Talk:Multiracial people/Archive 1

back to main talk

GO HALFBREEDS!!! YEAH! "White" being a race is mostly used in USA. We should not generalised this term and apply it internationally. You are Irish, English, French, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, South africans.. and not White, Asian, Black... how do you justify the word "asian" to describe someone from asia anyway.. An Indian will look very different from a Chinese..and yet you just call them asians.. This way of classifying people is an American way of doing things and its degrading. I feel that it should not be taken as a norm of the whole international community.
 * (Racist remark removed)
 * No personal attacks.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire concept of race is subject to considerable debate and interpretation. The "Race" article covers this at length. I would strongly suggest reading it before making any generalizations about Americans or the "international community."Exia 07:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Critics of race identity always give the cliched example of the dichotomy between Chinese and Indians. They are different when it comes to stereotypical examples, but there is a crossover between the two sometimes, believe it or not. Chinese and Japanese are NOT alike, yet most people assume there is nothing "wrong" with assuming they are alike and label both are as "Asians". Le Anh-Huy 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

2000 US census
 * Population 281421906
 * Other than white 69961280
 * Mixed ("two or more races") 6826228 = 2.4% of total, 9.8% of not-white

2002 US census
 * Population 288368698
 * Other than white 55722532
 * Mixed ("two or more races") 4181064 = 1.4% of total, 7.5% of not-white

Total population 6946792 greater but 2645164 mixed-race people fewer. Any reasons why? Andy G 15:02, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * The US only conducts censuses ervery ten years. There was no 2002 census. The 2002 is an estimate based on a long complicated methodology liniked at the bottom of the page. The 2000 was the official census numbers. My guess without reading all the methodology is that they are discounting mixed-race responses like Scottish and English or Swedish and Norwegian. But that's just my guess.Rmhermen 15:05, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

I read some of the methodology. Looks like "White" and some-sort-of-hispanic was the main combination that got removed from "mixed-race". I've written it into the article. Andy G 22:48, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mixed Race
The section of this article pasted below undermines the credibility of the entire article. Some of the language in this section has racist overtones, "unfortunately...identified himself as black." This section does not add any information to the article.

Mixed race

Probably the most famous mixed race person was Bob Marley. He had a white English father and black Jamaican mother, though unfortunately he was brought up by his single mother and so identified himself as black.

Mixed race relationships were illegal in many places in the past, and are still frowned on in much of the world.

This piece was added to multiracial because the mixed race link was redirected to multiracial before. I have now transferred the piece to the new mixed race wiki. This piece may be irrelevant, maybe not, but it does not have rascist overtones. It is Bob Marley's identification as black that has rascist overtones (I am a fan). I consider your comment blatantly rascist, something I oppose--Scuiqui fox 01:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stop being anonymous?

"It is Bob Marley's identification as black that has racist overtones (I am a fan)." Now how's that? I offer my apology for apparently misidentifying the racist overtones. I must have misunderstood your comment. Perhaps what's *racist* is subjective? As I reread the comment, without further explanation from you, it sounds like you are saying identifying as black is unfortunate, this made me uncomfortable. What did you mean? --still anonymous

from Mixed race
Mixed race describes the marriage of 2 people of different races, or the children who are the product of a mixed race relationship.

Mixed race

Probably the most famous mixed race person was Bob Marley. He had a white English father and black Jamaican mother, though he was brought up by his single mother and so identified himself as black.

Mixed race relationships were illegal in many places in the past.

