Talk:Color terminology for race

NPOV
This article is highly POV, but contains material that may be worth keeping, with the appropriate neutral perspective added. Tverbeek 14:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dinesh d'Souza as a REFERENCE?? Give me a break.202.82.33.202 06:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"These issues cannot be dismissed as politically correct nonsense. They are fundamental, and address what de Tocqueville identified as the Achilles of American democracy: race. These issues must be addressed not (only) because of minorities' concerns, but because they are the heart of what makes us all American." This offends me, as I am not American, nor do I ever wish to be by sharing your ideals. Author has forgotten that this is the World Wide Web. Anonymous 12:54, 23 June 2005 GMT.

Like I said: this needs to be cleaned up. Care to help this American do that, or do you just want to gripe about it? Tverbeek 12:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point about the parochialism of "us Americans" -- that's been deleted. Thanks for pointing it out, and my apologies for the initial oversight.

Trashing and starting over
The original essay that used to be here is dead. I started an actual encyclopedia article. Let's hope it works out. &mdash; Phil Welch 29 June 2005 05:59 (UTC)

"One point of objection to these terms for race is that they can be subconsciously associated with a color's other metaphorical meanings. The numerous negative uses of black (e.g. "blackmail", "Black Friday", "black hat") have led many "black" people to promote other terminology for their race, such as "African-American"."

While this is blatantly true, I would like to see some sort of reference so it doesn't look like original research. &mdash; Phil Welch 29 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

Reverting to original, with some additions
Whoever "trashed" the original should be ashamed. There is nothing non-factual in the article. It complies fully with Wikipedia POV guidelines. You are welcome to correct factual mistakes, or to add other facts. Your attempts to delete the factual content presented, however, will be overruled. It is particularly important that the ongling list of color-metaphors (black-magic, etc.) be left complete, in order to show by overwhelming example the extent to which these metaphors seep into our unconscious everyday language. Limiting it to just a few examples destroys the meaning of the article. (anonymous comment by original essayist)

There's one problem: the way you had it written it was an original essay, not an encyclopedia article. I was set to take this article to Votes for Deletion on that basis alone, but inevitably someone would point out that an actual encyclopedia article could be written about the topic, someone would write it, and the new version would be kept. I didn't want to go through the red tape but if you continue to revert and put your original essay back in, I will take this to VfD.

As it stands, even the short list of examples is unverified and should be removed if no one can come up with references to back it up. See No original research for the specific policy. Also required reading: What Wikipedia is not, which clearly states "Wikipedia articles are not personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic" &mdash; Phil Welch 30 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

That lecture was not written to Wikipedia POV guidelines. The fundamental problem was that whole "meaning of the article" was to promote a particular point of view. I happen to agree with main thrust of that POV. But the fact that you see a need for a lecture like that underscores the fact that some people don't agree with it. According to Wikipedia policy, if you present one side of the argument, you have to provide the other. Another basic problem is that most of the examples cited are debatable. I don't think the cue ball and 8-ball are a valid example. You do. So who's right? Neither of us, because they're both just opinions. These examples are not facts. They're supporting evidence for an argument.

P.S. I'll look up a pre-existing reference for the examples included in the more neutral version of the article. Since the point of the statement is that African Americans don't like being associated with these metaphors - which is verifiably true - I don't think that'll be difficult.

Tverbeek 1 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

---

1) I challenge you to point out where you see POV, and where you see any incorrect facts.


 * The problem is that your essay is not built out of facts. Every item in your list is an opinion: that ______ is a "color metaphor for race".


 * Wrong, on two counts. First, the fact is that words can have two (or more) meanings.  I do not believe that any of the examples are (deliberately, consciously) a "color metaphor for race," and I certainly do not suggest this.  Second, every item on my list is an example drawn mainly from Langston Hughes but also Maya Angelou and Ralph Ellison.  This has now been clarified, in case it was not before.

2) The article is NOT written to show that African Americans don't like being associated with these metaphors (although this could also be factually demonstrated). Nor was it written to promote a particular point of view.  (I'm not even sure what POV you have in mind. Racism is bad?)


 * Yeah, that's main one. And that the English language promotes racism through these metaphors.  Believe it or not, Wikipedia's most fundamental policy is that we're not allowed to argue points like that, because some people disagree with them.

