Talk:Black people/Archive 17

Ancient egyptians
Dbachmann,

1st, the Egyptians or redskins; 2nd, the Semites or yellow-skins; 3rd, the Negroes or black men; 4th, the Northerners or white men.

It is original research to claim that the ancient egyptians new who semites, negroes or northerners were. The caption on the photo describes the photo in the words of the egyptians.

1820 drawing of a fresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting (from left): Libyan, Nubian, Syrian, and Egyptian

Rephrasing the information is an unnecessary reduplication of the information in the caption. On one hand you are right in that this article should not be a battleground for the race of the Ancient egyptians. However it is an important topic that is worth mentioning only briefly. In order to keep it free from POV simply both sides of the argument should be stated. Let the picture speak for itself, in my opinion the picture is not sufficient to make any firm conclusion about the race of ancient egyptians.

Basil Davidson says in the video
 * 5000 years ago this homeland had already became the scene of a civilization in many ways unmatched anywhere else in the ancient world


 * Egypt of the pharaohs was the greatest and the oldest and the most inventive of all the high civilizations of antiquity.

So the statement  "Ancient Egypt was at the time the most advanced of civilizations " is backed by the quotes from basil davidson.Muntuwandi 12:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you please explain why you reverted the edits to this section? Among other things, your changes:
 * o Start the section with nonsense. "There is considerable controversy over who the Ancient Egyptians were." There is no controversy; they were ancient Egyptians. The controversy is what color their skin was, what their race was, whether theirs was an African or a Mediterranean civilization. But nobody, save those who believe they came from outer space, wonders who the Ancient Egyptians were.
 * o State that Herodotus is the only source of Afrocentric study of ancient Egypt ("As evidence they cite quotes from Herodotus"). That's preposterous; Herodotus is one of many sources, including genetics, linguistics, and other analytical tools. As I wrote, "One source cited in support of their argument is Herodotus..."
 * o Took a sentence that is grammatically and factually correct ("Afrocentrists have consequently criticized the frequent portrayal of Ancient Egyptians in the media as Caucasians.") and turned it into garbage ("Ancient Egypt was at the time the most advanced of civilizations. Egyptians in the media were often portrayed as Caucasians.") What ancient media portrayed the Egyptians as Caucasians?
 * o Turned another sentence that is factual and NPOV ("Other scholars contend that Ancient Egypt was a multicultural society of Middle Eastern and African influences.") into POV nonsense ("Mainstream scholars tend to avoid the issue of race but contend that Ancient Egypt was a multicultural society of Middle Eastern and African influences.") Mainstream to whom? What does it mean that they "tend to" do something? And who in the world "avoids the issue of race"? That's usually a code phrase for "Black people are hung up on race and racism, but white people can be objective and ignore it."
 * I look forward to your explanations. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the allegation is of course that modern media have presented "Ancient Egpytians" too white. Which betrays immediately that this is a political discourse of the present, with only tenuous connection to actual Egyptology. As long as this is treated under "Afrocentrism", that's fine, but I resent the attempt to make it appear as a bona fide Egyptological dispute. dab (𒁳) 19:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I find it difficult to follow your comment. I fail to see how you can call "original research" a statement that I quote verbatim from an academic source (Poole 1887). Admittedly, it isn't exacly a recent academic source, but that is beside the point for the "OR" charge. The problem with the Seti fresco is that it is only a drawing, which emphasizes (interprets) the actual skin colours found in the actual fresco. The image can "speak for itself" only regarding the views of the 1820 illustrator. The 1887 quote, otoh, makes explicit a scholarly view that the Egyptians did recognize four races, themselves accounting for one of them. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Malik and Dbachman, personally I have no problem with improving the grammar of the section. Wikipedia is a corroborative effort. Some people have better grammar than others. However the important points should not be lost. Though the section that you propose is grammatically correct, it has lost its flow and become a series of disconnected one liners. Most of the paragraphs have only one or two sentences with less context.


 * The statement Ancient Egypt was at the time the most advanced of civilizations has been removed. If ancient egypt had been a ramshackle of a place, believe me there would be no controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians. The controversy exists because Ancient Egypt is, even by today's standards, spectacular. Therefore this statement or something similar needs to be added to put the controversy in context over what is at stake.


 * Secondly the debate is swinging between two extremes, Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism. This is unfair because most blacks have an interest in Ancient Egypt but they are not die hard Afrocentrists. Most europeans don't believe in the Nordic theory as well.


 * For example the statement:
 * Afrocentrists have consequently criticized the frequent portrayal of Ancient Egyptians in the media as Caucasians.
 * This not accurate because it is ordinary black people who in general have been critical of the way the media has in the past portrayed blacks and whites. Movies such as The Ten Commandments (1956 film) had an all white cast. Surely one does not have to be an Afrocentrist to be critical of this.


 * Lastly the Egyptians did not use terms like semites or Negroes, these are new terms that did not exist in Ancient Egypt. Let us use the social constructions that the Egyptians used.
 * Muntuwandi 05:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

there is no controversy over the "race of ancient Egyptians". This is a fringy afrocentrist red herring. If you keep removing the references that make this clear, I am for removing this section altogether as offtopic. It's not worth arguing over this here, this isn't the population history of Ancient Egypt article. What the hell does a 1956 movie have to do with this? It's not like The Ten Commandments is an Egyptological source. Obviously, there was racial bias in the 1950s USA. This belongs in "racial discrimination in the US", and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Ancient Egyptians. If "most blacks have an interest in Ancient Egypt" let them discuss actual Egyptology, not 1950s Hollywood movies. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * to say that there is no controversy means that the race of the ancient Egyptians has been concluded. If it has, then what is it. There is a controversy and eurocentric biases in egyptology still do exist. Pick up any standard book on egyptology and there will be no mention that some egyptians would have been black. This is fuel for afrocentrists. Remember afrocentrists did not necessarily invent this controversy. Part of the problem was the failure of scholars to acknowledge an African or other indigenous contributions to prehistoric civilizations. Winston Churchill says history is written by the victors  and so it was after Europeans colonized much of the world. This is well documented and gladly at least some progress has been made in science to be more objective. Afrocentrism was largely a backlash against these early eurocentric notions, especially in the racially charged atmosphere during segregation. This article should not be aimed at advancing a position that the ancient egyptians were black but to give a summary of the existing debate that is of relevance to many black people.

When I was growing up I had no idea that there was even one black person in ancient egypt, I only found out recently. This I attribute to the influence of the Media. Muntuwandi 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, I'd also tend to blame the media for your confused idea of Ancient Egypt. I suggest you take up reading actual literature on the topic if your interest persists. dab (𒁳) 11:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Human Race
This is POV fork. For ex:

"Today most scholars have abandoned these views and see race as a social construct with no biological basis. "

There is a huge debate about this in Race article. This is not an objective summary and it is overly simplistic. And this article is not about human race. KarenAER


 * What? This article IS about people of the HUMAN race, it's called "Black people" - part of the Human Race. - Jeeny Talk 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all humanity is not a race, it's a species. Second of all, if you want to talk about races of humans, you'd need a more objective summary of the race article but that may take too long. And that is not the scope of this article. I think it'd be better to concentrate on information about black people only...KarenAER 17:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well black people are part of the human species, we are not editing the Race article here though. I don't understand why you believe there should be an objective summary in that article, for this section to exist in this one. As there are people who do not believe Black people are part of the human species, but a sub-species which is totally incorrect. That's why I believe it's important to include the section you want to delete stay in this article. - Jeeny Talk 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

that's not a "pov fork", it's an unsourced statement. Whether it is true depends on the definition of "race". Most scholars would agree that there are major subgroups within the human species that can be defined genetically, that is, the concept formerly known as  races, but they would probably refuse to call these "races", because of the lack of clear definition for that term. The fact of the matter is that "black people" are in no way a "race" in this genetic sense, they are at best several races, some of them related more closely to the white "race" than to other "black" races. E.g., a "black" Ethiopian is much more closely related to a white European than to an equally "black" Kalahari bushman. dab (𒁳) 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

^^Why in the world are people so ignorant to genetics?!! I don't understand at all sometimes, Ethiopians have no relationship whatsoever to Europeans, end your delusions. This is what happens when lay people misinterpret slap stick journalism on genetics instead of being able to interpret it themselves. DNA sampling shows clearly that Ethiopians are most closely related to other East Africans (characterized by E3b1 (M78)), including Somalis and Northern Kenyans, with substantial genetic input from near by Yemen (not Europe!). Amharas possess many of the oldest lineages in the world, along with the Khoisan at varying levels, characterized by the A lineages, which is found at levels of up to 44% in Khoisan. This is from the Y Chromosome.. Oromo Ethiopians have as much as 75% E3B lineages, indigenous to Tropical East Africa; nowhere near Europe.

To say that Ethiopians are more closely related to Europeans than to "black" Kalahari bushman is absolutely absurd! What you're stating is completely contrary to recent genetic analysis. See below:

''The genetic structure of 126 Ethiopian and 139 Senegalese Y chromosomes was investigated by a hierarchical analysis of 30 diagnostic biallelic markers selected from the worldwide Y-chromosome genealogy. The present study reveals that (1) only the Ethiopians share with the Khoisan the deepest human Y-chromosome clades (the African-specific Groups I and II) but with a repertoire of very different haplotypes; (2) most of the Ethiopians and virtually all the Senegalese belong to Group III, whose precursor is believed to be involved in the first migration out of Africa; and (3) the Ethiopian Y chromosomes that fall into Groups VI, VIII, and IX may be explained by back migrations from Asia. The first observation confirms the ancestral affinity between the Ethiopians and the Khoisan, which has previously been suggested by both archaeological and genetic findings''. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/338306

^This is Y-Chromosome. Mtdna of Ethiopians is diverse, but nothing at all indicates affinity with "Europeans", since they are not related.

Quote: Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations. - Source

^The study in question, provides data that is indicative of shared maternal ancestry between Yemenis and Ethiopians, and in turn Ethiopians with other Africans, Yemenis with other Near Easterners, and viceversa. The samples showed Ethiopians to bear Tropical African lineages at a frequency of 52.2%, Yemenis shared these same lineages at 45%. This is a case of historical gene flow between Yemen and Ethiopia, European lineages were not identified, nor do Ethiopians cluster with any European groups.

In conclusion, we may say with confidence that you have no idea what you're talking about and apparently suffer from misinformation and typological thinking. This is why you make such statements but lack the resources to back them up. Lastly, a little common sense is in order.



What European (south, west, north, east) looks like this, and can you point them out to me? As far as countenance, they definitely resemble San people before they'd resemble any depigmented Europeans, and according the the first study provided above, an isomorphic explanation is absolutely ruled out, so.... Maybe you should do a bit more reading as this is offensive to many Ethiopians and just plain wrong!Taharqa 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as "race" being abandoned as having a genetic and scientific basis, I'd think that people who are familiar with the recent anthropology pertaining to the subject, would concede that the vast majority of physical anthropologists do not adhere to the pseudo-science of biological "race". Jeeny was right, there is only one race, which is the human race. How is that when Humankind is identified as a "species"? For the simple reason that the species has not diverged into sub-species', therefore if we're to apply the term race, it would have to encompass all ethnic groups since we all share the same common origin and were not secluded long enough to develop distinct, isolated lineages. Lineages found among non-africans are for the most part, sub-sets of african lineages. 85% of human variation is at the individual level and there is no point of reference indicating where a particular "race" should begin and end. There are no markers for "race"..

