some of the people that had adapted to life in the far north migrated back to Africa for some reason and either chased other people out or intermarried with them? To me, that kind of a study would be more useful than arguing about who the "true Africans" are.P0M 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

who says ethiopians have dark skin?a lot of ethiopians i know including me are light skinned.74.96.108.178 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the attitudes I sense here are not very constructive. This is why this entire subject always devolves into hostility. Everyone gets angry at everyone else over almost nothing. But it is par for the course I guess...--Filll 05: 14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

People are emotionally involved with these issues. One of the reasons is that there has been so much hurtfulness involved with the practice of dividing humans into groups based on superficial characteristics. One of the things that can be done is to break down the superficial certainties tha racists bring to these issues. Someone may think that because he has certain superficial characteristics s/he is "totally different" from members of some other group. Just the ability to objectively specify what the actual difference are can have an important effect on making things better. P0M 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that at least one person sort of understands what I am getting at. Skin color is just skin color. No more, no less. It tells you very little else about the person in most cases.--Filll 02:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Europeans are not Africa (or Black)

I am native to Africa. I am white. :D. --Adriaan90 (Talk|Contribs) 14:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My friend that old convo is stale now, U were born in Africa and hence you are a European in Africa, A European with an African Passport, A White person who lives in Africa. Pick a combination but there is one thing you will never be is an African. History removed African identity 2006 will not see it thrown to the highest bidder. Wez all African now---right. When You walk into Berlin airport r u sure you are an African? When u go for a job in New York r u African then 2. I have noticed how European-South Africans are part-time African. When you see them in Europe it is amazing how non-African they become, they back to being EUROPEAN again. or when you want to buy property in Africa funny how African the areas are. I actually saw an advert in TZ stating it was a "European area" Please let African people define themselves.--Halaqah 14:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And, please, let these so-called "European-Africans" also define themselves. I define myself as African. When I go to Europe one day, I will become European again. I see nothing wrong with that. But anyway, I don't see how this discussion is contributing to the article at hand, so yeah. PS: I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is about moving people's comments into new sections, like you did with mine. It now looks like I randomly posted an off-topic comment. But it's ok, I am not going to make a fuss. --Adriaan90 (Talk|Contribs) 16:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your race is a function by where most of your ancestors lived 10,000 years, not where you personally live right now. Kobrakid 19:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the physics regarding thermodynamics, if the world was 10 000 years old, the whole universe would have been frozen over, because heat would spread evenly through space. Your theory is flawed, about the age of my race, to begin with. Further, This is not about race, frankly I don't know what this is about, but there is an argument going here about "why white people act black when they live in Africa and why that is wrong". --Adriaan90 (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed his point. The world is not 10,000 year old, however by 10,000 years ago humans had finished colonizing most of the Earth and were genetically isolated into major geographic groups that would come to define the major races (if you believe in race). This has now changed as humans have become increasing mobile. Timelist 21:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Protect this page

Why dont you guys protect this page from new users? Clearly it is a page that is being targeted by racist people, just protected it.--Halaqah 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If the article got semi-protection, the amount of racist vandalism we're forced to revert should go down at least a bit. Timelist 20:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Ezeu 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Views

Here is a question that just struck me. The Nazi scientists had a racial theory in which the Aryans were the Master Race. And the Germans, or at least some of them were supposed to be Aryans. And Aryans came from Northern India. Does anyone know the other features of the Aryan theory, or what other beliefs about races the Nazis had? I think that these were held in many places besides Germany for a few decades in the early 1900s. What was their view on black people? I know they had formulae based on measuring heads and noses for deciding a person's race.--Filll`

Yup, I know all about it! Still, it's rather a big subject. I suggest that you read Aryan, Aryan race and Nordic theory. You might also look at Aryan invasion theory (history and controversies). Paul B 13:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Greeks

I also read someplace that there is a theory that the original Greeks were blond and blue eyed. What is this based on ? Anyone know? --Filll 13:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's based on Nordicist theory of the early twentieth century, which equated the Proto-Indo-European population with northern Europeans. Since Greek is an IE language, the assumption is that its speakers entered Greece from the north and that therefore the original Greeks would have been "Nordic". The fact that Greeks originally came from the north is supported by Greek mythology, but there is no emphasis on being blond or blue-eyed. Indeed, the "north" in relation to Greece is the central Balkans. Nordicists argued that ancient Greek populations became racially mixed with supposedly "inferior" races over time, especially during the period when Greece was controlled by the Ottoman empire. This was supposed to explain the decline of Greece from being the most advanced nation on earth, to being culturally backward. Needless to say modern Greeks rather resent the idea that they are somehow a different people from their famous ancestors, so there are many Greek nationalist websites which attack this theory. It's worth noting that Afrocentrist and other writers reversed this argument as far back as 1901, when Sergi published his theory of the Mediterranean race in which he argued that ancient Greeks were related to African populations. There's an interesting article in the Journal of Negro History from 1917 which discusses this point.[3] They were still arguing the point in 1929.[4] This debate has erupted again since Black Athena and genetic studies by the controversial geneticist Antonio Arnaiz-Villena. [5] [6] Paul B 12:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to fold this into the current article, or a related article.--Filll 13:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the article on redheads. I think there are written reports from early in human history that record the presence of the kind of people who are magnets for skin cancer cavorting in southern climes even at that early time. Later records of "mad men and Englishmen in the noonday sun" indicate that we never got the message. Or maybe we grub-complexioned ones realized the truth and the most of us moved north where we were expected to isolate ourselves. ;-) P0M 22:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Caucasians

Should we include a footnote or something about people from the Caucasus mountains as being black, which we had in the article a few months ago? --Filll 13:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we make that an objective claim regarding skin color rather than an implied assertion of close genetic similarity to Africans? (Not that I have any proof that they might not be very closely related indeed.) There is a skin-color chart made on the basis of comparisons of human skin tones with a collection of ceramic tiles (like your dentist may use to pick the right color to match your natural teeth). It is somewhat controversial since two observers might come up a tile apart on what color was the correct match, but at least it wasn't as subjective as my finding a Shan native to be as black as the Afro-Americans I remember seeing in the U.S. four years previously.

The Biasutti skin color maps (Biasutti was the one who designed the survey) at least have the advantage that they show two things: (1) Colors on the map always shade into each other gradually, and (2) sometimes migration paths will carry a band of color farther in one direction or the other than one would expect from the degree of ensolation to be expected where they are found.

And, of couse, those experiments could be improved with modern instrumetation, but it is the relative values that carry any importance that I can imagine except, perhaps, predictions of numbers of basal cell carcinoma surgeries to be expected per thousand in each public health district. P0M 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

History of science problem

The current text says: "Scientists believe that the need to absorb vitamin D in Northern climates gradually made skin become lighter"

In past decades scientists may have theorized that skin color changes occurred gradually. Perhaps they thought that skin color changes were the result of the accumulation of many small mutations. It is my memory, however, that recent attempts to trace out the genetic changes that made possible adaptations to special conditions and that define the major genetic differences between, e.g., Australian aboriginal populations and African populations, have been the result of specific single mutations. If that is the correct picture according to the genetic record, then individuals who did not carry the mutation but attempted to live in areas where heavy clothing would have cut down on UV reception and vitamin D production would not have prospered, and those with adaptive characteristics would have gradually outbred them becoming the prevalent type in northern regions that depended on food stuffs that did not provide an abundance of vitamin D.

In the early years after the mutation appeared it would have been rare for both parents to share the mutation so skin colors would have been of an intermediate shade, But over many generations the higher mortality rate, lower fertility rate, etc., of the vitamin D deficient individuals would presumably have produced the result that we see most clearly today in places like Scandinavia. P0M 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution and skin colour

Article contains unsourced statement:

Only tens of thousands of years later did modern humans branch out into the Middle East and Europe and finally North East Asia and the Americas. Scientists believe that the need to absorb vitamin D in Northern climates gradually made skin become lighter.