"Things not to avoid: Some Wikipedians, in the name of NPOV, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true.  This is not the intent of NPOV.  Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to." Q.E.D.
 * You're ignoring the very final point in the [NPOV tutorial]:

"What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them? We can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing the view to prominent representatives or to some group of people. Others will be able to make up their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view. Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views."
 * Also: [Morally offensive views]


 * If your original essay had been composed of "objectively true" statements, we wouldn't have had this conflict.


 * If you had constructively worked to build the page, rather than "trashing" it (Phil's words), we would be further along already.


 * I trashed the original content because it was an original essay and not an encyclopedia article. I also took the initiative to constructively write, from scratch, a new encyclopedia article that Tverbeek constructively expanded. You're mischaracterizing what happened here. &mdash; Phil Welch 1 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)

3) In order to illustrate the unconscious context of metaphors, it is necessary to give repeated examples. Otherwise the uninformed reader (not aware of the facts) might think there is a balance to these metaphors, or that they are debateable (as you do with the pool balls).  Thus, it is NOT sufficient to give just a few examples.  Indeed, the point of the list is to encourage others to add to it.  Perhaps people will find counterexamples which associate white with evil, and start a new list.  This would be a constructive contribution and a valuable dialogue.  The presentation and interpretation of metaphors in context is not simply "my opinion versus yours, no-one is right," as you may recall from your coursework in English Literature.  Simply "trashing" (your words) the entire article and finding POV where there are none is fruitless.  If you have something to add, please do so.  This is the purpose of a wiki.


 * And all of this would consitute "original research". That is expressly disallowed on Wikipedia.


 * Nonsense. The article draws on Hughes, Angelou, and Ellison.  If other Wikipedians want to draw on other authors and cite them, they are welcome to do so.  This is not original research.


 * Lacking in any objective citations (and laden in argumentative verbiage as it was) there was no way to differentiate it from any random blog entry expressing an opinion on the subject.


 * Whatever. The original had the full Langston Hughes essay online.


 * Essays, whether or not they are written by Langston Hughes, are not encyclopedia articles. &mdash; Phil Welch 1 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)

4) Your obsession with this is bizarre, to say the least, as is your retreat to formalized rules and appeals to authority, rather than constructively building the page.


 * My own "obsession" comes from finding a blatant copyright violation, and a highly inappropriate lecture added to Wikipedia, in violation of Wikipedia policies. Your actions in attempting to keep that material here, contrary to consensus and/or policy, is borderline vandalism, and I get defensive when people vandalise Wikipedia.


 * Let's leave copyright discussion for another page. That Color Black or somesuch.  You have yet to point out a single "lecture" or POV in the article, despite my repeated requests, and you are verging on violating the Three-revert Rule and vandalism yourself.  Please stop.  There are six of us working on this page.


 * There are two identifiable editors and an unknown number of anonymous editors from the same IP address or subnet. There's a reason Wikipedia has user accounts; please use them.  (And stating that I am verging on violating the 3RR is untrue.)  As for the argumentative lecture content, "This usage raises sensitive issues and questions for which there are no easy answers," sounds like something right out of somebody's lecture notes or an essay on race and linguistics.  "These issues cannot be dismissed as politically correct nonsense," and the rest of the summation of the author's argument (especially the concluding "Perhaps a deeper question is....") were highly argumentative.  There may be material to support these arguments, but they're still far from statements of fact; within an hour I could locate a racist idiot who'll counter-assert that there are easy answers to all of this, and that the questions are "stupid" not sensitive, and hell yeah they can be dismissed as politically correct nonsense.  Maybe some of these anonymous editors haven't had as much experience writing from a neutral perspective, and the above comments are stylistic problems, but there is definitely a lecture built into them.


 * These are facts: 1) "This usage raises sensitive issues and questions" -- our exchange in itself proves this, as does your point that you can find "racist idiots" (your words) who differ.  Again, see NPOV on controverial truths.  2) "questions for which there are no easy answers" -- ditto.  The fact that these might be from lecture notes is meaningless -- so might entries on biology or mathematics.  The fact that racist idiots may disagree is meaningless.


 * No, no, no. That there are those who disagree is fundamental to how Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV applies.  Maybe by your standards these are "facts", but not by the standards that apply to this site, and that's what we have to abide by here.  These were polemical and didactic declarations, not neutral statements of fact.  Tverbeek 1 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

5) Many of the references can be found in the Langston Hughes essay, which you deleted and I have restored. They are not original research.  This includes the reference to the cue-ball and eight-ball.