Please see: [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"]

^Which is the reflected overall consensus of the field..Taharqa 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You quote obsolete science that is 10-15 years old and predates the advances of modern population genetics. The interracial differences in humans - however "small" they may seem - are larger than in many mammalian species, in which racial classification provokes no revisionist tendecies. The whole issue is heavily politicized.
 * It doesn't matter, what a percentage of DNA is similar or dissimilar, but what an influence on phenotype this percentage of DNA has. Since human DNA has about 3 000 000 000 base pairs, claims that 0.1% difference (3 million base pairs) makes no difference are really pathetic. A classical "racial rule" is that by visual observation, you must correctly classify at least 70-75% of the sample into a given racial group. In humans it can be accomplished with 100% accuracy even by a small child. You can even identify race on the basis of mere skeletal remains with cca 85-100% accuracy, and it is grotesque that even craniologists, who in their own studies divided humans into separate groups corresponding with traditional races, publicly claim that "race doesn't exist" - which judges about, in what a sick time we live. Genetics can now also classify humans into 5 main clusters that correspond with traditional racial classification virtually with 100% accuracy. So what are all those statements against race based on? It is a propaganda aimed at foolish laymen, who are to believe that humans make up an "universal brotherhood" and give up their resistance against mass immigration from the Third World (which will lead to Civilization disaster). Centrum99 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the article utterly ignores any anthropological division in Sub-Saharan Africa that was established during the last century by top anthropologists. They divided black Africans into Khoisan, Nilotes, Pygmies, WestAfricans/Bantus and Ethiopids, which is a division that surprisingly well agrees with the branching of Y-chromosome and mtDNA tree. Centrum99 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopians are with out a doubt African from any standpoint and have little in relation with "white" Europeans other than an established church, recognized historical monarchy, and sustained trade. Rural Ethiopians decend from an numerous array of tribes dependings on geographis location and hold pride in their ethnicticity which has been the pinnacle of war throughout the countries history. Ethiopians do however hold many characteristics that divide them from the rest of Sub-Saharan, East Africa and North Africa. Ethiopia has never been colonized, the government never rended powerless and the Amharas have never been enslaved. Ethiopia had held one of the worlds oldest monarchies achieving architectural advancements and progressing well into the 20th century until socialism. During the very breif occupation by Mussolini, Ethiopians showed remarkable resistance with virtually no help from any other power. Bands of tribesman, cattle herders, clan leaders, Muslim by Christian, less than half armed drove out and contained Italian forces. Through scientific racism there has been a movement to label Ethiopians as some other racial identity than Black or Sub-Saharan African. With the common belief that no black group could have the ability to accomplish and create the history. I myself being full-blooded Ethiopian always decribe myself as black. However, Ethiopians living in larger cities have a mixed heritage. It is not rare to meet many Ethiopians through out the world and in Ethiopia with italian, French, Greek, Turkish, Indian, and to a minimal extent Spanish and German heritages. Especially in Addis Ababa, many Italians words and names are used amongst people and many light skinned merchants dot the markets. The opposite is found in Southern Ethiopia. Orhmos with dark skinned and conditioned bodies can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.18.147.67 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Gallery, request for comments
User:Dbachmann is disputing the use of the gallery in the article.Muntuwandi 13:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am objecting to an unmotivated gallery. This has nothing to do with this article in particular. Galleries are a cancer of Wikipedia and belong on commons:, per cleanup-gallery. There are cases where a gallery is appropriate, of course, but this needs to be justified (for each image presented). dab (𒁳) 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Galleries are not a cancer of wikipedia. If anything, there are not enough photos on here (wikipedia). The gallery in this article representing negroes is good and is broken up fairly. It should stay as is. What on earth would be the point in shifting it to commons? Is that not just a repository where you get photos from, to put in articles? --Hayden5650 23:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt
Muntuwandi, please don't spill the disputes at "Ancient Egypt and race" to this page. Of course Egypt was an extremely important old civilization, but what does that have to do with the topic of this article? Do you have any academic source that sorts ancient civilizations by skin colour? dab (𒁳) 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann, I believe your edits are trying to discredit afrocentrism. The topic of ancient egypt is indeed fascinating. In truth, were it not for the controversy it is possible that black people would not have taken any significant interest in the ancient history of any civilization. Instead we have scholars like Diop and many others whose knowledge of Ancient Egypt is as good as any "mainstream egyptologist". Though Ann Macy Roth is critical of Afrocentrism, she acknowledges that it is an important part of black academia:

''In America, however, Afrocentric Egyptology is less a scholarly field than a political and educational movement, aimed at increasing the self- esteem and confidence of African-Americans by stressing the achievements of African civilizations, principally ancient Egypt. As such, it is advocated in popular books, textbooks, and even educational posters sponsored by major breweries. It has apparently thus far enjoyed considerable success in its educational aims. As a result, it is being taught to students from grade school through the university level all over America, and its tenets are frequently cited as established fact by the media and the educational establishment. Coming to Howard as part of a tentative Egyptological experiment, I was amazed at the quantity of Egyptology that was already being taught, in courses ranging from drama to mathematics to philosophy. The movement continues to grow in importance and influence, and, whatever one thinks of its content, it has an increasing degree of popular acceptance by a large audience. ''

She recognizes that Afrocentrism should not be dismissed. Muntuwandi 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * are you joking? Afrocentric Egyptology is less a scholarly field than a political and educational movement, aimed at increasing the self- esteem and confidence of African-Americans makes abundantly clear that this is a topic of US politics, not of Egyptology. I am not saying it should be "dismissed", I am saying it should be treated for what it is. Peace to you, but treat US politics as US politics, and not under some phony label trying to pass it off as something it isn't. Your term "Black academia" is segregationist nonsense. Wtf? Are you saying blacks should only read books written by blacks, and whites should only read books written by whites? Is this an oblique reference to race and intelligence, are you saying that Egyptology has to be somehow dumbed down for a black audience? That's utterly unacceptable.  dab (𒁳) 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am responding to your assertion that this controversy is not related to black people. When in fact it is taken seriously by some black scholars, and white scholars do not seem to understand why. Clearly Ann Macy Roth has little regard for what she terms "afrocentric egyptology". But Afrocentrists think that mainstream scholars cannot see the blackness of ancient egyptians because they are blinded by Eurocentrism. This has happened before, in the case of great zimbabwe, "mainstream scholars" failed to attribute the civilization to Africans. But Roth is right that "afrocentric egyptology" is partly aimed at increasing self esteem of blacks, however there is enough available evidence for afrocentrists to make a decent argument regardless. Though some afrocentrist have been known to make "crackpot" claims, there are core elements their arguments that are difficult to refute. The sphinx for example looks much more african than any other race. In fact it Constantin-François Chassebœuf, a white frenchman who first noticed this. Pick any egyptology textbook, they will not say this. It is completely ignored. But it is plain for everyone to see.Muntuwandi 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * if you would pay attention at all you would have noticed that my objection is not that "this controversy is not related to black people", but that it is, much rather, not related to Ancient Egypt. I don't care what the skin of a scholar looks like, I want to know if their work is peer reviewed. If you can cite any discussion of this in a peer-reviewed Egyptological journal, never mind the colour of the article's author, you will have a case that "there is enough available evidence for afrocentrists to make a decent argument" but not otherwise. Posting images of the Sphinx will not help you, I am asking for references to specialist literature. dab (𒁳) 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

and Muntuwandi 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh, a crank wanting to date the Sphinx to 5000 BC because unlike the pharaos it has "negroid features"? Why shouldn't the Egyptians in 2500 BC have been familiar with "negroid" faces enough to style a statue of a monstrous cat after them? What sort of case are you going to build on that? At best, you can cite the hypothesis ("Sphinx must be much older because it is negroid") as a fringe view at Great Sphinx. In case you have forgotten, this article is about "black people", not about fringe Egyptology. dab (𒁳) 08:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Who was the face of the sphinx modeled after. This is a legitimate question, not fringe egyptology. In any identification, race or ethnicity plays a role. Who was he, nobody knows for sure, Some suggest khufu or khafra, but the resemblance to their other statues is weak and their is no concrete evidence linking them. Volney suggested he looked sub-saharan African. Other scholars such as W. E. B. Du Bois also suggested the sameThe negro. And du bois is a respected scholar, he is not considered a crackpot or even an Afrocentrist. Muntuwandi 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * DuBois was a crackpot. He is only notorious for supporting the Japs and Nazis in WWII.
 * MoritzB 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, yes, I am not opposed to referring to the Sphinx here. But more detailed discussion of course belongs on Great Sphinx. I am also open to discussing US Afrocentrist "Black Ancient Egypt". I am just opposing the misrepresentation of the latter as a bona fide Egyptologist controversy, while it is in fact a phenomenon of US sociology. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, you can do much better than this. The Sphinx has typical "African" features, and you only get stuck in the Eurocentric ruse when you use terms such as "negroid features". The only reason such features would be notable is because these features predominate and are indigenous to some parts of Africa, but so are elongated features (especially in East and NorthEast Africa)!

''A quick glance at Figures 4a and 4b will show that the relatively shortest noses occurs only in the tropics, and observation confirms the fact that the nasal bridges of the peoples in question are low as well as being short. At first it seems as though no consistent sense could be made from such an observation since such people as the inhabitants of East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area, although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East Africans in question ***include some of the blackest people in the world*** with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the world's populations for its extreme linearity and height. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia, as they usually are in literature'' [of the time]. - Hiernaux, 1975

^Hiernaux also noted that the tallest to shortest, most elongated to most broad featured, and kinkiest to waviest hair, are all native and indigenous to the continent, and have been so since time immemorable, which has nothing to do with any supposed "Caucasoid" admixture or mythical "Hamite".. Phenotypes in Africa cover over 90% of the world's variation, which isn't surprising since this is where humans come from.

Your first source (concerning the sphinx) was also inadequate and easy for the naive to pick apart. Actually, the artistic reconstruction and measurements were performed by a forensic sketch artist who went by strict criterion, Frank Domingo, who didn't necessarily endorse any 10,000 year old pyramids, as his work was independent of that. His work suggested African morphology and was published in West, Serpent in the Sky (1993), pp. 230-232. Sheldon Peck, a Harvard prof. and Orthodontist, sent a letter to the New York times confirming these results. I thought that you knew this though. The emphasis on the sphinx is minor however, and it isn't central to the question.

Also, for someone to call Dubois is "crackpot" has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read in my entire life, and whoever wrote that can be disregarded as an ignorant person with an overtly biased agenda.

Anyways, Ancient Egypt is notable to the subject of "black people" since it has long been the center of the so-called "controversy".. Many peer-reviewed studies and renowned Egyptologists have covered the issue thoroughly.

See Trigger (1978), Williams (1987), Yurco (1989), Davidson (1991), Keita (1993), Ehret (1996), etc, etc. They all comment on the validity (or lack there of) of race and assert emphatically the AE were indeed related to what many people would certainly label as "black" socially, and empirically as indigenous, biologically adapted Africans.. Ann Roth, who is noted above as being critical of afrocentrism in general, had this to say:

In reference to how she deals with '"Afrocentrism" when confronting students -

''I explain the social nature of racial categories, and the categories used by the Egyptians themselves, their representation of foreigners, and the frequency of foreign (Asian and African) immigration to Egypt in all periods of its history, extending back into the Paleolithic. Discussions of geography and language are also useful here. '''It is also necessary to address the political question. In doing so, '''I often make use of Bruce Williams' observation (which really goes to the heart of the matter) that few Egyptians, ancient or modern, would have been able to get a meal at a white lunch counter in the American South during the 1950s. Some ancient Egyptians undoubtedly looked very much like some modern African- Americans, and for similar historical reasons. Very few, if any, of them looked like me'.