This needs a source. Especially because, I have read what we might call the opposite theory, although I am not going to add it to the article because I don't have a cite for it. (Help?) The theory I have read is this: The original human inhabitants of Africa were light skinned. These then migrated out of Africa into colder climates. Over time, mutations developed in the population which produced darker skin. These mutations were favourable in the environment of Africa, so those with the dark-skinned mutation were more successful than the light skinned Africans, so the light-skinned Africans died out and the dark skinned Africans thrived. Whereas, in colder climates, lighter skin was more favourable, so the dark skinned mutation never got a foothold.

I think the assumption that the earliest humans had pale skin makes sense -- our great ape relatives have pale skin, as do most animals with fur (when you are covered with hair, dark skin gives little advantage.) It seems natural that we would have lost hair first, then darkened our skins to compensate.

But, as I said, lacking sources, I'm not going to add anything. --SJK 10:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen any indication of skin samples of hominids being discovered. Chimpanzees do have faces that are largely devoid of hair, right? But they are not white in color. Ensolation can make a great deal of difference to the skin colors observed. The Chinese people in my dorm in Taiwan, being students and intellectuals, generally wore long trousers outdoors, and their legs (having never been exposed to sun as mine were in my youth) were an almost paper white. On the other hand, people who had worked all their lives wearing their boxer shorts while wrestling stones out of steam beds had skin tones as dark as many African-Americans. It was, biologically speaking, the same skin, but the sun could make it far darker than my skin will ever get. My body gets fully geared up to produce skin pigment to protect me after I've been exposed to lots of UV, and the result is pretty pathetic. I just don't have it where skin pigment is concerned, so for me it is big hats, black clothing, and suntan oil.

As far as I know, all of our hominid ancestors were "naked apes" as one book title indicated. (Naked primates would have been more scientifically appropriate I guess, but it would not have sold books. And, by the way, the people who talk about large sexual organ size being a sign of primitivity should take a look at the external genitalis of gorillas and chimpanzees. They are obviously far more advanced than even the humans with the most diminutive of physical endowments. P0M 23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, however it should be mentioned that evolution is a theory, and other theories suggest differently. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 12:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think so. Evolution is the scientific consensus. Plus, there is no "other theory" about skin colour differences. Even YEC believers accept that it is a product of what they call "micro" evolution. On the main point - as far as I am aware there is no certainty about the skin pigmentation of early humans. I think it's been suggested that it may have been lighter than the current norm in central Africa on the grounds that many Bushmen have mid-brown rather than very dark skin. But it's unlikely to have been "white" since the loss of hair would occur very slowly in tandem with selective pressure for another means of protection from the sun. Paul B 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to force your own opinion into your statement. You can't just ignore the fact that not the whole world believes evolution. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 15:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is, as I said, the scientific consensus, not just my opinion. The article cannot usefully discuss this specific point without using that consensus.Paul B 15:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I see what you mean. I was meaning that one should note that there are other groups or people who do not believe this and that they question evolution's factuality. The fact is that there exist people who don't agree with evolution, and therefore we cannot ignore that fact. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 15:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that there are "fringe" elements that do not believe in evolution. However, someone who did not believe in evolution would have a very difficult time getting into graduate school in biology in any respectable accredited school anyplace in the world. A person who did not believe in evolution would have a very difficult time getting hired as biology faculty at a respectable school anyplace in the world. A person who did not believe in evolution would have a very difficult time getting tenured as biology faculty at a respectable school anyplace in the world. A school that did not teach evolution as part of biology would soon lose accreditation. There are no publications in any respectable peer-reviewed biology journal that seriously question evolution. There is no evidence that questions evolution that exists. Aside from a few religious fundamentalists who somehow feel that evolution challenges their beliefs (I have seen antievolutionists who are Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists and Hindu fundamentalists), there is no serious challenge to evolution. The antievolutionists are in the same camp as people who believe in extraterrestrials abducting people or cows, or in the Loch Ness Monster, or ghosts, or vampires, or avoiding black cats, or any number of other unfounded beliefs that people adopt. What other respectable claim for the existence of black skin (or white skin) is there?--Filll 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are attacking me by saying I am an idiot because I do not believe in evolution, and tons of other people out there. Please remain civil. Also, Darwin, the founder of evolution, was Christian, are you saying then that all Christians rejects evolution? I think you are implying that. Additionally, how can you say that a person who rejects evolution will fare bad at school and university? My whole family rejects evolution, all of them have degrees and what have you. Your statement is completely uncited and expresses your personal emotions toward others who differ from you in opinion. You are also not contributing to the article in question. Saying that there are no serious questions to evolution is completely ignorant, because there have been tons of books written which question the thermodynamic state of space which doesn't account for a big bang event, and the condition of the earth's core, to speak of the least. These issues does not concur with what evolution suggest, and therefore either needs more research or should be otherwisely explained. Please can we end this discussion here, and continue discussing the fact that other people with non-evolutionistic views exist? I don't think that is too difficult. Thank you. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 15:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My goodness. This probably should be addressed someplace else besides this page. I have no objection to making some footnote about evolution and nonbelievers in evolution, but it has to be carefully worded. Let me try to address your statements:

I never said anyone who does not believe in evolution is an idiot (including you). I said that there is no evidence to support their beliefs, but that is fine. Why do you think you are being attacked? You are free to believe anything you like. However, nonstandard views should not pollute an encyclopedia article. And by any measure, claiming that there is some other mechanism besides evolution operating here is definitely a nonstandard view. Should an article on NASA have a big section on UFOs and UFO abduction of farm animals?
Of course Darwin was a Christian. My understanding is that he was at least partly trained for the ministry. Why would you think otherwise?
Lots of Christians believe in evolution. I do not have any statistics, but my strong impression is that it might be more than half of all Christians. Among those with advanced training, I would expect this number to be far higher. You do not think this is true?
I never said anyone who rejected evolution would "fare bad at school". I said you would have a difficult time being a scientist in biology or trained in biology if you did not understand it and accept it. Do you dispute this? Give me an example of a biology faculty member in a respectable accredited university that is known for not believing in evolution. Of the tens of thousands that exist, I think you would have trouble finding even one. Are you so anxious to pick a fight?
The big bang and the earth's core have nothing to do with evolution. The fact that you even bring them up give one severe pause. The objections based on thermodynamic laws are a simple matter of not understanding thermodynamics. Evolution does not violate thermodynamics. Period. And this has been known for decades and decades.--Filll 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall quote for you then, because you are completely manipulating my statement.

My goodness. This probably should be addressed someplace else besides this page. I have no objection to making some footnote about evolution and nonbelievers in evolution, but it has to be carefully worded. Let me try to address your statements:

I never said anyone who does not believe in evolution is an idiot (including you). I said that there is no evidence to support their beliefs, but that is fine. Why do you think you are being attacked? You are free to believe anything you like. However, nonstandard views should not pollute an encyclopedia article. And by any measure, claiming that there is some other mechanism besides evolution operating here is definitely a nonstandard view. Should an article on NASA have a big section on UFOs and UFO abduction of farm animals?

You said the following: "The antievolutionists are in the same camp as people who believe in extraterrestrials abducting people or cows, or in the Loch Ness Monster, or ghosts, or vampires, or avoiding black cats, or any number of other unfounded beliefs that people adopt."

If this isn't a blatant insult, then I do not know what is.

Of course Darwin was a Christian. My understanding is that he was at least partly trained for the ministry. Why would you think otherwise?

A blatant manipulation of my statement. Here's what I said: "Also, Darwin, the founder of evolution, was Christian, are you saying then that all Christians rejects evolution?"

Lots of Christians believe in evolution. I do not have any statistics, but my strong impression is that it might be more than half of all Christians. Among those with advanced training, I would expect this number to be far higher. You do not think this is true?

No, I do not think it is true. And I am sure I have made this clear in my statement as well. Stating that "more than half of Christians believe evolution" is wishful thinking in terms that you do not have any supportive statistics and that you are trying to further your argument by brainwashing.