 * Great, we can include that as a citation. (I'm quite serious.)  Unfortunately we cannot include the whole essay as an article in Wikipedia, because A) it's a copyright violation, B) it does not meet Wikipedia standards for NPOV.


 * Done. A) Copyright, see above.  B) If copyright is resolved, there is no POV issue.  This has nothing to do with this page.


 * Actually, a more relevant reason we cannot include the essay as a Wikipedia article is that Wikipedia is not "mere collections of public domain or other source material". Although it would make a splendid Wikisource article. &mdash; Phil Welch 1 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)


 * Excellent, Phil, and I hope you will do so. You can find the original text online, or in the histories, and spend the time editing it for Wiki -- as I did, before someone deleted it.  This would be a good use of time.

7) As a contributor to Wikipedia for over three years and a professor of linguistic sociology, I do not need lectures from one PhilWelch -- senior at WSU and contributor of such meaningful entries as the 1967 NFL "ice game" -- on Wiki protocol.


 * Given the fact that you won't even sign in and give your name, you're on pretty thin ice when denouncing other people's qualifications, since yours are completely unverifiable. And frankly, I think you'd benefit from someone giving you some pointers about Wikipedia protocol, because you are quite simply not following it.


 * See NPOV Tutorial, above.


 * You're not even a logged-in user. Incidentally, you *are* making most of your edits from a Georgetown IP address (I took the liberty to check). Assuming you are an academic you should know both how to provide references and the difference between an encyclopedia article and a personal essay. Furthermore, between the two of us, I am the one who has a logged-in account and who's verified my real identity. As for being a contributor for over three years, I just checked the edit history of all three IP's associated with this article, and even including such meaningful entries as "list of heavy metal bands" and "minor droids in Star Wars", the accumulated edit history is not even in the hundreds, and less than one month old. Additionally, I *also* took the liberty to check out Georgetown's faculty listing for their sociology department, and none of them really jumped out at me as if they might be you. Unless you register an account and verify your identity, your claims of "professor of linguistic sociology" ring quite hollow. In summary, even if your claim of being a professor is right, you may know more than I do about linguistic sociology, but over this article's history, you've not exactly demonstrated a high degree of knowledge about Wikipedia policy. &mdash; Phil Welch 1 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)


 * Also, as a sociologist, what do you think of using class station and social position to intimidate others into agreeing with you? Is it normal among professors and other highly-educated professionals to behave in such a manner? &mdash; Phil Welch 1 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)


 * Sadly, it's not that uncommon. I've seen it from time to time at the colleges where I've worked. Tverbeek 1 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

8) If you wish to offer contending perspectives on the facts, you are welcome to do so, provided they conform to Wiki standards on racism, etc.


 * What exactly are Wiki standards on racism. I know; do you? Tverbeek 1 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)


 * Yes. (See above.)


 * Nice way to duck my question. Please state the Wiki standards on racism to which you refer. Tverbeek 1 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)


 * Um, please recite Gilgemesh in Quechua while standing on your head and gargling? Or, more fruitfully, if you want to add your understanding of Wiki standards on racism, please feel free to do so.


 * Er, you brought them up, and implied that Phil or I was in violation of them. Please explain how. (Yes, it's a "test", but it's also a fair request.) Tverbeek 1 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

Specific references for the list
If someone can find and write up some specific references for that list there, I'd appreciate it. There's a vague, implied reference, but some actual reference references would make the article kick ass. &mdash; Phil Welch 1 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Off-topic lead section?
The bulk of the lead section seems to me to be almost off-topic, certainly not meriting being in a lead section: it has turned into a long disquisition on the negative connotations of "black", which it seems to me would better be at Black (color) and merely referenced here. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 01:30 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I think I'll do that and keep this more on-topic. &mdash; Phil Welch 2 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)

Alright, I've done it. I think it strengthens that article as well as this one--as well as being a better fit there (and more balanced as to the POV question of whether "black" has indisputably bad connotations), it makes this article read as less of an original essay. 142 might complain that the point isn't made strongly enough this way, but the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to make points, it's to make a Neutral Point of View. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)

--Notquiteauden 17:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Caste
First off, varna is in Sanskrit not in Hindi and though it refers to color, none of the castes are identified by color metaphors. Nobody says white brahmin or yellow sudra, so it has no place here. Secondly, and more importantly, caste is NOT race. Why is it even here? Castes are endogenous occupation linked clan systems. there are no seperate races in caste. Thirdly, the White Turkoman etc etc are different ethnic groups, not races either. They all belong to the same race, but to different ethnic or linguistic groups. Someone needs to understand the difference between race and ethnicity.