The biggest Afrocentric critic out there, Mary Lefkowitz also had this to say:

On the origins of the ancient egyptians -

''Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54''. http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html

^^We all know what type of people are sometimes dogmatically restricted to the south of the Sahara, and they sure aren't white or Asian. So there is no question as to the notability of the said entry imo. It also gets the the point though it seems, when things like this are pointed out that the only thing left for a discreditor to do is try and undermine the scientists/historians, but given that these people are all respected scholars, and that there are many more, makes such a tactic futile in its purpose and is completely illogical.Taharqa 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Ancient Egyptians were blacks, because African Americans think they are blacks. There are many black forums on the internet where blacks voice their annoyance over whites trying to deny them their glorious civilization.  It shouldn't even matter to whites, because Egyptians aren't white.  There is a double standard here.  Whites use concepts of ancestry to include or exclude people as one of their own, but they try to deny the same right to blacks.  Everybody's ancestry comes from Africans, so African Americans should be deemed the gatekeepers when it comes to acknowledging African origins in other people.  By naming conventions alone, the ancient Egyptians are black, because the black identity includes them.Dark  Tea &#169;  21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ancient Egyptians were blacks, because African Americans think they are blacks" pretty much sums up this whole debate. Kindly discuss this under Afrocentrism, not here. dab (𒁳) 11:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Black Canadians and Russians
I think these sections should be in the African diaspora article. There are descendents of Africans in almost every country, consequently we shouldn't list them all in this article but they are relevant in the African diaspora article.Muntuwandi 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No Climate Discussions
It is seen that people staying near the equator are dark skinned, while people staying nearer to the poles are fair. The skin color of the dark people become pale when they start living near the cold regions. The skin color of the fair people become darker when they sun bask, or when they live for a longer period of time at places like Africa. There are scientific reasoning for the same. I think there needs to be topic here that talks about the same. I think there needs to be subtopic "climate conditions"BalanceRestored 05:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But what about those white red heads who cannot tan, but only be burned? - Jeeny Talk 05:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice
Because Condi is multiracial she "is not black by virtually all definitions cited in this article." Her earliest known ancestors were white plantation owners. http://www.wargs.com/political/rice.html The picture was removed. MoritzB 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Being politically correct
Which term is correct, "black" or "African-American"? I don't think you can call every black person African-American, because if your ancestors arrived in the US lets say 100 or 200 years ago, you can hardly be considered as an African anymore.

Norum 15:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning. But many "Black people" in the US do not know their ancestry, unlike most other people. It's not about being politically correct, it's a way to identify, because of the past unknown history. Most can very well assume they were of African ancestry though, but don't know which part of the Continent. So, it's a general term to distinguish. It's like Native American, rather than Indians, as they were known at one time, which was incorrect then. - Jeeny Talk 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed many white Americans will usually be considered European Americans or of European descent outside Europe. Indeed European American suggests the term is gaining a foot-hold in the US Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, but in this case it should not be considered racist if you refer to someone as being black. Norum 00:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think it's racist to refer to someone as black. I can't speak for everyone though. But, I use it all the time. I'm older, so the term was/is acceptable to me and others of my generation. Anyway, the article is called Black people so I don't understand the problem referring to others as black. Although, you're correct in that African-American is gaining the most preferred reference, but it depends on the individual or group. And I think it's a political thing, like you said. But, politicians have to be politically correct. LOL. - Jeeny Talk 01:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that this is an international encylopedia? Obviously "african amercian" is a totally innapropriate term for the vast majority of black people. 86.7.163.83 08:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * indeed. there is a separate article on African Americans. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah... It would have helped some if there did not exist racism. Anyway, first of all, I'm brown, not black. No one is black. I don't even get the whole thing nowadays. Black came from overtly racist days where it meant conveniently in a derogatory sense. White people were white - good, light, purity, etc. - and black people were black - dark, evil, etc. But you know, we all have melanin, which is a pigment. It is one chemical compound, and has specific characteristics. All people have it, although albino people have not. Still, because we all have it and more of it (higher concentration) shows more and more brown, thus we are all of us humans a shade of brown. Black is like void, the absence (absorption) of light, hence color (white is the presence of all color - it is the reflection of all color. So there is no point in being racist. Then there is the cultural issue of identity in a sense. I don't consider myself directly African-American, even though all brown people have ancestry back to Africa. I'd call myself Haitian American, or brown. Sometimes I wish though this black and white stuff would just leave society's mind and language. On more extreme note, through history, I'd view black the same as I view the word nigger - not a good thing at all to call or be called.
 * The debate will probably never end. I just hope everyone respects themselves and others too as they'd want to be treated. That's all we need. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hamitic People
User:Taharqa removed the citation by Tim Osterholm here on the grounds that it violated WP:FRINGE, but it does not. In terms of religion, the policy says to not claim the religious revelations are supported by science. The Hamitic theory is not being promoted as being scientific. In terms of the notability requirement, the Hamitic theory is quite notable with 81,000 Google hits for the term "Hamitic race". The policy says that non-scientific theories need to be referenced by other people who are disciplined in the same field. Tim Osterholm cites his work with thirteen books of Christian scholars. Clearly, the Hamitic section is notable and should not be removed.Dark Tea 19:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, "Hamitic race" (with the quotation marks, so as to avoid a search for Hamitic and/or race) only returns 971 hits (a large number of which are from WP), not 81,000 . Second Osterholm is discussing very specific attributes of the "Hamitic race", not just the race in general, so your analysis is unfortunately flawed. I'll let you search for a better reference of notability, but if none is added, the paragraph will have to come out again.--Ramdrake 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the term "Hamitic race" may not be popular, the search term "Hamites" gets 70k hits. The term "Hamites" refers to the people and not the language which is called "Hamitic".  Only a couple of those hits are for Hamites.  Osterholm's analaysis is that Shem, Ham and Japheth are the progenators of human races.  This is not any different from other Christian scholars opinions.  Osterholm claims that Japheth refers to Europeans which is the mainstream interpretation.  Second, Osterholm claims that Shem refers to the Semites which is also the mainstream interpretation.  Everybody else must be a Hamite, descendant of Ham, since there were only three Biblical progenators of humanity.Dark Tea  19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also this part is dubious: "seems to refer to the following dark-colored peoples: East Asians, Southeast Asians, Australian Aborigines, American Indians, Pacific islanders and Africans". Seems to be WP:OR to me. - Jeeny Talk 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research refers to an editor adding their opinion into the articles. Tim Osterholm was the person who claimed it refered to those people.Dark Tea  19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right re: OR, but it's still dubious. When he says "seems to refer", he's making an assumption, based on what? His research, or his opinion? As this is controversial enough that a better source, plus adding another reliable source that agrees with his theory is needed. - Jeeny Talk 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I read about half of the reference, and just skimmed the rest so didn't see that specific "claim" that was in the article (it may have been a summary). Although, at the end of the article is states: "The information presented here is only an interpretation of historical research and Biblical data. Certain assumptions may not be accurate, and new discoveries can change group references.  We are all directly related to either Shem and his wife, Ham and his wife, or Japheth and his wife.  History has long since confirmed abundantly this distribution of mankind, exactly as the Bible describes.  Every human being on earth today is your cousin, whether first, second or thousandth!" - Jeeny Talk 20:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Endnote:

Blacks and the Middle East
The section on Sadat with references to Carlos Moore seema a bit off-point and the error in understanding the issues around the film's ban in Egypt make me question the quality of Moore's research. This looks like a section which could use some cleanup. --Kevin Murray 01:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Asia and Australasia -- Thai categorisation of races
Clearly, this idea, extrapolated from a side comment in an interview of a non-notable person cited from a tripod.com webpage fails to satisfy any criterion for inclusion in a wikipedia article. deeptrivia (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tamil and other Dravidian people, who are often more dark-skinned than many who count as "black" in the US or UK, often refer to themselves, and are referred to by the peoples around them, as "black".  This is not always in English, but in whatever languages are relevant where  they live, hence my citation of a Thai usage.  The word in Tamil is, I believe, "karuppa".  I disagree that a senior politician such as the Chair of Thailand's Senate Foreign Affairs Committee is non-notable.  I had not heard of tripod.com before and, upon looking, see that it is merely a webhosting facility, so no, not an academic source in that sense.  But the quotation seems genuine.  Do you have any source to say that these dark-skinned South Indians are NOT known as black?  My understanding is that this article is meant to be broad, to capture all who fall under the broadest "racial, political, sociological or cultural classification" as black (from the lede). Tamils fit that description. BrainyBabe 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to add that, the burden of finding suitable references is on you. It's like, I can't find references stating that Martians don't speak Swahili :) A second point is extrapolating a single side comment by a politician about something else into an anthropological fact (The President of India was recently reported saying that she can talk to spirits of dead people). If you can demonstrate using reliable sources that a mainstream or notable minority academic view on the definition of Black people includes the Tamil people, we'll be glad to have learned something new and would of course include it here. A third point is that by comparing colors of people who come under this category with people who don't, and finding it an irony, you're basically committing an Etymological fallacy. "Black people" has a certain definition that only very roughly corresponds to "black" "people". This article aims at explaining the nuances involved in the definition. Many Japanese, Koreans, Chinese and South Asians are fairer than many Southern Europeans, but are not classified as White people for the same reason. deeptrivia (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the President was quoted correctly, then yes, I think that is worth including in the information about her, and also in the article on spiritualism as a "notable believer in". I am not comparing skin colors of those who don't fit into this article, but of those who do, including both light-skinned Afro-Americans and dark-skinned Dravidians.  "Black people" has not one "certain definition", but many contested definitions  -- the same individual who would be black in the USA might count as white in Brazil and Coloured in old South Africa.  As an aside, I think the apartheid regime did categorise Japanese as white, but that belongs in the white people article; I have not mentioned white people in the Asian section here. BrainyBabe 03:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me put it clearly in one sentence: Anything that you bring with reliable citations from academic sources from people notable in the particular field would be considered -- your own views are irrelevant. If an article about that Thai politician exists, you can put that sentence under a section on his beliefs, provided you can cite it from a reliable source (not tripod.) That sentence is entirely irrelevant on this article. Yes, there are multiple contested definitions, but we are yet to see one from a reliable source that includes the Tamil people. It it is so obvious that they really do fit in the definition, it should be very easy for you to find an alternate definition in a dictionary, or another encyclopedia that mentions the Tamil people with others. Isn't it? deeptrivia (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: In South Africa, many "black" African Americans were also classified White due to their contributions and promise to be 'civilized'. All this is besides the point. Just follow WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR etc. and you'd be fine. deeptrivia (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"karuppa" means black guy, ur totally right. Tamils call Africans as "karuppa" or "kapili"(which has the same meaning as negro)...even individuals of non-African origin who are very dark skinned, i mean very very dark skinned, get called as "karuppa"...but more collegial. Light skinned African(-American) will still get called blacks in India even by the darkest one, because people assume "Black" as "African" more than ones skincolor. South Indians are known as Indians(caucasoid)or Asians or Browns but not as Blacks in most countries.Asian2duracell 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What has belief got to do with it?
Currently the second sentence reads:
 * "Some people believe that only people of relatively recent African descent (see African diaspora) can be regarded as black, while others extend the term to any of the populations characterized by dark skin color, a definition that also includes certain populations in Oceania, and Australia. "

'What some people believe' = POV. Who are they -- where is the citation for this? The usage of 'Black People' in wikipedia should be utilitarian, reflecting how people use terminolgy, not 'what some people believe', because that's often mistaken. Europeans believed all swans were white, and it only takes one Black Swan to disprove this notion. If Wikipedia is a universal encyclopedia it must recognise that in parts of the world 'black people' does not refer only to people of relatively recent African descent. The Random House Dictionary definition on Dictionary.com used as a reference is clearly deficient since it specifies Africa, Oceania and Australia while ignoring South Asia. The Macquarie Dictionary definition 'characterised by dark skin pigmentation' is more applicable world-wide. I suggest the sentence above be replaced by:
 * "Usage of 'black' ranges from a narrow meaning (people of relatively recent African descent — see African diaspora) to broad meanings (all people characterized by dark skin color ) which takes in populations in South Asia and Oceania including Australasia.