I never said anyone who rejected evolution would "fare bad at school". I said you would have a difficult time being a scientist in biology or trained in biology if you did not understand it and accept it. Do you dispute this? Give me an example of a biology faculty member in a respectable accredited university that is known for not believing in evolution. Of the tens of thousands that exist, I think you would have trouble finding even one. Are you so anxious to pick a fight?

As childish as your comment suggest you are, I will continue to answer this. Yet again you are blatantly manipulating my comment by putting words in my mouth. Here's what you said: "However, someone who did not believe in evolution would have a very difficult time getting into graduate school in biology in any respectable accredited school anyplace in the world. A person who did not believe in evolution would have a very difficult time getting hired as biology faculty at a respectable school anyplace in the world. A person who did not believe in evolution would have a very difficult time getting tenured as biology faculty at a respectable school anyplace in the world. A school that did not teach evolution as part of biology would soon lose accreditation."

The big bang and the earth's core have nothing to do with evolution. The fact that you even bring them up give one severe pause. The objections based on thermodynamic laws are a simple matter of not understanding thermodynamics. Evolution does not violate thermodynamics. Period. And this has been known for decades and decades.

Nonsense. I have read books that bring up serious questions toward evolution. And as I said, that was only to name a few. I have not been on this planet long enough to study every possible cause for evolution to be flawed.

I do not believe that any of these arguments are bringing us closer to an agreement upon the notation of people who believe otherwise than evolution. I also don't think that you are being civil. You are clearly trying to push your argument forward by mentioning nonsense cases which do not have to do with the argument, and example being "that all anti-evolutionists fall in the same camp as people who believe in UFOs abducting people in cows". Therefore, after this argument I shall ignore any further accusations/manipulations of yours. I am not a fool, so the rubbish you are writing here isn't changing anything about my personal opinion.

Getting back on topic, I don't think this case deserved such a big argument. Stating that "However, nonstandard views should not pollute an encyclopedia article. And by any measure, claiming that there is some other mechanism besides evolution operating here is definitely a nonstandard view. I have no objection to making some footnote about evolution and nonbelievers in evolution, but it has to be carefully worded" is bias because it is smothering other beliefs and their reasonings. Just because evolution is consensus under scientists, it doesn't mean that all of them believe in it or that there doesn't exist any alternative theories who counters evolution.

I am not going to argue further with you, as you cannot seem to maintain the point and discuss the issue in question. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 16:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at your talk page, where you claim to be a 15 year old Jewish child in grade 9 in South Africa, I think I have heard enough trolling. When you can give me ONE example of a biologist at a major accredited university, say in the US or the UK, who does not believe in evolution, then I will listen. Otherwise, come back and talk to me in 10 or 20 years. Get a PhD in evolutionary biology and then talk to me.--Filll 17:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I would suggest you study hard. Use your brains. Try to learn something first before you express too many opinions.--Filll 17:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Given your demands for references, I would suggest you look here where a Pew study demonstrates that about 69 percent of Catholics and 68 percent of Protestants believe in evolution. Evangelicals in the US constitute about 7% of the population from a 2005 Barna group study and only 30% of them believe in evolution. So of the 76.5% of the US population that identifies themselves as Christian, 45% are normal protestant, 7% are evangelical protestant and 24.5% are catholic. Of the normal protestants, about 75.1 % believe in evolution (from simple algebra 0.7*Re+A*Rn=0.31(Re+Rn) where Re is the fraction of evangelicals, and Rn is the fraction of normals, and solving for A). So overall in the USA, Re+Rn+Rc=0.765, and .3*Re+.751*Rn+0.69*Rc=B(Re+Rn+Rc), where Rc is the fraction of catholics (.245) and B is the overall belief level of self-identified Christians in the USA. B=.6901, so almost 70 % of all Christians in the USA believe in evolution. And I am almost positive that the figures are much higher among those who are educated, especially those educated in biology. You want to challenge me some more? --Filll 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is another article and anotherand yet another one with essentially the same position as mine, with quotes and references. There is a list of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design and creationism, and affirming evolution. I think an encyclopedia should go with what is the overwhelming mainstream position, not some sort of fantasy or fairy story, aside from at most a parenthetical dismissal of competing unscientific theories.--Filll 15:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Marginal though this is to the current article, the fact is that Darwin eventually rejected Christianity, as he states in his autobiography. His closest ally, Thomas Huxley, invented the concept of "agnosticism" to express his opinion, and Darwin's co-theorist of Natural Selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, was a spiritualist. Paul B 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is irrelevant to the current article. However, I believe that the main arguments in the article should be grounded in evolution. To subscribe to other fruitcake theories will just serve to detract from the article, which will have to surmount many other prejudices. Lots of people are already biased against people of color, and it will just hold the article up to ridicule to put extra ill-founded unscientific nonsense in it.--Filll 00:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of underlying issues involved here. One conflict arises from the discomfort that some people feel when the theory of evolution seems to suggest that the Biblical account of the creation of human beings was done by two divine acts, the creation of Adam and the subsequent and derivative creation of Eve. Another conflict or at least sense of uncertainty can arise because in some ways the fossil record is hard to explain by the simple version of Darwin's theory. To the first discomfort one can say, with Aquinas, that God by his very nature cannot tell us an untruth by fabricating the appearance of a world that is at variance with his own divine acts. We have to understand that we are finite creatures who get things wrong in our own minds, cannot understand finite features of nature much less the infinite nature of God, but that we can trust that if we understand science and God correctly there cannot be a conflict between them. The second conflict arises because Darwin's theory has nothing in it that would directly explain how, e.g., dinosaurs would persist for millions of years and then all die off rather suddenly, whereupon evolution suddenly appeared to take a sprint forward and in a relatively short time evolved a large number of species previously unknown to fill the ecological niches left when the earlier creatures died off.

An article on Black people is not the right place to argue about Darwin, nor is it the right place to try to create an encyclopedic understanding of what people have meant by the word "race." People should be directed to articles on the appropriate sources.

This article should also not be a discussion on the philosophy of science--even though the philosophy of science needs to guide us in understanding what can be known and justified scientifically and how to do it.

What this article can do, however, is to reflect the genetic histories of the various groups of humans who have inhabited Africa, and perhaps to follow them out of Africa. I don't know for sure whether the skin color of the earliest Africans can be deduced from the genetic record. But there is already a considerable amount of genetic evidence to show that Africa is not monolithic in terms of heritable characteristic. Certain groups seem to have diverged from other groups at a very early time and to have maintained their genetic separateness fairly well even over tens of thousands of years.