I will delete the references to castes and Central Asian ethnic groups by the end of the week if nobody objects here.--Notquiteauden 05:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, "race" can refer to smaller ethnicities as well as larger globe-spanning races. There's really no scientific justification for the concept of "race" on such a large scale anyway. &mdash; Phil Welch 05:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The material on caste is straight from the Caste article. If you feel it's in error please get a consensus on correcting it in that article first, then changes can be followed here.

Phil added attribution of "varna" as Hindi; the word goes back to Sanskrit, but should also be valid in Hindi as far as I know. Attribution as either or both is fine with me.

Race does historically refer to ethnicity. If necessary to clarify now, suggest just changing article title to "Color metaphors for race and ethnicity".--JWB 09:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that would be redundant. &mdash; Phil Welch 17:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I speak Hindi, and people prefer to use terms like kul, or jati for caste not varna. Varna is a Sanskrit idea. Further, castes are neither races or ethnicities, in that people of different ethnic groups, say (Punjabi and Oriya) can both be Brahmin, and people from different 'races' such as Indo-Aryan and Dravidian can both be Sudras. Castes are not identified by color basis, the color references mentioned in this article are ambiguous. They refer to the sattvic, tamasic or other attributes not to the caste. Tamas literally means darkness, and refers to an attribute not color. Regarding Central Asia, the colors refered to there had an almost totemic significance, not as a racial sign of identity. Nobody is green in color. They were neither race and it would be arguale to define them a seperate ethnicities. Clan would probably be more appropriate. Race is Never the same as ethnicity. You can be ethnically slavic, but u will be racially white.


 * I agree that caste is different from race, but with ethnicity you're really splitting hairs. The racists of the 1930's didn't consider Slavs to be white, nor did they consider Semitic or central Asian peoples to be white. *Since it's not a scientifically valid categorization anyway* I think we can interpret it liberally. &mdash; Phil Welch 19:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, they can be attributes, totems, or geographical directions - the article is "Color metaphors", not "Accurate literal skin color descriptions".
 * As Phil notes, the word "racism" was coined (translation from German "Völkisch") to apply to white-on-white hatred. The current use of "race" to mean only continent-level origin is recent.
 * Traditional US segregation is often called a caste system - each "race" was an endogamous group with a designated social role. Socially, Indian caste and American race are similar and have similar current issues like job/school percentage reservation.
 * "Race" in this article is in the social sense, not necessarily a biological sense, although they often coincide to some extent.
 * --JWB 22:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

China
These portions of the article do not seem to be related to color metaphors for race in China:


 * "Huang (yellow) is a common surname, but does not refer to the East Asian race as was popular in Western languages until recently. However, the Yellow Emperor was a legendary founder of China. Yellow is also identified with the "center" cardinal direction, while China is known as Zhongguo "middle country"."


 * "Bai (white) means "plain" or "free of charge" in many common expressions and is not traditionally used to refer to Europeans and descendants."

—Tokek 11:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I also wonder about this sentence: some variety of "barbarians" with reddish or pinkish skin colors (e.g. Minnan ang mo, "red-haired" or Cantonese gwei lo, "ghost man") Isn't that a reading mistake, so it says red/pink skin color, example: ang mo = red hair. I can not see a source for chinese historically calling white people pink/red colored

Scisne (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of opposition to this, it was changed back twice to a terribly long sentence -> There should be a source

This sentence has no source for reddish or pinkish skin claim. It is also too long.

White (白 bai) means "plain" or "free of charge" in many common expressions and was not traditionally used to refer to Europeans or descendants, who were usually identified as "洋人" (yáng rén, "people from [across the] ocean") which were describe as some variety of "barbarians" with reddish or pinkish skin color or based on their hair color (e.g. Minnan ang mo, "red-haired").