Rexparry sydney 09:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well worded, agree. BrainyBabe 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree also. - Jeeny Talk 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. The only issue is that the examples of "populations characterized by dark skin color and included in the definition" should come from real citable sources, and should not be just made up from personal beliefs. No original research and no undue weight on fringe theories, please. deeptrivia (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and fixed the inappropriate use of "believe". Belief has got nothing to do with it, it was just bad use of the word. deeptrivia (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very dark-skinned Indians aren't usually called black.
 * MoritzB 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By whom? I know several who refer to themselves as Black. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your personal experience does not satisfy WP:RS requirements. deeptrivia (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that it did, but it does refute an uninformed statement that "Very dark-skinned Indians aren't usually called black." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I added Southeast Asia in the lead, because some definitions of the term include the Austronesians and Papuans, the Andamanese islanders, the Semang people of the Malay peninsula, the Aeta people of Luzon, and various indigenous peoples sometimes collectively known as Negritos. deeptrivia (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tamils were apparently classified as "Caucasian" by Coon (1939). --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't exclude the possibility of some others defining black to include Tamils, but we are yet to see any strong evidence (or any evidence at all) for that. deeptrivia (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

new book for reference: Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora
This book sounds interesting and I offer its title here in the hope that a future editor with access to a better library might be tempted to use it to add info. It would fit well in a "further reading" section, but these tend to be frowned on. BrainyBabe 08:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems with new sources, however I do get concerned whenever there is a linkage between the word "black" and "slave". Unfortunately society and the media have had this fascination. Personally I have never seen a slave, and I think the majority of people alive today have not. Yes slavery did occur, but it occurred in every society. There is so much more with regards to the black identity than its connections with slavery. Muntuwandi 11:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
The question of blackness is interesting in the case of Michael Jackson. MoritzB 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so interesting once we stop taking the term literally, and instead of committing an etymological fallacy, realize that the term is a racial, political, sociological and cultural classification of people, and not a physiological one. deeptrivia (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is interesting and relevant in the article about him. Keep it there. --Ezeu 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons for including Jackson's image: 1)Notability of his appearance in popular culture, 2) He is one of the most prominent black entertainers in America 3) The picture illustrates racial classification based on ancestry 4) There are three pictures of blacks in the article about white people. For the sake of balance Jackson's picture should be here.
 * MoritzB 16:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There are pictures of Hugo chavez, tiger woods and Barack Obama who may have as little as 25% African ancestry. Muntuwandi 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael Jackson's image should not be in the article "for balance". The image may be intended to ridicule the article, and Michael Jackson. He has had major plastic surgery to change his looks. He is an exception. He is concidered a "freak" in the media and elsewhere. And I do not see that adding him to the article will make an improvement, but the opposite. - Jeeny Talk 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And the reason for using his mugshot? What would that be? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excactly. sigh. - Jeeny Talk 00:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the photo of Michael should stay, he is probably one of the most well known and famous blacks in history. As for his unfortunate genetic disorder causing miscoloring of his skin's pigmentation, surely this does not exclude him from the Black race? The photo should definately stay. --Phral 00:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew you'd be responding soon. :) You're like a gadfly. Anyway a mug shot of a person, no matter who it is, should not be included in the article. - Jeeny Talk 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, I do happen to own several of Michael's CDs and DVDs though. I will remove my comment, and the photo should probably not be included. He doesn't represent any race fairly and is completely unique. --Phral 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, hey I actually went to a concert when he was part of the Jackson 5. I had a special backstage pass. :) - Jeeny Talk 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:NelsonMandelaFree.jpg (Image has been converted to inline linking, as fair use images may not be used on talk pages.)

I think Jeeny hit it dead on that it can be better perceived as mockery of the identification. That actually isn't his natural color so indeed, it is not notable in exemplifying the predominant black phenotype, and apparently, not even his. So it is misleading and best to be kept out as there are millions of other examples. Also yes, a mug shot is very inappropriate when being used to represent an entire people, or population group anyways. Here is a more suitable entry.Taharqa 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, Mandela, who is not an Africanist, wasn't giving anybody a Black Power salute. See raised fist. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

^My mistake, you are indeed correct. Thanx for pointing that out Malik..Taharqa 04:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Russia -- an interesting example
1. I do not understand darker features as opposed to skin colour: hair texture, nose shape, epicanthal fold, whatever, facial descriptors need to be specific to be understood by our worldwide audience of readers. "Darker features" has no particular sense. The sentence now runs:
 * Groups of people whose features (but not necessarily skin color) are generally darker than those of ethnic Russians are sometimes pejoratively referred to as "blacks" (chernye), and often face social discrimination.

2. The next sentence contains an error of citation. The book cited (The Unmaking of Soviet Life: Everyday Economies After Socialism) lists three nationalities described as chernye (blacks); the addition of Chechens is not supported by the citation given, and inserting it into the sentence is misleading and erroneous. I removed it, and it was replaced; it cannot stand as is.
 * Gypsies, Chechens, Georgians, and Tatars fall into this category.

3. The following sentence is correct, and the citation is helpful, if journalistic rather than scholarly.
 * Many of those referred to as "black" are peoples of the Caucasus; Caucasian in Russian is generally not used to refer to the (so-called) 'Caucasian race'.

4. The citation for that reads as follows:
 * following the 1993 storming of parliament all Caucasian traders were kicked out of Moscow. Since that time people who are not pure white (referred to as “blacks”, which in Russia is a derogatory term equivalent to “nigger) have been subject to routine police harassment and frightening levels of violence against them while in police custody. Georgians, Chechens, Azerbaijanis, Armenians. Romani people—and even Italian and Greek people—all find themselves in the same boat, victims of popular racism that stereotypes them all as thieves, terrorists, drug dealers and Mafiosi.

From this, it would be legitimate to include another sentence or clause, listing the other ethnicities (nationalities, in Russian parlance) included in the anti-Black racism. I will do this in a day or so if no one objects. BrainyBabe 11:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments.
 * 1)"Darker features": it would also be fine (to me) to refer to non-Russian features. But it seems clear that one can have quite light skin but dark eyes, hair (note the 'darker beard' reference), etc. There are other features that some claim to be "Caucasian", but different opinions exist as to whether or not these are truly identifying features. My point is that the term is not exclusively used for those whose skin is 'dark', even by the (relatively light-skinned) standards of the Caucasus. And while I admire the desire for some precision, the use of the term is as much cultural as specifically related to ethnicity, colour, or physical features - and even then usage is not necessarily consistent. (Perhaps there is some elegant way to refer to that rather than get specific about which features?)
 * 2)I cannot speak for the book: but virtually all Caucasian peoples would be covered, incl Chechens (and numerous, numerous others). Limiting it to Georgians as the only Caucasian people in this list would imply (IMO) that it applies only to 'foreigners', whereas citizens of the Russian Federation are frequently caught in this as well. I will look for more sources, but the variety of sources that may be found with a quick check should confirm. This could be resolved by linking that citation to the para, rather than that sentence.
 * 4) I personally don't think the complete list of nationalities/ethnicities adds much (the Greek/Italian reference strikes me as a bit over the top, but not a critical issue) - all of those listed in your para 4 above except Romani are Caucasian. The term is broadly used for those with darker features or skin; the incidence of the use of the term is (broadly) related to the population of those ethnicities/nationalities, which primarily means peoples of the former USSR: peoples of the Caucasus, Tatars of various origins, and Central Asians, although may (on occasion) be applied to other foreigners. Caucasians (by force of numbers and due to other issues) predominate in this.--Gregalton 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion as long as the Gypsies, Chechens, Georgians, and Tatars do not refer to themselves as black people, then they are not black even though others refer to them pejoratively as black. This article should not be about black as a pejorative term. It should be about people who are idenitified as black and people who identify themselves as black. We have heard about the Black Irish, but they do not identify themselves as black people. Muntuwandi 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi -- my edit summary implied you hadn't contribute to the debate here but sorry, I didn't see your comment. My point still stands, though, to let this discussion run its course before taking so drastic an action as deleting a section. The first sentence of the article states:
 * "Black is a racial, political, sociological or cultural classification of people." It doesn't mention self-identification particularly. If groups of ethnic minorities are called "nigger" (excuse my language -- see citation above) and faced with huge racism and police brutality, then they are, by all those criteria, "black".   BrainyBabe 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gregalton -- thanks for your thoughts.
 * 1. I would go for simplicity, and referring outward to other articles. Suggested wording:
 * Certain groups of people who are ethnically different, and generally darker, than ethnic Russians are pejoratively referred to as "blacks" (chernye), and face specific sorts of social exclusion, see Racism in Russia.


 * 2. Thank you for saying that you cannot speak for the book. In my experience of editing other articles, it is all too easy for unsourced additions to slip into an immaculately sourced sentence. This is plain not fair to the source material, to claim that it states ABCD when in fact it states ABC.  The citation I have found cannot be linked to the paragraph as it stands, or any variant of it that I have seen; the citation supports the sentence I wrote, without your addition of "Chechens", which I hope I can remove without your opposition now. With your journalistic source, or others, go ahead and add them to another clause or sentence.


 * 3. I agree that Caucasians predominate, but most Tatars, according to their article, are not from the Caucases, and of course the many Gypsy peoples are also not, nor Central Asians, etc, who all get swept up in the term. Suggested wording:
 * Those referred to as "black" are from the former Soviet republics, predominantly peoples of the Caucasus, e.g. Chechens.


 * 4. Again I fear you are making one reference do too much work. Of the two clauses in the sentence as it now stands, the citation supports only one. Therefore the latter statement should be hived off to stand on its own feet. As we are writing an encyclopedia consulted by the world, I will take this opportunity to reword it too. Suggested wording:
 * (Although "Caucasian" is used in American English to mean "white people", in Russian -- and most other varieties of English -- it only refers to the Caucasus, not European people in general.)
 * BrainyBabe 09:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What has basically occurred is that the russians have taken a leaf from other countries such as the US or South Africa where there was discrimination against black people. In so doing they are using black as a metaphor for a minority group or Lower status group. One could easily for example refer to low income whites as "blacks" pejoratively Robert Byrd for example. This does not make them black. Yes the Romani are discriminited against but that does not make them black.