In other words this article should treat "black people" as the trunk and lower forks of the family tree of humankind, not as though "black people" are genetically homogeneous. And, of course, due recognition should also be given to the presence of a "family tree" for the languages of people indigenous to this continent, its religious commonalities and divergences, etc. P0M 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It all starts to become clear. Our dear friend A was born in South Africa, previously one of the most racist places on the face of the earth. So racist that almost every other country banded together for decades to isolate them and force them to change their official anti-black policies. When the government finally changed, whites found their political and economic power was sharply diminished. Many of them had land taken away. The whites that are still there, like A, are, of course, somewhat resentful. Christianity was used extensively in South Africa to justify the viewpoints of racist Europeans, just as it was used in the US in the slave states to justify racism. A is a child, and trusts the family around him and what he is taught in his family and at school because that is all he knows (something like the Japanese who are taught in school that they had to attack Pearl Harbor to get even for Hiroshima). So I am willing to cut him some slack. He just needs to learn that, unfortunately, a lot of what he is being taught is nonsense. I imagine that his particular fundamentalist Christian sect teaches him ALL KINDS of ridiculous things about black people and where they come from.--Filll 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to talk to you. You're such a dumb nit wit. Get a life, fool. Who the hell do you think you are to come insult me about my age and nationality? And, I am not racist. One of my best friends is black. So shut the fuck up. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 16:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. I am dumb, I am a nit wit, I am insulting you. I am calling you a racist. And then you use some invective. I guess you really are 15. But on the other hand, it is probably painful for him to confront the sort of realities I am suggesting. Probably does not want to acknowledge that until fairly recently, South Africa was one of the most hated countries on the planet, and every white South African was basically viewed as guilty until proven innocent. No one wants to believe that the culture he or she comes from has serious deficiencies or biases.--Filll 16:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't do away with the fact that our culture has biases. And I don't give a crap for that. That's what it's all about. Thank God you're no Christian, I wouldn't want to put up with you in the afterlife. Furthermore, fuck you for calling Christianity "a fairy tale". And do not imply that people who are fifteen are idiots. You're the idiot, for trying to convince a "fifteen year old racist child from South Africa" to believe your rubbish theory that a little ball exploded and poof here we are arguing if it happened or not. Also, if you do not believe that there is a God or whatever, why don't you do everyone and yourself a favour and kill yourself, because what's the reason for suffering so bad in this world if there is nothing to die for? Just end it here. It's much simpler. Now, you are still manipulating my statements because you evidently want to so badly place your own bias within the article. All I asked for in the beginning was that we can note that other groups and societies exist that rejects evolution and all the nonsense it suggests. However, we will not say "nonsense", because then we might hurt the poor old evolutionists that have nothing better with their lives to do that argue with "stupid fifteen year old racist children from a fucked up racist South Africa". So there. Did you get what you want? A big, fat, childish fight. And what did we achieve? Nothing. You evolutionists really have no brains. I didn't try ever to convert you to my religion or whatever (I in any case don't want such fools to be part of my religion), and you just started attacking me from out of nowhere, as if I posed a threat to the quality of the article that it might have had in the first place. And yes, I don't give a crap what you think, and so does Wikipedia. The bottom line is: there are stuff mentioned withing the article that doesn't correlate with the beliefs of societies other than the evolution clique. End of story. So, it shall be noted and it shall be cited. You are not contributing to this matter by any means, so a reply from you is highly unwanted. Thank you. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 17:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And, with your continuous edits of your comments, I would like to reply to the fact that you keep on misusing South Africa as an excuse to detract the focus from the main argument. I was born in 1990, so by the time apartheid ended (1994), I was four years old. Therefore, I had no part in the Old South Africa. Also, I do not know what the hell you want to prove by insulting my country the whole time. We are a successful nation with a stabilising economy and growing black middle and upper class, the same with whites, although that is just at a much lesser degree. Now, stop using RSA as an insult to me. Everything you want to say, say it directly to me. My country has nothing to do with my opinions, and they don't give a crap what a lunatic from Canada thinks about them. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 17:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know I am not a Christian? My mentioning South Africa is indeed relevant, because it puts your comments and long string of curses and name-calling in context, so that they make sense. I will note that your irritation and lack of facility with English is starting to show, since a large fraction of what you have written actually makes no sense whatsoever, and this seems to be getting worse.--Filll 17:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I will note I am not trying to convert you. As I said before, you are free to believe whatever you like. However, the line becomes drawn when creationists or religious extremists of various stripes want to impose their nonstandard views on a scientific subject. Let me ask you. Where do you think black people came from? Are black people being punished by God for some offense their forefathers committed? --Filll 17:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are manipulating the statement and driving the focus off the main point. I will not argue with you except for saying that your English is rubbish as well, and I actually don't care if I can't speak English properly, because not everything in this world is English. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 17:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course my English is not perfect. I do not have a PhD in English or Linguistics or something similar. But at least my writing is comprehensible, as near as I can determine. If you do not care if people can understand your writing, then why should I care? Your writing certainly confirms that you have this sort of attitude. And I will note that this is actually the English version of Wikipedia. Is there an Afrikaans version you might feel more comfortable? And on the main point, I think that this article will be opened to ridicule if it does not follow the standard, established, well-supported line of scientific reasoning. --Filll 17:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you see as being black is a punishment? People adapt to their environment. That's obvious. I do not however buy the complete evolution myth. And, you are once again trying to place the focus off the main point. Wikipedia isn't about scientific reasoning. It's about what is out there that can be proven and that is notable. Other theories than evolution exist, that can be proven, and it is notable because it deals about the main subject in question. I shall not leave the English Wikipedia as long as you are here. Also, you say that my English sucks ass so bad. Well, I find it fairly interesting that you are quite quick to respond to my messages, considering that you don't have to decode it first to understand what I have writ. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 17:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that black was a punishment. But many Christians preach that. What do you think adapting to your environment is? Do you know what scientific reasoning is? I suspect you do not know what science is. Wikipedia is a statement of facts with citations from quality references. And obviously more space will be devoted to standard material, such as that espoused by the scientific community, than fringe material, which has no basis in serious scholarship and for which there is no supporting evidence. I have no objection to mentioning fringe material, as long as it is done carefully to avoid giving it some sort of spurious confirmation. You are welcome to stay in English Wikipedia of course, however I am not sure that cursing and name-calling are good ideas if you want to stay. And I will note that a good 50% of what you write is too difficult to understand, so I ignore it.--Filll 18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And, once again you are placing the focus off the main point (do you understand this sentence?). I can't argue with monkeys (that is indeed what you are implying you are, by believing the whole evolution hoax thing), so you go to your Wikipedia in stead. And do not say that many Christians preach that being black is a punishment. That is the biggest piece of bull shit that I have ever heard in my life. I hope you could comprehend what I have said so far. It can easily be proven that other societies reject evolution, and ignoring that from the article would be misleading. I hope you understood that. We can easily provide evidence that evolution is entirely flawed, however requiring that information from a "fifteen year old racist child in South Africa" is unreasonable. Also, I do not know what "scientific reasoning" is, because I have never heard of it. You also seem to imply that I do not know what science is, which is an insult and yet once again one of your attempts at placing the focus off the main point of the argument. Additionally, your own reasoning is the equivalent of a mad man's as you cannot keep an adult conversation with a person who wants to add a bit to an article. But what the fuck, I don't need your permission. Do I? You are a mentally retarded person, because you fail to keep your focus on what is being discuss, and you go to disgusting measures to try and hurt fellow editors, like insulting their nationality, race, generation, integrity, linguistic skills, etcetera, only to name a few. You are a disgusting example of a person trying to convince others of your personal mythical believes by continuously changing the subject and informing the person about how superior you are above him and how biased his or her belief system is. You should really (*REALLY*) get a life, for heaven's sake. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 18:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the cursing and the tantrums. Put up or shut up. What do you want to put in the article? Write it here.--Filll 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the fool has come to his senses. I don't know what to put in the article. I was only suggesting that something be put there. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Until you change your attitudes, you will have your fair share of difficulties, I predict.--Filll 18:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And I have one word for this: trolling.--Filll 18:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't even start with that rubbish. I have the right to mention or suggest things. You are just a sad boy now that you realise you can't always have it your way. And I have only a few words for that: grow the hell up. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I decline to respond to any of these kinds of efforts to incite. Just count yourself lucky that you are not my student and I am being easy on you because you are a child.--Filll 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank God. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You are free to suggest things. I am waiting. Maybe when you have something constructive to suggest, then people might do something. Until then...--Filll 19:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggested a constructive thing. You appeared to have thought it was unconstructive because you view Wikipedia as your personal diary. PS: Just to make it clear, it's not. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting. Feel free to proceed...--Filll 19:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you, person? I have made my suggestion in the very first statement:

:Yes, however it should be mentioned that evolution is a theory, and other theories suggest differently. ► [[User:Adriaan90|Adriaan90]] ( [[User Talk:Adriaan90|Talk]] ♥ [[Special:Contributions/Adriaan90|Contribs]] ) ♪♫ 12:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>
After that it was just one big cat fight about how stupid my country and I were. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 19:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the mischaracterization. When you can produce some explicit suggestion for a contribution, instead of some vague allusion to "other theories", and then back up your contribution with references in quality sources, then people will consider it. Other than that, what can we do? I personally do not believe that the "other theories" have much validity except for historical purposes or as examples of how Christianity and other religions were used as justifications for racism and barbarism through the centuries. For example, Nazi racial theories about black people I think would be interesting, and should be included as I suggested above. However, I think it should be made very clear that these theories have been discredited (with references of course). I also have no problem with describing evolution as a theory. Anyone with any scientific training or knowledge whatsoever knows that EVERYTHING in science is a theory, including gravity and any other explanation of anything else in science you care to mention. Calling something a "theory" is not some death blow or insult to a piece of scientific work.--Filll 19:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. Not only do roughly 69% of all Christians in the USA accept evolution as the most likely scenario, but a survey listed here of 480,000 earth and life scientists found that 99.85% of those with advanced training accepted evolution as the dominant explanation. This of course includes many distant fields like meteorology and physical oceanography and geophysics, so I am confidant that if the survey was restricted to just biologists with PhDs from respectable accredited institutions, the statistics would be far more overwhelming. I am sorry, but beliefs in things besides evolution are fringe positions, especially among those with the training to be able to examine the evidence carefully and judge it. It should be noted that the number of people who might be expected to suffer from mental illness and assorted delusions and psychoses in such a group might be expected to be larger than 0.15%. As far as I am concerned, 99.85% of a huge group that includes a lot of people whose backgrounds are quite distant from biology is pretty strong evidence that essentially ALL of the professional biologists with professional credentials accept the theory of evolution. Period. An encyclopedia should devote a lot of time and energy to the whims of a tiny fringe group? I think not.--Filll 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfree Image

What the heck is an "unfree image" of a black woman? I sort of liked that picture. Why remove it?--Filll 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of that image in this article violates the terms of WP:FAIR. The uploader claimed that the image is fair use because it illustrates the object in question (a black person) where no free equivalent exists, but since a free image might reasonably be found or created it therefore does not meet the WP:FAIR policy. --Strothra 15:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I put the image back in. The rational for removing it was utter nonsense. This article needs complete protection. Timelist 19:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies are its policies. Too bad if that upsets you, but Wiki must abide by copyright law. --Strothra 20:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it, it violates existing policy. Do not re-insert the image. Finding a free equivalent should not be hard. Joelito (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am an administrator enforcing WP:FAIR policy. Again do not re-insert the image. Please find a free image. Joelito (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Science and Belief

There are some misconceptions about what science is, and at least some of them seem to be in action here. Part of the problem is that the mass media do not explain things well so when they report something like "Scientists discover hereditary link in the spread of the new mystery disease known locally as Kuru." All the medical authorities studying this disease may have figured out is that all the people who are catching it are related to each other, but the newspaper reports may jump the gun and assume that there must be an inherited propensity to develop this disease and that assumption colors the way the report the news. A coupe of years later the same newspapers may report something like this: "Medical scientists link kuru to the consumption of human brains but find no disease germs such as bacteria. The operating assumption is that the disease agent is viral." So now people are likely to believe that science once said the disease was a hereditary defect like hemophelia and now claim it is a viral disease like polio. "Aha," people say, "the scientists were wrong." Then it later turns out that the infective agent appears not to be a virus either but is believed to be an atypically folded protein. After the recriminations against the scientists who has suggested a cause of disease that is neither a microbe nor a virus have settled down and the scientist has received a Nobel Prize for his work, some other scientists are still investigating the possibility that there is a hard-to-detect virus that is responsible for getting the protein to fold incorrectly.
All the responsible scientist can claim is that a logically consistent reason for some phenomenon (a theory) has been presented, that evidence could be found that might refute the theory, and that thusfar no evidence has been found that shows conclusively that the theory is wrong. So the first group of scientists found that everybody who caught kuru was a close relative of somebody else who had suffered the disease and hypothesized that there was a bioogical flaw in the makeup of these people that gave rise to the disease condition. The problem was that people who were remotely related would often catch the disease and those who were most closely related would often not catch the disease. Things weren't adding up, so scientists continued to investigate other hypotheses and discovered that the connection was a social and religious one that happened to tie in with heredity since members of the same families tended to have learned similar religious observances. The real connecting factor was the funerary consumption of brain tissue. People only got the disease if they had consumed brain tissue from certain individuals.
The first hypothesis did not survive for very long because it was easy to come up with contradictory evidence,but the second hypothesis has remained invulnerable because it is impossible to prove a negative. Nobody could find any fungal organism to blame. Similarly, nothing turned up for backteria, amoebic infections, protozoans, etc. These organisms are visible under a microscope and if there were some microbe there causing trouble it ought to be possible to at least filter it out even if you couldn't see it. But something unseen was getting through microbe-sized filters and continuing to cause diseases. So it didn't seem that there could be a microbe involved, but that left viral diseases.
The second hypothesis continues to remain viable simply because it is possible that there is some viral agent that gets through all filters and so can cause disease when the filtered material from infected brains is tested. But it is not a very convincing theory because there is no positive evidence for it. Saying that there is something there that causes a disease is not the same as saying it is a virus.
Figuring out a puzzle that nature has left for us is typically not a simple operation, so scientific theories have a prominent characteristic that separates them from "why couldn't the reason be that xyz" explanations, and that is that the second kind of account is one without a rationale and without supporting evidence that makes it seem any more likely than any number of competing accounts of the same character.
Consider the question: "Why does the eye of an octopus have almost esactly the same structure as the eye of a human being even though they are genetically very far removed from each other and the organisms coming before them on their family tree have, in both cases, less and less efective eyes the farther back in time we look?" A scientific account attempts to trace the development of eye structure by looking at the history of eye improvements in each chain of development, noting how as time and evolution progress the eyes get better and better until the functional capabilities of both kinds of eyes get very similar and, perhaps it ought to be no big surprise, their forms become very similar as well. So in both cases there is a very detailed account supported by meny
Fastidious, even picky, explanations of this type are subject to being picked at and modified in small detail forever, but the non-scientific explanations are typically the acme of simplicity and generally take the form, "Why could not George have done it?" For instance, "Why couldn't an evil scientist have genetically modified the octopus to have eyes modified after his own?" "Why couldn't Martians have visited Earth before they died out in order that they might provide both the humans and the octopuses with state of the art eyes?" "Why couldn't God have just designed them both and used the same blueprint in both places?"
Generally speaking the explanations of this second kind may be appealing since, if they are true, worring about a long complicated explanation may not be worth the effort. When one has a five year old son in the family the question "How did a chicken egg appear on the kitchen ceiling overnight?" may not merit profound attempts at evolutionary theorizing. Probably the explanation does not involve a mutation in the hen house. On the other hand, proving and explaining the existence of the mad scientist, the Martians, or God may be difficult. If the Martians made good octopus eyes, then who made the Martians. If the Jovians made the Martians, then who made the Jovians, and so on ad infinitum.
So, back to the article. What we have in recent decades been provided with are very rich sets of data, points of information that anybody with the time and training can go out and check, that, somewhat in the manner of a comic book picture being drawn dot by dot,give us a coherent if not entirely completed, picture of how humans developed on Earth. One point at which the Bible and the people who has developed this picture are in agreement is that all human beings go back to a common female ancestor and a common male ancestor.
I have started to put in a little bit of the story that I have gotten from Spencer Wells's book summarizing the work he and his cohorts have done by following out the changes that have appeared on the Y-chromosome. (The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey). Unfortunately, he does not have a great deal to say about genetic trails to be found in Africa, but the work he reports makes it plausible to me for the first time how very dark individuals such as the Shan in the "Golden Plateau" area can be as dark or darker than many Africans, why the aboriginal people of Australia resemble Africans much more closely than, e.g, Chinese, etc.
If anybody knows how the Bantu group breaks into sub-groups they may be able to find pictures that are more representative of the general Bantu appearance than I managed to find on Commons. I did find several good pictures of the San. Wells paints the picture of a very early population of Ethiopia being closely related to the San of today (who got moved out by Bantu intrusions long long ago), so that is why I wanted the San and the Bantu.
Much work has been done on Africa, but I'll have to look at some of my other works on the genetic history of humankind to get that part into shape for an encyclopedic summary. P0M 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

P0M is correct in several instances:
I am sure that if I went out on the street and asked people what science is, probably 90% or more of the people would not know. We do an awful job of teaching what this very important human activity is.