--Scisne (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably a single person with different ips keeps editing this, the ips 49.245.25.210 112.199.169.56 182.16.233.24 all go back to singapore

The person repeated the last part of the sentence: which were describe as some variety of "barbarians" with reddish or pinkish skin color or based on their hair color or based on their hair color

--Scisne (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Russia section...
Reads like BS. "White Russian is (offensive) term for a Belarusian"???? There are not many (if any) widely used ethnic slurs for Belarussians AFAIK, first of all because relationships between Belarusians and Russians are friendly (unlike Caucasus ethnics, who have many related slurs). Belarusians are also hardly distinguishable from Russians by looks. I'm not sure what was "White Russian" supposed to mean. Byelorus (ethnical Belarusian) is literally "White Rus". Although I've never even heard something like "White Russian" (Belyj Russkij???) in reference to Belarusians, I cannot see how this can possibly be offensive. White has positive connotations. So I'll cut this dubious stuff.

"White Russian" in the meaning related to anti-bolshevik "White movement" seems a bit lame translation. To describe one or many people belonging to that movement, texts I've seen use a single adjective-noun word, like in "Belye". So for this meaning it's more like "Whites" or "White ones", rather than "White Russian(s)". White Russian reads like "racially White citizen of Russia", similar to "White American" :-).
 * Just see the Asian sections of this article: "white" was used to indicate "west" by the Mongols and Turks. Probably White Sea also means "west sea".--JWB 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you may be correct about this. I pointed out what I think are two flaws - the "offensive term" passage and the term to denote White movement participants. Now, I'm less sure about the latter. If "White Russian" is an established term for White Movement in english literature, then possibly it would be appropriate to use it. From Russian speakers perspective it does sound lame though, but bad translations do become common sometimes.


 * White Russian - Byelorussian passage: I now propose to remove it completely. Because, if anything, it has nothing to do with Russia section. In Russia, nobody would call Byelorussian a "White Russian" (Belyj Russkij). It's not even offensive, it just does not make sense. It may be a frequent mistake among native english speakers, it's my only guess as to where does it come from, and possibly this can be offending (more because it's incorrect and ignorant, than anything else). But it has nothing to do with Russia. Possibly something like this can be appropriate in Belarusian article (it is there in fact), but in context of this article and Russia section in particular, it may be understood as (wrongly) implying it's an offensive term used in Russia (as the term Black explained in preceding sentence). But this is not so. As a mistake by an english speaker - this is the only way I can imagine it being used.--Poison sf 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It should say that some other languages have sometimes translated Belarus or Byelorussia as White Russia. I don't think anyone meant to imply that 'belyj russkij' or similar was a current phrase in Russian language.--JWB 13:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, possibly. Whatever the reason was, now it's corrected and with current explanation it's made clear enough--Poison sf 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hispanics
What about the hispanic people?

_______They^ do NOT exist as a "race"!__________________________________ This, for the sake of accuracy: Hispanic means coming from Spain. As in White Western European. That is true all over the world, except USA, where the Red people of south of the border have appropriated the culture of the people who enslaved them, bred with some of them, one of the original White Western European peoples... the Spaniards! What you, probably an American, call "Hispanic" is a red race native of the Southern Americas. (Central & South America, no difference!) In fact, there is no difference between a Cherokee, an Inca, an Eskimo, a Mayan or an Aztec: they are all RED! Why? They are all NATIVE Americans! (Yes, Canada is in America, not USA, as in American continent.) Only different tribes, but one same race, the same that a White from Spain is the same race as a White from Glasgow, or a White from Greece or a White from Italy: only different ethnicities!

To make matters worse, you Americans, call Mexicans "brown people". They are not. They are racially red! Brown people come from the Middle East and certain parts of Western Asia, which the M.E. is half in Asia and half in Africa. There are no White people in the ME no matter how much one objects: those are all brown peoples. (Of course, you will find Whites, those emigrated from [White] Europe, but I am talking of ORIGINS, of the original peoples of the Earth!) Whites in the M.E. are non-natives. The same that no White people can legitimately be called "Caucasians" (another "American" --read: USA-- fallacy) as they are neither Asian (yellow), nor from the Caucus, an area located in the Middle East, which is where Armenians, a BROWN people, come from. It's very simple. The only confusing place on the planet has to be Russia, aka USSR, because the extreme West of "Russia" is in Europe, bringing forth a White European people, and the rest of the former USSR is in Asia, so those are "yellow" race aka Asians.