 * Most importantly as I often say, I wish editors would be more creative with regard to information about black people. It seems that some editors whenever thinking of the word black the only things that come to mind are slavery, discrimination or ethnic slurs. You can see this in the article Negro where several editors have tried to insert whole list of ethnic slurs for black people from dozens of languages. Yes slurs exist but they exist in every language and every ethnic group dishes and receives them. To be blunt this is narrow mindedness and inclusion of such information is following a defeatist attitude. Muntuwandi 12:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi -- thank you for explaining your position. Do you have any evidence that Russians have followed the example of the US or SA in this regard? I think their own history of Racism in Russia has led them to the current situation. They are using the term "black" as a political, social, etc. grouping, and that is enough to warrant inclusion here.  You say you "wish editors would be more creative with regard to information" -- but Wikipedia is not for creativity and original research.  I agree that black people is not the place for a list of ethnic slurs (that has its own article), but it is a place to gather together all the various peoples of the world, not just Africans, who are grouped and labelled, by themselves and others, as "black". This is an inclusionist, not a defeatist, attitude, I would argue.  BrainyBabe 12:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Robert Byrd did not refer to low income whites as "blacks" pejoratively, as you said; in the article you cite, he twice uses the expression "white niggers". Nigger is a word with a rather different etymology and connotation than black or black people.  Let's keep these discussions separate. BrainyBabe 12:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If pejorative terms are used against a group it does not make them black. The chechens or Romani do not have a black identity. They may empathise with blacks who have been discriminated but they don't go around saying "I'm black and I'm proud". Muntuwandi 13:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * MW: I, personally, have no vested interest in having this section on Russia stay in - I edited an existing section to provide (what seems to me to be) useful and interesting info (particularly given the convoluted worldwide use of Caucasian). The extent to which it is interesting is obviously debatable.
 * Clearly there are several potential ways to look at the issue: one is that (some might say 'clearly') these groups are not black - whether by self-identification, accepted (English-language) usage or some 'objective' criteria (whatever those might be, and that's a whole can of worms - do you mean African? The article spends a lot of time on this issue). Or, one can take a broader view and say that usage varies in virtually every instance/country/situation, and that (on many criteria) the distinction is mostly or entirely arbitrary. Or perhaps it's like quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: undefinable, but everyone recognizes it (similar to the famous definition of pornography, too).
 * Truth is, it's much easier to define if limited to a single country or language usage - but this article attempts to have a somewhat global perspective. It also shows the arbitrariness of many of these distinctions. Self-identification does not seem to cover it either: I suspect we all know those whom others would consider black, but for a variety of reasons (personal, family, political, cultural, ethnic) do not define themselves as such. We could go through a whole bunch of examples, but I doubt self-identification would finalize the issue.
 * I don't find the Black Irish comparison compelling: even the Wikipedia article linked to refers to darker hair. In the cases referred to above, there are a number of other features, and particularly darker skin (albeit much lighter than what 'black' tends to mean in other countries/languages). As noted in the lead, some definitions include only Africans of relatively recent descent (clearly does not apply here), others extend the term to 'any populations characterized by dark skin colour.' This latter does - at least in a relative sense - apply.
 * I also have to echo Brainy above: Russians have come up with their own reasons and history for racism, and didn't need to learn it from anywhere else. One can lament that there is racism at all, or that they chose this particular word, or both. But that's a moral judgment, not a fact.
 * In the end, though, if there are compelling reasons not to include in this article, fine. At present, I happen to think it actually does fit in the article, it just pushes the envelope for 'black people' - which returns to the question of whether the distinction as defined for the purposes of this article is entirely arbitrary, somewhat arbitrary, or easily definable and an objective truth. The article at present leans toward arbitrary.--Gregalton 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to your intermediate edit (we were writing at the same time): I'm unclear now, is going around and saying "I'm black and I'm proud" the definition of black people?--Gregalton 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, one more addition (of the non-philosophizing sort): the para does start with the qualification "An example of the somewhat arbitrary nature of cultural classification of people as "black" exists in Russia". Does this not address the issue that this would not meet "most people's" definition of black people? Is it simply that you object to the pejorative?--Gregalton 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While waiting for a specific response from Gregalton re my suggested wording above, I've found the following on black people in the USSR:
 * As African states became independent in the 1960s, the Soviet Union offered them the chance to study in Russia; over 40 years, 400,000 African students came, and many settled there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainyBabe (talk • contribs) 17:02, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not responding: I have no problem with your wording, thank you. Well put. I unfortunately have not seen figures on current populations of African students (nor, indeed, others, such as Arabs, Asians of various sorts, etc). The tradition of African and other international students studying in Russia continues, actually, although the numbers have (I hear) fallen.--Gregalton 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I will make the changes of wording as above, and then we can improve the section from there. BrainyBabe 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Past use of "black" as an offensive term
I remember reading somewhere that, at one point, "black" was used in the American South as a derogatory term for African-Americans. Trying to confirm or disprove this vague recollection, I came to this article and found this statment about the century and a half or so before the modern civil rights movement: "The term black was used throughout but not frequently as it carried a certain stigma."

Unfortunately, there's no citation. The statement accords with my vague recollection but it should really be better explained and supported with a citation. JamesMLane t c 08:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt cruft
Please.
 * Ancient Egypt has been described as one of the greatest and most inventive of all the high civilizations of antiquity. When European explorers discovered the great sites of Ancient Egypt they instinctively dismissed the possibility that this civilization could have had anything to do with black people. At the time it was believed that Africans were incapable of creating any civilization. ...  Egyptologists tend to avoid the issue of the race of the Ancient Egyptians and regard the incursions of Afrocentrists into "their field" as a nuiscance. Their reaction to Afrocentrism is one of avoidance, often dismissing Afrocentric theories as far fetched. 

is this a parody intended to make fun of Afrocentrism, or are there Afrocentrists really and seriously naive enough to add stuff like this to Wikipedia in good faith?? Can we please keep the bullshit and kindergarden pov out of this article? It isn't in Category:Pseudoarchaeology, and hence "Afrocentrist Egyptology" has no place in it per WP:FRINGE. This is the article on black people, remember? Discussing this stuff here is as if we were discussing hilarious uber-feminist matriarchy/Great Goddess pseudoarchaeology on woman. We have Ancient Egypt and race and Minoan women for these topics. dab (𒁳) 11:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree.MoritzB 12:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Taharqa, a lot of this passage is utterly ludicrous. Firstly European "explorers" never "discovered" Egypt. Egypt was known to Europeans throughout history. Ever heard of Alexander the Great?; the Roman empire? Egypt was later part of Ottman territory, with which Europe had longstanding diplomatic relations as well as conflicts. There was never any period of history when Europeans were not aware of Egypt, unless you go back to the Neolithic era! There is no reason to believe that the was any "instinctive" response. This is sheer unsupported assertion. Secondly, the theory that Zimbabwe was built by non-natives certainly existed, but that was only speculation by early visitors, on the basis that no similar structures existed in southern Africa. However, as soon as actual archaeologial research was done in 1905 the view that it was made by native Africans became dominant. 1905 was at the height of european "race theory", and long long before Afrocentrism came along. Afrocentrism had nothing whatever to do with changes in the dominant opinion of western archaeologists. Paul B 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban of slave trade
The article's been edited to read: "Britain, which largely controlled the Atlantic, declared the trans-atlantic slave trade illegal in 1807, followed quickly by Congress in 1808." Actually, as the linked article indicates, Congress acted in the same month as Parliament (March 1807), not the next year. Furthermore, it's inaccurate to imply that Congress acted when it did because of the British ban. Congress passed the bill in 1807, to take effect January 1, 1808, because that was the earliest date under which it had the power to do so under a compromise provision of the U.S. Constitution that had been agreed upon 20 years earlier. (The compromise was between Northerners who wanted immediate abolition of the slave trade and Southerners who wanted it permanently left up to each state and protected from federal interference.)

I wasn't paying attention to the Egypt-related edit dispute. I happened to edit the passage about the slave trade in the version that had a long section about the achievements of Egyptian civilization. That wasn't an endorsement of that version; I agree with this edit by Paul Barlow removing the irrelevant paean to ancient Egypt. JamesMLane t c 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Paul Barlow doesn't mince his words, caustic as always.
 * Whether the information about ancient egypt is irrelevant is a matter of opinion not fact. There would be no controversy over the race of the ancient egyptians if ancient egypt was not in some way significant or great. Muntuwandi 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the relevance of ancient Egypt is a matter of opinion, not fact. NPOV applies to assertions made in articles -- we report on notable opinions without adopting any of them.  It does not, however, apply to the judgments that editors must make in shaping the article.  For example, in a biographical article, we might say, "Whether he was secretly a Catholic is disputed by scholars."  We would not say, "Whether the question about his religious affiliation is important enough to appear in the introductory section, or whether it should instead be confined to a later section in the text, is disputed by Wikipedia editors."  In the latter case, editors form their opinions and act on them.  There's no other way to write articles without endless self-reference. JamesMLane t c 04:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the details of the Congress vote. I was merely integrating the earlier text with an newer edit that gave the 1808 date. Though I don't know the details of the relation of these events, the closeness of the two dates is presumably not coincidence. Paul B 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt content
Taharqa described Paul Barrow's and dbachmann's contributions as "POV-pushing Stormfront nonsense" and restored the deleted rubbish about Ancient Egypt. Paul Barrow, dbachmann, JamesMLane and I seem to agree that the Afrocentrist material does not belong to this article. Is this the consensus?MoritzB 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let the blacks define their own race. Runoko Rashidi and Cheikh Anta Diop are two black anthropologists who consider Egyptians to be blacks/Africoids.  It is the convention to let the group in question self-define its own terminology and people.  Ancient Egyptians were black because most African Americans consider them to be black.Dark Tea  &#169;  21:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no. That is a blatant misrepresentation of a guideline on page names. We include information in articles based on verification from reliable sources. Not based on the opinions of the subjects of the article. Picaroon (t) 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Let the blacks define their own race" (and include Egyptians). What a preposterous assertion. You may as well say "let the whites define their own race" (and include Egyptians). Neither "whites" nor "blacks" have a common opinions even among themselves, and the comment also presuposes that these two guys speak for an entire race. "Ancient Egyptians were black because most African Americans consider them to be black" I am lost for words. What if "most European-Americans consider them to be white", does that make Egyptians white too. And somehow in your view Americans get to decide what race Egyptians are. What about the Brazilian opinion? Have we asked them? So much for imperialism! Paul B 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dark Tea, you do realize that Egyptians as a people still do exist, correct? What Egyptians define themselves as, and what they anthropologically are and where is all that matters. Egyptians were and are "Middle Eastern". Anything else, including the views of afrocentrists, is both fringe, unscientific and racist, and has not place in an encyclopedia article. Please to do not edit such articles to reflect such biased viewpoints. Padi 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * DarkTea illustrates the point perfectly, I guess I rest my case. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean the point that Egyptians do not have the right to define themselves and their identity, but that only African-Americans have the right to define Egyptians as a people? Ummm....Okay? Padi 07:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like this, the prevalent Eurocentric nonsense, poppycock, delusional rhetoric in question is beyond sickening. What is undeniably "racist" and Eurocentric is those that suggest the ancient civilizations of the Nile valley were in no way related to each other, and that somehow the ancient, indigenous people who inhabited what is now modern-day Egypt was somehow different culturally and biologically than their closest neighbors to the south, in which the earliest contacts have been demonstrated. Unification came from the south and Keita, among others have proven definitely that the Naqada, Badari, and 1rst Dynasty peoples that unified Egypt were most closely related to Kerma Nubians. To assign them to some "Middle East" category when Egyptians obviously differentiated themselves from people of the "so-called" "middle east", but not necessarily with people from further south like the Puntites (East Africa), is ridiculous, not to mention the anthropological and archaeological data in question which unquestionably places them within an African, Nile Valley, and not some arbitrary "Middle Eastern" context, which is nothing more than a political construct that Eurocentrics use to support their failed and fallacious arguments. Under this guise, "Middle East", this is a why for Euro quacks to try and classify a population under a new guise while still claiming they were "white".. "White Egypt" is as fringe as one can get and is worst than "alien Egypt"..