Some of the data we have appears to be confusing, and it is not easy to untwist the history of humankind.

We should aim for scientific understandings and explanations for where black people came from. Other explanations can be mentioned of course, but only parenthetically with caveats. I think it is crucial to avoid anything that might hold the article up to ridicule. I also dont want to give unintended reassurance to any fringe theories from fruitcakes of various stripes. The field of racial studies has had far too many of those already, with disasterous consequences.

It is indeed tempting for a child that does not want to do their homework to say, "I do not want to understand how this data came to be. I will invoke a magic being with a magic wand that will wave this wand and make everything perfect so I do not have to think". That is an easy way to get out of your homework, but it is not science to have to invoke supernatural phenomena every time you get stuck on a difficult bit.

--Filll 20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not just chilren who want to stick with the explanations they have gathered on their own or with the help of their parents and/or peers. We all do this kind of thing whether we want to or not. First, it is very time consuming to check out a new account, and threatening if deciding it is true will put some of your core beliefs in question. That fact explains why so many reputable scientists resisted the idea of prions so strongly, and why they demonized the creator of that theory. One wonders what they said to him after he won the Nobel Prize. Second, our own pictures of ourselves as regards the value that we hold as human beings may be severely impacted if it turns out that some of our foundational ideas are wrong. What happens in the minds of the "Italian" who hates both Jews and Arabs but then at age 35 discovers that his real father was a Jew and his real mother was an Arab? I think the amount of cognitive dissonance such a discovery could produce might be enough to sink the ship. P0M 22:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanked

Someone with username Timelist deleted hours of my work from yesterday. I trust that this was an inadvertent act. I have replaced the deleted material and added the beginning of a table that will show the major populations found in Africa and their genetic differences from each other.
Please do not delete large blocks of text without even noting it in your edit summary. P0M 23:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice it was removed again P0M, by editingoprah I believe. I am not sure why she wanted to remove it. Editingoprah, what was wrong with P0M's section, aside from making the article maybe a little long? I am a big advocate of farming out long sections like lists to other articles, linked in so the main article does not become too unwieldy. --Filll 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't fit in with the rest of the article. It's just a random list of genetic information with no overall point. Unless it adds to our understanding of who is and isn't black, it's just taking up space. Editingoprah 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The second part of what I added in was the beginning of a chart listing all the populations native to Africa. I probably should have saved that bit of typing somewhere else while I worked on it.

As for the first part, it clarifies the family tree information of groups of humans already mentioned in the article. I am curious to know how you define who is and is not black for yourself, and why you think that judgment should be the standard for a discussion on the group that forms not only the taproot but also the main trunk of the family tree of human beings/ P0M 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of farming that material out into another article. I called it "black genetic history" but that is probably a stupid name. I should have called it "the genetic history of humankind" or something. Anyway, I saved it so P0M can edit it, and it can be linked here. Long lists are never a good idea in an article that is already pretty long, and this one is probably too long already.--Filll 00:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop advocating this article be expanded into more and more articles. "Black people" is not an encyclopedic topic and should never have been an article in the first place. The last thing we need is to transform it into a family of articles. All you're doing is inviting more and more original research. Editingoprah 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really believe that statement then you should not be adverse to replacing heat and opinions with the small but growing amount of light and scientific information that may clarify what it is to be "black" and in what ways the darker brothers world-wide are linked to the temporal and geographical beginnings of that group. If you just want to get rid of the article the appropriate measure is to file a request for deletion.P0M 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

huh? Never an article in the first place? I guess I am not understanding. Was that stuff on genetics original research? I am confused.--Filll 00:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's original research to just pick and choose what Y haplogroups are black and which ones aren't. If a scientist comes along and identifies a black genetic cluster (as they did in the Ethiopian study) then that's one thing and we can quote them, but we can't just go around interpreting genetic research in a racial context. Editingoprah 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Race" is not a reality, it is a group of ideosyncratic social constructs that overlap enough that people who believe in "race" can agree enough of the time on, e.g., "who is black" that they can convince themselves they are talking about a reality. Genetic research is information about objective studies, studies that are not to be deemed valid unless anybody hwo is properly equipped can go out and discover the same information. So we are supposed to let a plethora of overlapping but ultimately different social constructs determine, somehow, how to write an article?P0M 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I will have to leave it up to P0M. It is outside my field of expertise. But he should not be putting his own speculations on here.--Filll 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've summarized information from The Journey of Man by Spencer Wells (it was the basis for a PBA TV show, among other things, too) and The History and Geography of Human Genes, by Cavalli-Sforza. Both are authorities in the field of "race". P0M 00:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll check, but my footnotes should not have disappeared. As for some of the other things that were said, I'm a little surprised by the venom. P0M 01:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well P0M the article is attached to this one. I invite you to have at it and flesh it out a bit. Human genetic history --Filll 01:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said many times, there is a huge amount of anger and rancor associated with this topic. On any and all issues. Everyone thinks they are some sort of expert. I just want people to relax and write the article. I am not sure why some of the editors here think it should have never existed in the first place, but oh well...--Filll 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I like how P0M is thinking. I would prefer to take a scientific look at this issue, which basically makes the entire concept of race somewhat meaningless. However, it might be best to put most of the more technical stuff on another page and only put one or two highlights on this page with pointers to the other page.--Filll 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Science does not make the concept of race meaningless. The problem is the scientists are afraid to publicly state what they actually believe and laypersons get manipulated by the propoganda and then amplify it through wikipedia. Editingoprah 02:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I am totally confused. So scientists have some secret knowledge about race they are not telling the rest of us? It is like a conspiracy? I do not understand. So what is the truth editingoprah and how do you know this truth? --Filll 02:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to clutter this talk page with yet another pointless debate about race. Been there, done that. Editingoprah 02:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk about "original research!" You claim that you know what scientists actually believe? Where is your data?

To assert that scientists believe one thing and publish other conclusions is entirely disrespectful of people who have spent their lives getting the training to achieve scientifically valid results and then using those capabilities to form conclusions that are subject to stern criticism by their peers.

Clearly you believe that race is a meaningful concept. But you hatchet out any attempt to bring data into the discussion with the edit note: "revert unneeded information." Would you care to elaborate? What nefarious message do you think is being "amplified through Wikipedia?" That we are all descendents of individuals whose nearest representatives are the San of modern Africa? That the rest of us (including other Africans) are very much like them, have a strong family resemblance to them, but differ from them to the extent that we carry skin color and other adaptations to make us better fit to exist much nearer the North Pole? Why do you have a problem with any of this stuff?

I suggest that you reread the bulleted items at the top of this discussion page. P0M 03:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And I suggest you'd be a lot happier editing a genetics article. This article is about how black identity has been constructed in various times and places. Genetics are only relevant to the limited extent that some scientists have defined certain gene pools as black. Generally speaking geneticists avoid racial termonology so they've had little influence on how black identity has been constructed. Editingoprah 03:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is? If that assertion is true then the article out to say so from the get go. It would certainly explain why some people do not want to be burdened by facts, but it would not explain why some of the authors find rather stale and (I think) discredited assertions by people like Carleton Coon desirable to be included.

If the article is to be about the social construction of a black identity then there is a bit of a problem since lots of racists have constructed some very negative identities that they hang onto anybody with skin blacker enough than theirs to notice. (And some of these same folk are dissing one or more of their own recent ancestors en passant.)