If you think this is complicated, simply look at a globe. I had a Black acquaintance who was shocked when I told her that her people were called "African-American" because they all originated from Africa. She objected to that, never having heard the concept. When she inquired about the Caribbean natives and so on, she still had never heard the concept of the continent splitting and creating those islands, which are now so far from the mother land! It baffles the mind!

It is long time that South Americans (which is anyone south of the USA border) start reclaiming their race, all of their ethnicities, and start calling themselves "Mayan-American" or Aztec, Incan or what have you. It is time to quit the "Hispanic" and "Latina" nonsense. Be a hot Mayan or a sizzling Aztec, because a White Spaniard is what you are claiming to be, the Latin languages being those of South Western Europe (mainly French, Spanish and Italian). The Spaniards destroyed the native languages of Mexico, which were written with a bunch of Q's L's X's and T's. Look it up sometime. Why honor them by claiming to be a proud "ethnicity of those who enslaved my ancestors, the Latin-language speaking Spaniards"??? Again, mind, boggled

I hope this helps dispel the confusion of the narrowly educated, which are those who only go to school roughly between 9am and 2pm, and have 3 days off a week, (Weds, Sat, Sun, whereas other nations go to school 5 1/2 days a week) and, of course, I do mean the Americans. The lack of education of Americans, their school system is well-known all over the world. Such is your reputation. We who spent all day in school, 8 to 6pm and Saturday mornings from 8 am to 1 pm, are, of course, much better and, above all, accurately educated. And when you write sensitive topics like this, this is where you must start: accurate education. Sadly, a lot of disinformation both on this site and the rest of the internet! Diversity is beautiful, but only if you do not try to appropriate another's culture and another's race. Otherwise, we are nothing. This is why, in my country, we say "there is no educating an American!" (meaning a USA inhabitant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.137.210 (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-metaphors
Some recent edits have added a lot of material about direct references to skin color, e.g. Blacks as black, Asians as yellow, etc. In my opinion, this should not be in this article, because direct references are not metaphors, and because material about physical appearance and race is better covered elsewhere and interrupts the concentration on metaphor in this article.

White huns
Do they deserve mention? 71.252.107.172 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Change the Title
Because it is silly and incorrect.

"In language, a metaphor (from the Greek: metapherin rhetorical trope) is defined as a direct comparison between two or more seemingly unrelated subjects and mainly uses "is a" to join the first subjects."

an ex:

"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players They have their exits and their entrances; — (William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7) "

"In this example, "the world" is compared to a stage, the aim being to describe the world by taking well-known attributes from the stage."

So color metaphors for race are not metaphors becase they are based on how people look, rather than "seemingly unrelated subjects". The relationship between a white person and white as a "color" is different than the relationship between world and stage.

Talking about colors, white and black are NOT colors in physics. So I will change the title to

Race and "Color"

Lukas19 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Substitutions" seems even sillier. I guess you are using it as an ordinary language equivalent to metonymy, which would be technically correct. In practice in ordinary speech, the term metaphor is often used as a synonym for the much more obscure term metonym. "Color terminology" would, I suggest, be better. Paul B 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Lukas19 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the "color terminology and race" proposition.--Dark Tea 11:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What about just color (race)?--Pharos 06:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-Caucasian Views
Rather astonishing how few non-white authors are expressed on this page. Perhaps this holds for Wikipedia as a whole? I added reference to Fanon, Hughes, Angelou as a starter. Clearly this deserves more space in this article. Also surprising to see D'Souza referenced as a NPOV authority on race. BipDeBop 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above comment looks rather racist to me! ;) Note that WP:NPOV means showing proportionately the various viewpoints, rather that one idealised "neutral" viewpoint. .. dave souza, talk 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Black and white are not colors..."
"... they are tones." I think this is just one of those things people say because it sounds clever. It's true that in some obscure fields white/black/grey are regarded as not being colors, but in most fields they are called colors. This thing about them being "tones, not colors" is pointed out all over the place, when it in fact just an irrelevant obscurity and does not apply to common use. It's like that little fact about the Great Wall of China being the only man-made object visible from space. (It's only visible from space if you look through a telescope, in which case it's not the only man-made object visible from space. Another annoying little fact which isn't really true, but it sounds clever so people keep spreading it.)