This is the point. Any opinion which suggests Egyptians (Early Southern Egyptians especially) were more closely related to European Nords than they were with even Central Africans, but really and more importantly Nubians and East Africans, should best be ignored. It is beyond ridiculous! This is why America, for the most part is intellectually stagnated. People ignore evidence, pov-push with bias by referring to opposing views as "fringe" or the most worn out word of them all, "afrocentric".. LOL. This conspiracy driven pov nonsense needs to stop. It is childish and sad.

Quoting the leading Anthropologist concerned with ancient Egypt and the Nile Valley:

''Early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new. Overtime, the gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile Valley from Europe and the near east, also giving "Egyptians" relationships with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the southern affinity of southern predynastic people, as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic people were Saharo-Tropical African variants.'' - S.O.Y. Keita (1993)

^Meaning the predynastic founders of the civilization and early dynastic had closest relationships with these "blacks" that Eurocentrism supposedly resents. What a tangled web we weave. He also says near easterners (including Europeans) didn't effect the population by dynasty one. Meaning they didn't found the said civilization and the said Africans did. Yurco, Trigger, Zakrzewski, they all confirm this! The most dominant consensus, regardless of "race", is that Km.t was indigenous to NorthEast Africa in development, as was its people. And as are Nubians and Somali. "White people" are not indigenous to Africa, especially in the same space as African Nubians.. Therefore, any "Middle Eastern" assertions is rooted in racism, distortion, and gross ignorance of the current consensus which is why bogus opinions and not sources are cited here, which is expected with such debunked claims.

Trigger notes that past ideas of an external origin were rooted in racism and marred by a confusion of "race". Williams points out that no Egyptians would have been able to get a seat at a "white only" diner in the 1960s, and Ann Roth points out that it is clear that very few ancient Egyptians would have looked like her (European) but many would surely have resembled African Americans. I am paraphrasing. So all this, "fringe", Afrocentrism vs. Eurocentrism" nonsense is just a dullwitted distraction which no one takes seriously anymore.

The author of the most recent study I've reviewed of Nubian and 18th Dynasty Egyptian remains had this to say:

7.4. Variation by biological affinity

These data on the strontium isotope ratios of predicted groups are difficult to interpret, as 'the differences between Egyptian and Nubian cranial morphology are far from straightforward. Although Egyptian samples examined by Buzon (2006) appeared to form a more morphologically homogenous group than the Nubians, it is clear that these ancient Egyptians and Nubians share many similar features.''' Several individuals with Egyptian cranial morphology are within the local range. This finding that some individuals who appear local in their strontium isotope ratios would have Egyptian cranial morphology is expected. Considering the time span of the cemetery (1400e1050 AD), it is probable that Egyptian immigrants would have had children at Tombos, who would then have the local strontium isotopic signature in their dental enamel as well as Egyptian cranial morphology. This corresponds well with the presence of individuals who were buried in Egyptian style and have 87Sr/86Sr values in the local range. Individuals with Nubian morphology outside the local range may be natives from another region of Nubia.'' - Buzon (2007)

Nuff said.. Now please keep the nonsense opinions to a minimum as this isn't some debate forum where opinions matter. Thank you for your time (smile).. Taharqa 20:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * so, to summarise, you throw an emotional fit at us surrounding the theme of "sickening poppycock Eurocentrics", and conclude that this isn't some forum where opinions matter, correct? In between inserting the observation that Egyptians are from a "Nile Valley" context. You did note, of course, that nobody here has even tried to defend the idea of "white Egypt" you are shooting down so dramatically. dab (𒁳) 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, do you see this language family map? The ancient Egyptians did not speak Niger-Congo nor did they speak Nilo-Saharan. They spoke Afro-Asiatic. You might as well say that the ancient Egyptians were Arabs; it would probably be closer to the truth. I rest my case. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:10 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * But Afro-Asiatic originated in Africa. In fact it should be just be called African since only half a branch, that is half of the semitic branch is Found in Asia. The other 3.5 branches are all native to Africa. Infact proto-semitic itself is most likely African. Hence linguistic evidence alone is inconclusive and may actually favor a sub-saharan origin. Muntuwandi 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But Afro-Asiatic originated in Africa. &mdash; That is beside the point. The ancient Egyptians, were not of the same race as people found in for instance, Nigeria. They were Afro-Asiatic Egyptians. They were not of the Negroid race. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:20 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * I say, hullo Elias -- you didn't actually bother to find out what this conversation is about, did you. dab (𒁳) 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a clue of what this conversation is about. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:20 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Linguistic evidence alone is inconclusive, the majority of tribes speaking afro-asiatic are "Negroid". For example, Chadic, and Omotic are entirely Sub-saharan. Muntuwandi 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true that linguistic evidence alone is not everything. But, do you have any academic sources, which indisputably state that the the ancient Egyptians, were of the Negroid race? If you do, I and many others, will accept it because we have to go after WP:RS. However, claiming that all of Africa is black and has been in all ages, is kind of black supremacy, and possibly, historical revsionism. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:27 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here is claiming that all of Africa is black, or even claiming the ancient Egyptians were black. But the evidence that links sub-saharan Africa with Egypt is compelling. Of course Egypt was also influenced by the Middle eastern populations as well. That is why it is a controversy that has yet to be fully unraveled. Muntuwandi 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't read all sources, but from archaeological evidence, it seems to me, that the ancient Egyptians, to some extent at least, looked very much like the Copts. After all, the Coptic language is related with the old Egyptian language. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:34 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt existed for a long time, 3000 years. Today in the United states most people you see will look European. But that doesn't mean that 1000 years ago in what is now america people looked European. It isn't that simple. Muntuwandi 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your correlation. 100 years ago, most of the population in the United States were Indo-Europeans who had emigrated from Europe. What are you trying to imply? Ancient Egypt can't be compared with the United States. Totally different times. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:41 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * I said 1,000 years ago. my point is that populations can change in a short time. 3,000 years is a long time, so we cannot tell simply by looking at the Egyptians of today. Muntuwandi 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed a zero. But it's still not a good parallel because 1000 years ago, America had completely different demographics and the language spoken back then was by Native Americans. Copts still speak native Egyptian (well, at least to some extent they do). &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:04 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is it is possible for populations to change. 600 years ago America was populated entirely by Native Americans, Today they are less than 1% of the population. Today in the United States there are 36 million Americans of African descent but they speak english as their first language. So if we were to use language as a basis, we would conclude that African Americans originated in Britain. While information about the Copts may give us context about the ancient egyptians, we still have give allowance for such situations. Another example is Brazil. If you see the segment on Black_people, you can see that in 1835, the population of Brazil was 51% Black, but today it is only 6.2% Black. So populations do change. This is why the controversy of Ancient Egyptians has continued because it was a long time ago, and many things could have happened in between. Muntuwandi 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that could be the case. However, I would say that's a pretty wild theory about ancient Egypt, and it sounds very far-fetched and unlikely. But I do believe anything is possible. However, we cannot present such a theory in Wikipedia articles, without academic sources, because it would fall under WP:OR. If you have any good sources from academic scholars, and Egyptologists supporting your theory, then we have a case here on Wikipedia. Because really, when it all comes down to it, ancient Egypt is the preserve of Egyptologists. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:26 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not wild, Linguistic scholars are often faced with such scenarios. There is a whole article at Race and Ancient Egypt and this is just a summary. What seems though to be the accepted hypothesis, is that pre-dynastic Egypt was inhabited by Indigenous African people. These people came from the south following, the Nile and made their livelihood from it, fishing and hunting. At some stage crops and animals from the middle east arrived. The controversy is whether the people who brought these crops and animals displaced the original Africans, mixed with them, or simply exchanged knowledge and crops but did not settle in Egypt (diffusion). Muntuwandi 22:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said man, present sources from several Egyptologists supporting your theory, and I will back you up on this. If not, it falls under WP:OR. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:44 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am trying to get the Race and Ancient Egypt article unprotected so that we can add all the necessary sources to the article. This article should just present a summary of some of the controversial points, and should not actually be the battleground for the egyptian controversy. Naturally, everything has to be backed by sources, wikipedia is not about fiction. Muntuwandi 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, EliasAlucard has set himself back 50 years in his way of thinking and terminology, undermining much progression as it concerns "race" in th 21rst century. He says that he wants an academic source which refers to the ancient Egyptians as "Negroids". In turn, I challenge you to provide a credible academic source which refers to them as non-African Caucasoids, just to even the playing field, since your demands are unjustified. I've provided a source which referred to them as Saharo-Tropical African variants. "Negroid" is a debunked racial concept as it only embodies one variant of this said Saharo-Tropical diversity, diversity which has nothing to do with non-Africans. The so-called "Negro" type doesn't even account for half of indigenous Africans, as noted. By way of the PN2 clade, many phenotypically variant populations from North (especially Egypt), Saharan, and sub-Saharan African populations are linked through the Y chromosome, from a mutation that occurred within Africa after the exit of modern humans, but before the ice age. Meaning that all of these people have underlying relationships and common ancestral origins that have nothing to do with non-Africans. And this is based on today's studies, not mummy remains!

Muntuwandi is spot on, except on the issue of displacement. It isn't debated to the extent to which you claim actually. This was called "the Dynastic race" theory, proposed by Petrie which sought to explain the abrupt complexity of Naqada Egypt and the rapid progression to the Dynastic age. That hypothesis got blown out of the water years ago. Anatomical examination of Egyptian remains actually show that there is continuity from the Neolithic to the first dynasty and the Egyptian language is older than semitic and some place its relationship closest to that of the Beja language. Also, contemporary tombs of equal quality were found in Nubia at Qustul and indigenous Flora and Fauna was fully incorporated into the culture of the first dynasty, suggesting that whomever they were, they were indigenous to the region. Trade contacts in the predynastic are well established and is not necessary to emphasize that certain plants, etc, may have been borrowed from the middle east, or they could have simply been introduced there naturally because of the changing climate. However, cattle domestication seems to have actually come from the south and south west, along with the religious tradition of cattle reverence. The root of Nile valley astronomy seems to have come from Nabta Playa in the Nubian desert and rock art in the eastern desert suggests cultural continuity with Egypt in the form of symbols. Most importantly, the people in the 1rst dynasty tombs were assessed and cluster most closely with Nubians from Kerma. Predynastic Badarians from upper Egypt cluster closer to Kenyans than they even did with much later (during assyrian domination, over 2500 years after the onset of the Dynastic) Dynastic northern Egyptians. There is continuity observed however, between predynastic and early dynastic times. To suggest that the ancients looked no different than Copts is false since many copts are indistinguishable from Arabs. Also, Brace's 2006 study shows a clear difference between ancient and modern Egyptians with ancient egyptians being more related to Somalis and Nubians than they even are to modern Egyptians. Which is why modern Egyptians are sometimes labeled "semitic" and old racialist pseudo-scientists used to describe the Egyptians as "Hamites", a now debunked and irrelevant classification.