An article about the social construction of anything has to specify what little bit of evidence there is in the real world, and specify what kind of a bag somebody has made out of that little dab of data and then specify how big they can blow that bag up with hot air before it blows up on them. P0M 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate comments. Editingoprah 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
So my comments are inappropriate huh? Here science is handing you the proof on a golden platter that racists are full of nonsense and you want to dismiss it? You would rather claim that there is some secret knowledge of racial genetics that scientists are keeping hidden? I think you have forgotten how nasty racial tensions can get. Maybe you are too young. But it was not very long ago that having black skin meant that you are were automatically assumed to have a large number of negative traits. There are still books with fairly weak statistical arguments being published making the same claims. I do not understand where you are coming from. At all.--Filll 04:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Such behavior is regarded as very antisocial and also self-defeating in my book. Dig yourself, E.O.! P0M 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Starting an edit war AKA revert war

I jusr supplied information to replace what was the first "fact" flag in the article:

That mutation occurred in or near to what is today known as Ethiopia. The researches of Spencer Wells and others show the presence of the marker associated with that mutation, called M130,in present-day populations found on the Arabian peninsula and, following the coastline of the ocean, all the way along to two distant termini, one in Australia and the other in South America. ^[1] Spencer Wells, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, p.182, ISBN: 0-8129-7146-9 ^[1] A second wave of migration carried humans in a more northernly series of inland paths with branchings identified with other mutations and their markers. ^[2] Spencer Wells, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, p.182f, ISBN: 0-8129-7146-9 ^[2]

But Editingoprah was right on it and deleted it as "unnecessary" before I could even see the edit on my own screen.
This kind of behavior is harmful. There should never be an objection to replacing an uncited and somewhat inaccurate statement with cited information from a reputable source. If you have a rational objection to such a change then you can bring it up here and we can decide among the people who are concerned to make this a useful article whether it is a desirable change. And, as I mentioned before, if you believe the article is unworthy then the correct course of action is to file an RFD, not to sabotage the article by preventing changes that would make it better. P0M 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You went into way too much detail. It's distracting. Editingoprah 03:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand editingoprah's behavior or wishes. If I am not mistaken, she or he might have been previously blocked for some editing difficulties. In the time that I have been here, trying to shephard along the article and encourage people, I have seen all manner or crazy crazy behavior, from people who want a global black movement and black pridem (and think Wikipedia will help them start this black movement), to people who hate the word black and think it is shameful and do not want to be called black under any circumstances, even if their ancestors were called black or their country name means "black" in their native tongue, to people who think that having black skin wherever you live anywhere in the world means you are part of a black race with common genes, no matter what genetics says, to people who hate blacks and think they are inferior to people who love blacks and think they are superior. It just gets dizzying. And now we have the religious right wing types floating in to tell us that all of evolution and genetics is nonsense since the bible doesnt say a thing about mitochondrial DNA and dominant and recessive genes. And now editingoprah says she thinks that the article was a bad idea from the start and never should have existed, with no explanation whatsoever. And seems to be editing in some sort of aggressive and angry style (forgive me, but that is what it looks like). And claiming there is a secret conspiracy by scientists to keep racial information from the public. What is P0M doing that is so wrong? I am just increduluous how something as simple and trivial as having a little more pigment in your skin can get everyone so worked up over ALMOST NOTHING because that is what dark skin is...it is daggone near meaningless !!! Why does it get people so worked up?--Filll 03:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Who's getting worked up? And who said anything about a conspiracy? This article should never have been created because it attracts too much controversy, and we get tired of constantly trying to fight with people who have strong opinions, especially from people who think they're experts in genetics. The article is great as it is, and I don't wish to see it degenerate into a biology text book. Editingoprah 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of the article, file an RFD. Don't obstruct people who are trying to get the inaccuracies out of it. P0M 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So Jewish people can have a family of articles and white people can have a family of articles and so on, but black people cannot because it will turn into a biology text book when we discuss black people and it is all tedious and boring anyway? oooohkaaaay....riiiiight....--Filll 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the statement that made me raise my eyebrows:he problem is the scientists are afraid to publicly state what they actually believe and laypersons get manipulated by the propoganda and then amplify it through wikipedia.. Ok, you can explain to me what you meant.--Filll 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I know people who work in genetics and they tell me that everyone in the field believes race is valid, they're just forced to deny it publicly because it's a touchy topic. Also, if you actually read the work of people like Cavalli-Sforza it's totally obvious they believe in race. Editingoprah 03:32, 19 November 200.6 (UTC)

If you will check the race article you will discover that the people who are (mostly) grad students working in the area of genetics are quite well aware of the facts that make many people regard [race] (the square brackets are my field's way of "bracketing" alleged "things" that we aren't sure what the hell they are or aren't) as a useful concept. They are aware, also, that [race] is a fuzzy category. It is useful, for instance, to note the [race] of African-Americans when you are prescribing heart medicine because people with a certain genetic constitutions are helped by medications that are not of great use to other groups, and you want to start with the right medication if you can. But it is only a statistical betting game. Some people with darker skins don't get on well with that medicine. So it would be stupid to prescribe a medication on the basis of presumed genetic heritage and then just stick with it. What if the "black" patient is a Shan and reacts to heart medications more like the way that most people in S.E. Asia react?

Get your facts straight. Cavalli-Sforza is quite clear that people who are close relatives (relatively speaking) are more alike than people who are distant relatives. He didn't write a fifteen pound book just to make the postman groan. But here is what he says on p. 267 of The History and Geography of Human Genes, "Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy of European 'races,' which became very popular at the beginning of this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among customs, culture, and genetics--in short, a perfect example of 'scientific' racism." P0M 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting bit of confusion is lactose intolerance. Supposedly all blacks and asians are lactose intolerant. Nice and simple with racial boundaries. Whites can drink milk, blacks and asians can't. Except when you start to look in more detail it all falls apart and gets far more complicated when you consider the Masai and the Ainu and the Ashkanazi and Seraphidic Jews etc etc. Race is not so nice and neat and simple, the way either the racists or the black supremacists want it. The real world is more complicated. We are all very close cousins on spaceship earth, whether we like it or not. If races were such great predictors of genetic traits, then there would be many more genetically based therapies in existence, long before sequencing human DNA. All that a doctor would have to do is look at a patient and know in many cases, this person needs medication or treatment 1, 2 or 3. Unfortunately, it just is not that simple, except in a few things like sickle cell anemia, proclivity to diabetes in some cases and a few other things. You just cannot tell much about a person from their skin color, and so we will have to do a complete gene sequencing of each person to come up with genetically based therapies. Much slower, but based on real science, not fantasy. --Filll 04:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Whites and Jewish people shouldn't have a family of articles either, but seeing as I'm not white or Jewish, that's not my area of interest. I am black, and I do not wish to see my identity misrepresented. Editingoprah 03:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't particularly want an article or a family of articles on "my identity" either. For one thing, it is so complicated on my mother's side of the family that it would turn to mush pretty quick. On the other hand, my father's side of the family allegedly comes from Ireland. After hearing the stories of Celtic culture spread over Europe and retreating to its last bastion on that run-down island, and earlier tales of the Irish coming straight from the shores of the Mediterranean, I was tickled to learn recently that lots of the supposed "Celtic" blood actually comes from somewhere in Spain. Could be I have some "blackamoors" somewhere in my family past. I'm fully in favor of hybrid vigor. So to me, some geneticists input on the reality of my family history would not be taken amiss.

The social construct made out of the genetics and whatever (see Cavalli-Sforza above) of Irish people has, as notable alleged deficits, a tendency to schizophrenia and a tendency toward alcoholism. Certainly I don't want to be pre-judged on that basis. If I were I probably couldn't even get a driver's license. But I don't see how bringing some facts into the matter would do me and my group any harm. There's enough bslarney out there to kill a cow anyway. P0M 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I have suggested farming material out to other articles instead of trying to jam it all into one is there is SO much material that people want to include. If you look back in the talk page and article history, you will see that only a tiny fraction of it was captured. Many good ideas and a lot of good content did not get incorporated because people gave up with all the bad feelings and rancor. And if articles get too long, they are not readable. So that is why I favor breaking them up if there is too much material. No reader wants to wade through page after page of detail. It is just more manageable when it is summarized on one page, with links to extended articles on others. And it is the Wikipedia policy to do it that way.--Filll 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So ok, if that is true, then are Aborigines and Maori the same race as the Hutus ? Are the Ainu the same race as the Danes? All the discussion of Ethiopians being more closely related to Europeans in some genetic aspects than other Africans is nonsense? What on earth is the motivation to lie? I guess I could imagine that, as a scientist you always make a bigger splash when you overturn an old theory, and if the genetic data just confirmed the older theory, you wouldnt make much of a splash. It is certainly much bigger scientific news to overturn the previous theory which is basically that all blacks are the same no matter what since they have dark skin and in fact are inferior in most ways and in brain size in particular and maybe even more like animals than humans. So I can see it for self aggrandizement. However, what I cannot understand, being a scientist myself (albeit in a different field), how they could get ALL the scientists in this field to go along with it? Surely one or two from another school or another country would claim "the emperor is not wearing any clothes" to destroy the careers of their enemies and garner acclaim for themselves and presumably accolades and remuneration since they were feeding the dominant prejudices of the social and economic and cultural elites. I am not rejecting your statement out of hand, but I am trying to understand it and how it could happen that way.--Filll 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There are scientists who do admit that race exists, however the majority avoid it because they don't want to be accused of being racist. Simply saying that race exists is enough to be accused of racism, so they talk about race but use other terms like "population" or "genetic cluster". Editingoprah 04:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And what happens when the genetic clusters do not conform to the old social constructs of race? Or do they, and the scientists just do not mention it so they wont be accused of racism? I am sorry, but there are plenty of people out there in science who desperately would want to prove blacks are inferior based on genetic data. It is unfortunate for them, the data is not there.==Filll 04:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