 * Well if one really wants to get technical black isn't a color as black objects simply do not reflect light (although outside of a black hole nothing i know of has 100% lack of reflection). Ciobanica (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Black is not a color like zero is not a number. Pfft.  —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Numbers are simply symbols and abstract, so they're hardly the same as the lack of light being reflected to you eye. Ciobanica (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sepia
"sepia would be a more accurate name for the average skin color of so-called “black” Congoids, (there is a magazine for African-Americans called Sepia, which was started in 1947)"

OK, quick question, from what i noticed most black people from Africa have a darker skin tone then those from North America (i do admit to limited experience though). Would sepia really apply to black people of non mixed heritage? Ciobanica (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting possible vandalism by 165.228.99.131
The sentence:
 * "This term includes the ethnic Sudanese to the ethnic Zulus in South Africans, the African Enemies"

is very suspect. I dug into the history and found that this addition was made by 165.228.99.131. This user made a number of consecutive changes (you can find them all by following the diffs starting at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Color_terminology_for_race&diff=prev&oldid=223671234), all of which seem suspect. For example, the user changed
 * "*East: Green or Blue (青 "qīng" corresponds to green or blue) "

to
 * "*North-East: Green or Yellow (青 "qīng" or "jing" corresponds to green or Yellow)".

A quick check in a number of English-Chinese dictionaries shows that this is false. 青 means blue or green.

This user has been guilty of introducing dubious information into other articles (check the user talk page). I propose that we revert all of this user's changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynand.winterbach (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

North America
"Among the natives of North America, stylised medicine wheels are typically depicted with four colors associated with not only cardinal direction, but also with color of race" This sounds dubious to me. Cite your source please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.71.2 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Colors of the medicine wheel represent a complex representation of four directions or four grandfathers in the Cherokee tradition. It is not mentioned whether these colors directly pertain to race or are a more holistic approach to the natural world around its users. (Michlaiolo (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC))

Belarus

 * Sometimes, Belarus and Belarusians have been referred to (in Western languages, not Russian) as "White Russia" and "White Russians", which can be misleading; see those articles for discussion in more depth.

This language is misleading, in implying that bel– does not mean 'white'. It ought to say somehow that what "can be misleading" is the equation of Rus with Russia. —Tamfang (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Blumenbach
This section implies that Blumenbach hypothesized there were five categories of people: white, yellow, brown, black, and "cinnamon-brown or flame colored". However, the Blumenbach article lists the latter as 'red', and I find it unlikely he would have used such a phrase when his other descriptors were simple colour words. A bit of quick research shows that Blumenbach himself preferred the following categorization: Caucasian, Mongolian, Malayan, Negroid, and American. Blumenbach said "that colour ... [is] an adventitious and easily changeable thing, and can never constitute a diversity of species." I think this entire section ought to be re-written so as to be less misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.228.104 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words
16 times "some" or "sometimes" are used in this article. Some would call this the use of weasel words. For instance - Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), one of the founders of what some call scientific racism theories, came up with the five color typology for humans - would be greatly improved by either saying who makes the claim he founded scientific racism or better yet taking out the clause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific names
In this article, there is no mentioning of the official scientific races: eg: ...
 * Bantu for black
 * Mongoloid for yellow
 * Caucasian for white (present in article)

IMAGE
This image is confusing, I have never seen anyone with green skin. please change the color scheme to something more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.63.219 (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Color terminology for race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831085310/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Color terminology for race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527081415/http://www.stcl.edu/faculty_pages/faculty_folders/steiner/aal/whiteness.ppt to http://www.stcl.edu/faculty_pages/faculty_folders/steiner/aal/whiteness.ppt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213919/http://www.codesria.org/Links/Publications/bulletin1_04/keita.pdf to http://www.codesria.org/Links/Publications/bulletin1_04/keita.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020105628/http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413052122/http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=51320 to http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=51320

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Map
Stoddard's 1920s map is clearly relevant to the topic, but it is misleading to place it at the top. Stoddard's work clearly has an ideological, racialist bias. This is evident from the fact that his "white" race is much more restricted, corresponding to the emergence of 20th-century "white supremacy". His "brown" race is in fact part of what everyone since Blumenbach included in "white". By all means include Stoddard under "early 20th century" or something, but don't use his map as representative of physical anthropology, it's just a single 1920s author with an idiosyncratic concept of "white vs. brown" that never became mainstream. --dab (𒁳) 07:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)