Muntuwandi, I'm not sure where you stand on this or the research you've reviewed concerning it, but by definition it is wrong to label any ancient population by modern standards, however, it is a false dichotomy to refer to Nubians, Beja, Ethiopians, and Somalis as blacks and not Ancient Egyptians, as it has been well established that these were their closest relatives biologically and linguistically. As long as we're referring to dark-skinned inhabitants of Africa who posess tropical adaptations as blacks, this is how I will reference the Egyptians until the double standard is lifted, for lack of a better term. Or simply just indiigenous Africans..

EliasAlucard seems to have a terrible understanding of the ancient Egyptian language and Afro-asiatic language phylum. Coptic indeed is a descenfant of ancient Egyptian, but it is not ancient Egyptian. Coptic has borrowed heavily from Arabic, Hebrew and greek so by this logic of yours, they would also have boroowed genetically from these said semitic, hebrew, and greek peoples, no? If not, why? Egyptian is older than semitic and Semitic is the only language group that is part of the Afro-asiatic language phylum that is spoken outside of Africa, though even then a great deal of it is spoken in Ethiopia. Because of this, most scholars propose an African origin for the language family (afro-asiatic), either in southwest Ethiopia or the eastern Sahara. This would suggest also that the speakers of the original Egyptian language migrated from the south, and later Africans carrying these languages migrated to southwest asia, introducing proto-semitic. Also, by your logic EliasAlucard, semitic speakers should look like and/or be Africans, or look exactly like all Afro-asiatic speakers, but this isn't the case since phenotypical, Afrasian speakers are diverse, from lightskinned northern Arabians to black central Africans in Chad. Cultural exchanges can occur with out population displacement.

I also don't think it's fair to propose that modern Egyptians have been displaced as they are indeed descendants of the ancients, just more variable, mixed, and culturally different, and they are also descendants of greeks and middle easterners who settled there. They are nonetheless descendants which is why we still find E3B and M1 in the region (East African DNA), and also Y-Chromosome markers consistent with more southernly Africans. They simply have other markers now also due to all of the invasions they've sustained over the years.

Keita and Boyce writes (concerning genetic testing):

"The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years." - Keita and Boyce

Before that, they noted that very few studies have been able to extract DNA from mummies to analyze. One that did suggested sub-Saharan ancestry while other lineages were unidentified, but they note that they could have been African as well (and probably were).. They note in addition, that blood type was also analyzed from these said mummies, and the ABO was most consistent with the Northern Haritin populations, who are basically the original black Saharans. Picture: http://www.geocities.com/pinatubo.geo/hara.jpg

I have reliable, mainstream sources for everything presented. At the request to provide them, I will do so. Just didn't feel like citing them right now and wanted to correct a few misconceptions in this thread.Taharqa 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

gallery, again
I moved the gallery to commons:Black people. People willing to build image galleries are most welcome, just please do it at commons:, not in Wikipedia articles. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian
Please do not change text on the basis of what asomone 'looks like' to you. The actual inscription refers to him as an 'AMMW' which is the term for Semitic/Asiatic peoples. Some translations prefer to use "Asiatic", some "Semitic" and some "Syrian". I know of none that prefer Assyrian - though maybe there are some. However, it would be rather misleading since it suggests a reference to the Assyrian empire which didn't even exist at the time that these images were made. Paul B 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some semites are black, see Amharic. Muntuwandi 16:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and some Germans are too. So what? "Semites" is simply one option that gives a general sense of what AMMW was intended to refer to. If you check you will see many sources that opt for it. "Asiatics" has weaknesses too, since it vaguely suggests the whole of Asia, which was obviously not known to Egypt. No word is ideal. The website that labels them Syrians is not scholarly as far as I can see. The most detailed scholarly site with a databank of images is the mapping project. Here you can clearly see that the figure in the clothing portrayed at the left is standardly labelled Libyan . Asiatics is the preferred term for the other group . Paul B 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Those images are from different dynasties and thus from a different context. Context often gives images their meaning moreso than the images themselves. --Strothra 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. They are from the tomb of Seti I. Read the captions.  The image used in the article is just an edited copy of images taken from the tomb of Seti I, with one figure each used to represent each ethnicity. Paul B 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * However, it would be rather misleading since it suggests a reference to the Assyrian empire which didn't even exist at the time that these images were made. &mdash; Was this image made in order to depict actual people living during the time of Ancient Egypt, or was it made just to showcase contemporary races during the 19th century? The Neo-Assyrian Empire conquered Egypt, and there wasn't any "Syrian" people during the time of ancient Assyria and ancient Egypt. However, in case you didn't know it, Syria is derived from Assyria. I know of none that prefer Assyrian - though maybe there are some. &mdash; Yes, there is an Assyrian people. Anyway, never mind, it is now sourced, and it seems that this depiction is referring to the Arabs who live in Syria nowadays. Don't remove the source and change it to "Asiatic." It might give the impression that the picture is of some guy in China. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:24 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you even understand what I wrote? When I wrote "I know of none that prefer Assyrian" I meant I know of no scholars that prefer to use the word Assyrian in this context. That's what we are debating. Are you so unfamiliar with Ancient Egyptian history that you don't know that these images come from the New Kingdom at the height of Egyptian imperial power, hundreds and hundreds of years before the rise of the Assyrian empire? Here's a map which shows just how far off Assyria (Assur) was at the time. The Assyrian empire did not exist at this time. And what does the 19th century have to do with anything? The word Syrian dates back to the ancient Greeks. However, the point is that the website I referred to is the most authoritative modern scholarly website on Egyptian imagery. Did you look at the links? It uses the word "Asiatics" rather than either Syrians or Assyrians, so unless someone comes up with a more authoritative source, I suggest that that's the appropriate source. Paul B 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, you have no idea what you're talking about, all right? Assyrians date back to the 20th century BC. The name Syrian, was originally given to the Assyrians, by the Greeks, during the the 4th century BC, as indicated by Herodotus. The ancient Greeks, are not older than the Assyrians. When there was an Egyptian civilisation, NO ONE, was called Syrian. Roman Syria was a province of ethnic Assyrians (who are today called Syriacs). The region has been called Syria since Roman times, and now, ethnic Arabs, who have taken over the place, are called Syrians. Either way, the image is now sourced, can we just leave it at that? Why do you have to change into "Asiatic"? It might confuse someone into believing that the picture is displaying a Chinese guy. I meant I know of no scholars that prefer to use the word Assyrian in this context. &mdash; How about, Richard Nelson Frye? He's a very respected scholar. Here, watch him explain this. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:32 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to believe this level of self-assertion mixed with such jaw-dropping ignorance. Of course the ancient Greeks are not "older than the Assyrians". No-one said they were. We are talking about the reign of Seti I when this image was made and when there was no Assyrian empire. The image does not depict Assyrians. Richard Nelson Frye has nothing to do with this. Why mention him? He's hardly the most modern source is he? The most modern source and the most authoritative is the one I have referred to. You are not even being consistent with yourself. You are arguing against using the word Syrian, while defending an academic source that uses the word Syrian!! The source, BTW, is an undergraduate lecture given by Jim Bindon, a scientist. He is not a specialist in ancient Egypt or even an historian. He's just giving a general view of the history of racial typology derived from secondary sources. The site I referred to is the most authoritative online source on Ancient Egyptian imagery there is! The most authoritative source uses the term Asiatic, OK? Paul B 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, all I'm saying, in ancient Egyptian times, the term Syrian didn't exist and wasn't used by any ethnic group, whilst Assyrian was. Now, if the image isn't depicting Assyrians, fine. I have no problem with that. Call it Semitic or whatever. I didn't even bother to check what year Seti I ruled, but that is beside the point anyway. My point was, in ancient times, Syrian more or less meant Assyrian. But seeing how a new, more reliable source has been added, I am satisfied and we can end this discussion here. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:52 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the word Syrian didn't exist in "Egyptian times" (by which I assume you mean the reign of Seti I) is irrelevant. The word "Egyptian" didn't exist either. We use the term that communicates the appropriate meaning in modern English. All these words either didn't exist at all or existed in different forms that varied significantly from the modern Englsh one (just as they do in non-English modern languages). Paul B 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the nit picking please, and it would be nice if people would not revert unless they are actually familiar with the context. In this case, I'll have to agree with Paul B.. From left to right they depict Lybian, Nehesi (southerner), Asiatic, and Egyptian. Each positions in the order by which the sun rises and falls, from east to west, but in this case, west to east(left, right), but Egyptians are first because they were biased, even though the sun rose in the east, they considered themselves closest to rah. So they were first, then the Asiatics, then the sun visited "Nubia", and lastly the Lybians on the far left. I've provided a better source also and yes, the most commonly used term is "Asiatic", and it is just as problematic as "Lybian" or "Nubian", none of which are ancient Egyptian words, therefore, the nit picking is unnecessary and words are used for a lack of a better one. http://personalwebs.coloradocollege.edu/~ctorresrouff/walkerlabpubs/buzon2006current.pdfTaharqa 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Taharqa. I actually agree with Elias that 'Asiatic' is not the best word. I prefer Semitic. Yes, Muntuwandi is right that there are black Semites, but no-one says that the image represents all Semites, just that all the people represented by the images are Semites. I don't like the conventional term 'Asiatic', but it so happens that it is the current established term. Paul B 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographics
I think it would be advisable to include a section on demographics of black people.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * there was a debate about the demographics, early this year. people suggested that since there is no single definition of who is black then it is impossible to have any statistics. But the African Diaspora article has some demographics. Muntuwandi 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cro Magnon
Dark skin probably evolved some 3 million years ago. light skin (re-)evolved much later, perhaps as late as 10,000 years ago. Whether or not Cro Magnon were dark-skinned is relevant to the evolution of light, not dark skin. Cro Magnon may have been any colour on the van Luschen scale, they are not referred to as "black people", but simply as Cro Magnon. This is, consequently, rather offtopic to this article. If 15,000 years ago, everybody was "black", that's an interesting fact for skin colour, but the distinction of "black people" would simply be pointless for mesolithic times. If 15,000 years ago, everybody was "black", so 4 million years ago, everybody was "white" and hairy, and 10 million years ago, everybody was sitting in trees. That's simply not relevant to an article on a contemporary human polymorphism. dab (𒁳) 11:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Additions to balance information
Taharqa keeps reverting additions I made to the sections where Sadat and Egyptians are mentioned. Both sections are decidedly one-sided in their presentation, therefore I added information about Fathia Nkrumah and another study by Keita which help balance out the information. As usual, Taharqa simply blind reverted without providing a valid, rather an uncivil and unreasonable, rationale for the reversion. I am tagging the sections and will wait for more reasonable discussion of my additions from other editors. — Zerida 17:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Zerida. I'm always willing to discuss issues, as many are aware of and I usually don't run from conversation and compromise. However, your edits are nasty and obviously pov-driven edits; this artice is about black people and your emphasis is misguided. Here,, you blank cited material for no reason whatsoever. Here,, you distort the wording of someone else's cited contribs and include your own original research, mentioning Diop where he doesn't apply and labeling. You also push the racial fringe theories of Snowden, when "race" as a concept is all but dismissed. Yes, sources could have been provided to counter his statements, directly from Keita for example, but it is baggage and it only turns into a drawn out war of citations, giving priority to a section that was only meant to give a brief overview and not cover an entire controversy. As you well know, there are other articles for that.Taharqa 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't really make coherent sense of the above. Snowden is a mainstream Classicist, so labeling him as "fringe", particularly when Diop is mentioned, is quite odd. However, this still doesn't explain the deletion of Keita and the information about Fathia Nkrumah. What you are doing with the sources is cherry-picking. The sources should not be presented out of context, like Keita for example, which is in violation of WP:NPOV. Saying that my edits are "nasty" is not an argument, it's bordering on an attack. — Zerida 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no objection to or substantive discussion of my additions since my last comment, I am restoring them per WP:CON. I take this to mean that other editors find them appropriate to maintain NPOV, and that the blind reverts will now cease. — Zerida 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Zerida, this is exactly the point. If Snowden is a classicist, why is he being presented as an authority on race? He can scrutinize the ancient Greek wording as much as he wants, but he is not a reliable source in describing the validity of race or biological relationships of the ancients. Call it cherry-picking if you feel justified in doing so, but Snowden's views are discarded by mainstream anthropology, so yes, he is fringe.