another edit conflict...

It depends on what you mean by "conform." The problem is that there are good biological reasons why most all Chinese people resemble each other. If somebody doesn't resemble the members of his/her community then people would have to explain it somehow. (Actually, compared to WASPs, Chinese people have been quite accepting of individuals with atypical appearances.) If you were born in an isolated Chinese community that has been tilling its own fields for all the generations that anybody can remember, then the chances are good that you will have black hair (because all your grandparents and all your grandparents had black hair), brown skin (same reason), epicanthic fold (slightly less likely, but so what), brown eyes (highly unlikely to be otherwise since blue eyes are recessive), shovel-shaped incisors, straight hair, etc., etc. But the "operational" word is "most". Not all Chinese people have shovel-shaped incisors, for instance. Not all people have straight hair, either. (One of my roommates in Taiwan had naturally wavy hair, for instance.) If some Chinese child were born with blue eyes, violet eyes, green eyes, or anything else other than brown or black, it would not automatically indicate that one parent had recent European ancestry. And, by the way, Europeans sometimes have shovel-shaped incisors, lactose intolerance, etc.

Humans often do everything they can, socially, to assure that "the women of the tribe" will not consort with "those barbarians over there." But it still happens even with populations that are relatively isolated that the occasional "new blood" gets in. The closest among all people to having been isolated are the aborigines of Australia, and they have only been fairly well isolated (escept for the occasonal melanesian shipwrecked sailor perhaps) for a mere 80,000 years or so. And of course they have been back in the general breeding pool since the era of global exploration. So the experiment of an isolated population that might acquire subspecies status has ended "prematurely."

One of the things I've learned over the last several years of dealing with the race article arguments is that not many biologists take the idea of subspecies very seriously. And our idea that the definition of species as forming when interbreeding becomes impossible is not a reliable standard either. (There are even cross-genera hybrids in some cases. Unbelievable to me, but that's what they say.) P0M 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I will point out that this political correctness has only existed for about 20 years or so. When the science was being done in the 60s and 70s, it would have been far easier for the scientists to just say things that the funding agencies and congressmen and governors and senators and university presidents and boards of trustees approved of. People who were the decision makers in that era...almost to a man and woman...despised blacks. To come out with a scientific result that contradicted their preconceived notions of black inferiority was very bold. You are looking at the situation through today's eyes. Back when the first science on this was being done with modern tools, the people in charge were very antiblack. For gosh sakes, we still have a senator from a neighboring state that ran for president on a pro-segregation ticket, and another senator with all kinds of racial slurs in his background. Another presidential candidate who worked as a waiter admitted that as a young black man he ritually spit in the food of white people he was waiting on. This stuff was not very long ago. I think that it would have been far easier for the scientists to just confirm the prejudices that were already in existence everywhere in society than to tell the truth, which is that the data do not appear to support some huge genetic divergence between blacks and whites. I just do not buy it. If the differences exist, the pressure on them to reveal them would be immense. The consequences for covering up the differences would be very negative.--Filll 04:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, political correctness has been around since the 1960s especially in academia because smarter people are much more liberal in their politics. And in response to your first paragraph, what does the existence of race have to do with the inferiority of black people? Are you implying that blacks better hope there's no such thing as race because if there is, the black race ranks last? And if your curious about whether genetic clusters confirm the old social constructs, I suggest you go to Races of Craniofacial Anthropology and read the "genetic confirmation section. Editingoprah 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh so you are old enough to have been around in the 1950s and 1960s? And those segregated bathrooms and drinking fountains that still existed even into the 1970s were just not used and ignored? And as soon as the Civil Rights Act was passed, everyone including all of academia just rolled over and had already moved far past that? And in fact there was never any reason to have to have Affirmative Action in academia? Hmm well that is an interesting viewpoint. I dare say it is pretty far away from the United States that I know in this reality, but it is a viewpoint nevertheless. And yes, I am saying that if you gave the people in charge at that time (and even now), some genetic evidence that there was a big difference between the races, they would use it as ammunition to prove that blacks are INFERIOR. You better believe it. If you do not understand that, you sure live in a different country than I do. It is the purest wishful thinking to imagine that all the politically correct people around you are just that way normally. This situation was not arrived at easily, in any way shape or form. It took huge effort and sacrifice by many people over decades. And lots of examples that blacks were as good as whites, over and over and over. So YES I am positive that if there was a genetic marker for race, it would be used in a negative way. Absolutely.--Filll 05:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your making my point. People are afraid that the concept of race will be exploited by racists which is why people work so hard to suppress it. And there are people who have used genetic information in a negative way and continue to do so right now. But you don't have to protect black folks from the concept of race. Many of us are quite proud of our racial identity Editingoprah 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the fact that you have such a pollyanna-ish view of the world. That is a good thing I guess. But scientists are trying to "protect" black people from the concept of race???? What the heck? And are covering up the concept to stop the bad racists from getting ahold of it? Wow. You have a much higher view of human nature than I do. Many of those "liberals" who you think are on your side would have turned on you in a heartbeat if there was any substantial evidence to use. Political correctness only goes so far. Just as we are slowly having to come to grips with the fact that inspite of political correctness, actually men and women's brain structure and function ARE different. The truth comes out eventually, no matter what political correctness dictates. And believe me, with the biases in place about black people, it would have come out right away. No way this kind of evidence could be covered up.--Filll 06:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict, so this is a bit out of synch:

The truth is (and the authors of the [race] article will kill me for oversimplifying) that the genetic history of humans is like a tapestry woven by an untrammeled spirit, starting with a few threads, adding threads of various colors all the while, sometimes keeping all the reds to one side and the violets to the other and sometimes pulling one thread from one edge of the tapestry to the other and putting it next to the one most unlike itself. From a distance it may look orderly, get closer and you can't see where orange shades into yellow, get even closer and you will see chaos as a streak of red pops up and twists around a fiber of violet from which hpoint depends a thread of irridescent greenish yellow. Call anybody a Chinese and we'll find a black and a white somewhere in that person's family tree, and lots of others besides.

I think everybody who studies the field knows that the complexities are as I have described, perhaps too colorfully, above. The differences arise over questions of "how pure is pure enough"?

One of the interesting things that came out in the TV program that Wells did was that they assembled a group of student participants who seemed to know what [races] they belonged to and then they did a genetic check. It developed that people who often seemed very differnt turned out to be much the same, and vice versa. One of the interesting things about [race] can be illustrated by the question, "Whom do Sardinians resemble most closely?" Find a picture of some typical Sardinians before you make your guess. P0M 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and afrocentrists

I remove "afrocentrists" in the gallery speaking about Jesus because this is not the real goal for the afrocentrists to prove that Jesus is black. Roger_Smith

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Wells1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Wells2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Wells1-1] Cite error: The named reference Wells1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Wells2-2] Cite error: The named reference Wells2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]