''The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.'' - S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce. Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25-27

^Which pretty much sums up why Snowden is irrelevant.. If you insist on citing him, I insist on a more qualified assessment of Snowden's position and subjective opinion.Taharqa 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagreement on Snowden does not justify the exceedingly disruptive blind revert . You could have simply deleted the one or two lines about him that I added and brought it here for discussion, but since you insist on making a point, I'm restoring my edits. Do note, however, that if you object to a mainstream Classicist being cited in the article, then Diop, who is actually regarded as fringe by mainstream academics, clearly should not be in the article either. — Zerida 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is about black people, not about Copts. Jeeny 05:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a non sequitur, not a response. Clearly, no one suggested it was. — Zerida 05:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Full protection
As per RFPP - For about 2 weeks until it is resolved. --JForget 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

lead image
looks like our lead image was deleted. Someone want to re-create a new image?  Yahel  Guhan  22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gallery is POV
The gallery is completly POV! In South America, Africa and many European countries Condoleezza Rice or Dionne Warwick would never be considered black, but mixed. Who defines these things?!? It is all a matter of social construction of group differentiation in specific social contexts! A gallery implies one can speak of blacks in a decontextualized manner - one can not! The Ogre (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Capital B in "Black"
In this article, sometimes the word Black is spelled with a capital B; other times it is spelled with a lower-case b. I cannot distinguish a pattern by which the capitalized B is applied. I think that we should determine in which usages it is appropriate to capitalize and in which usages it is not appropriate. It appears that the capitalization has something to do with the cultural aspect of being black. Perhaps this is similar to capitalizing the D in the word "Deaf" when describing Deaf culture, (this usage is known colloquially as "Big D Deaf"). I do not have a particular preference in the capitalization scheme other than to make sure it is used uniformly. I think it is worth noting that there is no non-grammatical capitalization of the w in the phrase "white people", anywhere in the White people article. Perhaps we can create an article section that describes the reasons for capitalization in this article, if there are sources that explain. Photouploaded (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked for guidance on this from MOS:CL but got no response. It's an issue of gramatical style that has no academic consensus I've been able to find. The four main viewpoints I've found are "color is always lowercased", "Black is always capatalized, white is not", "color when specificaly referring to a racial or ethnic group is always capatalized", and "it doesn't matter as long as it's universally consistent". I follow the last one. CJ (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lower case PLEASE, upper case makes far too much of race! That's just my two cents. (The uppercase thing is so, 80s/90s ...) futurebird (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Manual of Style calls for lowercase because it's a reference to color. Section 8.43 reads: "Designations based loosely on color are usually lowercased, though capitalization may be appropriate if the writer strongly prefers it." This makes sense to me because color is a physical characteristic, and descriptors based on such characteristics are not normally capitalized (for example, "fat people," "tall people," etc.). However, consistency is the most important thing, and by "consistency" I include consistency across races. It's highly offensive to capitalize "Black" whilst not capitalizing "white." 1995hoo (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have to agree completely with futurebird, it's a colour so I'd use lowercase. :) Drum guy (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's often capitalized when it's used as a synonym for African-American because it represents an ethnicity more than a color. But in this article it shouldn't be capitalized. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I partially agree. Black, White seem to go with Asian, European, as geographic social groups. Lowercase black, white, seem to be more like physical descriptions. I am black because I have dark skin. I am Black American, or I am Black African is correct. But it's confusing when it comes to describing black (or Black) qualitively. Is it the black presence in Ancient Egypt (i.e. just dark skinned people) or the Black presence (a distinctive African heritage which is distinctive from the Semetic)? In fact, this goes to a deeper question, the argument about defining blackness seems to be unusually polarized. Among African Americans is the notion that the concept is reserved especially for them (and for Africans of which they share ancestry with). This is oddly enough, consistent with some of the most racist interpretations of history that try to marginalize the black presence in places like Egypt, Ethiopia, and various places outside of Africa.--Whenhumor (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackness in context
I started to research this and came to the conclusion that it comes down to how we define blackness. That then goes into history, and how black is defined over time. I can see then why Egyptian history is so hotly contested. It has the earliest and most numerous written descriptions of black people in ancient history. While some of those entries are disparaging of some of the Nubian people, far more show a strong powerful and postive black African presence in Egypt. In such a way that, if historical context were not applied, and only visual cues like facial features and kinky hair were available, one would mistake them for Black people (African-Americans). Yet when the historical context is applied, the opposite seems to be done by many contributors which is frustrating to watch. It doesn't require West African or uniformly homogenous heritage with a narrow specialized view of a person's phenotype to objectively determine if Ancient Egypt was black or not. Therefore defining the Egyptians as Black or even black becomes a matter for many as an affirmation of a complete Black historical context and not an attempt to abscond a non-Black culture. After all, Egypt is extremely close to areas that are unquestionably Black, as there were so many of these visual cues. It came to no surpise when I looked up the Wikipedia entry on the Origin of the Nilotic peoples and saw how long it is. It seems then that the oldest historical documents and cultures that reference black poeple are debated because that very culture had a significant black presence itself. I still fail to see how this culture could not be black to a significant degree, yet be right next door to other cultures that are. So it does not surprise me that those next-door cultures are redefined as being more European genetically than African. I suspect this is to ensure that the historical legacy of Egypt remains comfortably within boundaries that non-black people emotionally invest themselves. I personally cannot look at an ancient Egyptian sculpture that has features identical to a modern Black person and say to myself "still not black". So it amazes me how Hawass, the conservator of Egyptian Antiquities says that Egypt was not African even though it's in Africa. Shall Greece not be European even though it's in Europe? Or Arab culture not be Arab?

At first I thought this article was written by people afraid to deal with these very issues, but when i go through some of the article's history I can see that I was wrong. Some are trying to talk openly about it, and some are avoiding it. But again, it makes no sense when I see a substantial percentage of all Egyptian sculpture of people who certainly would be mistaken for black today, being called "not" black. Notice here why I think the capital letter matters. I can't tell how "black" is being defined, and therefore I can't determine how black Egypt is. --Whenhumor (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the black population is still growing in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Sub-Saharan Africa is faced with famine, wars and AIDS. But why the black population is still growing in Sub-Saharan Africa along with all the problems that are happening? 99.245.20.224 (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're looking for the reference desk. --Haemo (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

MY reply to the 1st guy-- ---gasp! Could it be that sub-saharan africa is not burning as much as westerners think? Could it actually be that Sub-saharan problems may be blown out of proportion to make it more than it really is? Do you honestly think in the Sub-saharan region is just a god-forsaken place in which there is only chaos and trouble and trouble and chaos is all there is Oh please! Black africa may have issues but trouble is not all there is. Life goes on. Yes, life continues to sustain itself, some parts, flourish.

western media just exaggorates such things. bullshit is what it is. Born in sweden in northern europe, went to Gambia in westafrica many times. Love the place so much Im gonna move there once im done studying. Wanna know west-africa? Go there yourself and see, simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.13.192 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

black in russia section is fucked up
The section about blacks in russia is just plain wrong. It needs to be changed. --169.232.119.231 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The human race
From the second paragraph of this section: "Of the 0.1% variation, there is an 8% variation between ethnic groups within a race, such as between the French and the Dutch. On average, only 7% of all human genetic variation lies between major human races such as those of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania." These two sentences appear to be saying that there are slightly more genetic differences between the French and the Dutch than there are between say Europeans and Asians. If this is really what they mean, I don't believe it. In fact, I suspect that the 7% and the 8% are measures of different things, and the wording is misleading, and should be clarified. Maproom (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's quite true. Just look up the references.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems you are right. This partition of variance can be quite confusing, at least I find it so. Maproom (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There, I'll agree with you. It's not intuitive in the least; but that doesn't detract from the fact it's correct.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Biblical perspective
To me, the sentence "In short the Bible does not define blacks, nor assign them to racial hierarchies." seems POV. It shouldn't be telling me what the bible says, it should be telling me what people interpret the bible to be saying. I know there's a reference there, but even so the wording struck me as ham-fisted. That whole paragraph could be improved, but this sentence in particular stood out. 78.86.33.152 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC) yes i agree any biblical references should be removed that is afrocentric dogma like most of this page neutrality disputed this is a pure proapaganda page--Mikmik2953 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the first two books of the Bible refer to time periods that coincide with Egyptian history. Since Egyptian history has the oldest references to black people, it makes sense to use Biblical references. At the very least to gain more insight to how the world's oldest civilization and the world's most influential religion have understood blackness. --Whenhumor (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another reference
If I recall, Moses wife was black, as was Moses grand-nephew Pa-Nehesy, the first high priest of Judaism. Yet again, the name "Nehesy" is not properly cited and linked to Phinehas. Pa-Nehesy literally refers to "Nubian" people who would look as black as any Black person today. But Phinehas is conspicuously undefined in regard to it's meaning. The Hebrew is cited as "bronze tongued" by some scholars. But this is confusing too. The root Na-Kush meaning bronze or brass colored, obviously is similar again to "Kush" a Hebrew (and Egyptian) word for another black group in Egypt's cultural sphere, the Kushites. It's an Egyptian word, not Semetic. Moses family came from a region filled with Nehesi people. Nevertheless, and suprisingly, the Oxford History of the Bible refutes this and agrees that the word Phinehas originated from Pa-Nehesi and goes on to say it denotes a Nubian person. I think the Oxford history of the Bible is a credible reference. Sadly, as I have reviewed some of this article's history, even solid references that are objective, are scrutinized to oblivion when they also reaffirm a black presence in Egypt's history, or when they demonstrate an independant black identity outside the elements of European predominance. Is this really the limits of Wikipedia participation on this subject? Please comment on my talk page. --Whenhumor (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Correction it's the Oxford Guide to the Bible --Whenhumor (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No Dogma please
The bibilical references should taken down also the section about ancient egypt there is a page dedicated here to this topic and until there is some sort of uninamous scholary opinion that ancient egypt was a black(sub saharan africano) civilsation than fine but most evidence points the other way so until than there is a page to discuss race and the ancient egyptians go there and discuss it and battle--Mikmik2953 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is to give one of many perspectives on the issue. Read the article and you will see that many different viewpoints are given. You are welcome to edit that part to make it NPOV if you believe it is not. I also suggest you take note of the section title, "Debates on historical populations". --Ezeu (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mygawd this article is pathetic
That's it. 74.233.157.35 (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Would this be too much? Just copy-paste the code. Image:Black nude.jpg ♠Д narchistPig♠ (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * you do realize this is not an appropiate use of wikipedia talk pages. Or are you trying to convince us to add the picture to the article (which is not likely to happen).  Yahel  Guhan  07:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I relized that this picture may be too much, and was just asking before i put it on if i should. Seeing that i shouldnt. i wont.♠Д narchistPig♠ (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting a nude picture of a white woman into the White people page makes no sense. Why would it make any sense here? --Whenhumor (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)