Bogdan | Talk 18:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marleys dad was a coward.
It is not bob marley that chose his ancestory it is society.His father was a coward,why would he want to associate with that? DPJ

Not to be too complicated
"Mixed" can be offensive, and other terms also need to be addressed, "multiracial" seems ok, as does "cross-racial" as scientifically proven that genetics of the parents don't 'mix,' your teeth and bone size come from one parent and your head facial hair color genes come from another, especially for males who have xy for genese instead of xx which do seem to mix with varying results.

my example:

My dad has jet black hair and my mother has brown auburn hair, I inherited her hair and my fathers ability to withstand the sun and pigment to the color brown (even though the skin I have w/o a tan makes me look very tan-caucasion), although my facial hair does seem to be activated by my y gene and is black with spots of blonde and red,

I wanted to mention some things that seem half-thought out.

thank you. jackalope 22:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Im afraid you are wrong and its the other way round its scientifically proven that genetics of the parents "DO mix". Please read up on Genetic recombination Genetic recombination

Essentially it says just before the sperm and eggs get made, some of the DNA between the two copies gets swapped. This process, called recombination, means that your DNA is different from your mom and dad’s—it is a mix of the two. Most of the scientific information taught at Pre-degree level is over simplified and incorrect im afraid, but if you were sitting a high school exam paper you may get full marks :o/

Mulatto
'Mulatto' was described as a person with a white and parent. This isn't necessarily true. Mulatto is used to describe a person with two mulatto parents as well. So, the previous definition was too narrow. I also added that it was used in the U.S. specifically during the colonial period because it was, and presently it's quite offensive and not as commonly used. In addition, it is used in many Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries. Ericsf 01:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that children of mulattos have also generally been considered mulatto. The term has been used in at least two senses: either to focus on 1. the parents belonging respectively to the "white" and "black" races (although the black parent in the U.S. often blends white and/or Amerindian genes, but is socially and legally "black"), or 2. any person whose known ancestry or "look" indicates an approximately equal contribution of black and white genes, regardless of the precise genetic admixture. But I disagree that mulatto is an offensive word: Like "Negro" it is a pre-Black Liberation term. I recall well that as a result of that movement, terms such as "bright-skinned", "high yellow", "red bone", "pass the paper bag test" etc. declined in use. Until then they were frequently employed to differentiate appearance among Negroes. Because of their connotations, the black power movement deprecated them as reflections of internalized self hatred among Negroes: the criticism was not that they were terms of abuse, but that they were too frequently regarded as compliments, people of lighter-than-average complexion and so-called "good hair" being considered inherently more attractive than Negroes of more Sub-Saharan ancestry! Otherwise mulatto was and has always been a neutral, descriptive term. It is an arguably outdated word, but not offensive except to the hyper-sensitive (or, perhaps, to post-Baby Boomers?), and then it is the attention that is being drawn to the admixture rather than the term that is usually the problem. "Biracial" is no substitute for "mulatto", since the latter is but one subset of the former. Lethiere 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

'Mulatto' is offensive in its entymology. It is derived from the word mule. 82.17.192.23 02:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
"Not surprisingly, Canada with a Black population of 2%, and a White population of 88%, mixed race relationships with Blacks and Whites are becoming increasingly common." This is terrible English, and nearly incomprehensible. I can't fix it, as I can't work out what's meant. 81.159.58.196 04:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't make any sense. The offending parts I deleted.--Atemperman 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Two million mixed-race Americans vanish? (moved from article)
The 2000 US census recorded 6.8 million mixed-race people. But population estimates for 2002 reduce this figure to 4.2 million.


 * (this is due to mexicans being allowed to register as whites, and blacks to register as non-hispanic) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.201.243 (talk • contribs)

This section was in the article for a while, maybe it should be reworded and put back in (if these numbers are important) but as it is it makes it sound like some great mystery. --Tifego 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Disgusting
I am so outraged that there is even an article on such a rediculous subject. We are all part of one race, the human race. I am sick and tired of seeing ignorance like this continue on in a modern age. People should refer to others who are from other nations as a different ethnicity, not race. Race represents different species of animals, such as the canine race, feline race, and of course the human race. Then, to call people who are born from two parents that have different ethnicities, biracial, it is unbelievable to me. As long as ignorance like this continues this race of ours will not ever see peace.


 * Utter nonsense. While I don't disagree with you entirely that the word "race" bears unfortunate connotations - race, in terms of ethnicity, is synonymous with intra-species variety, not species itself. It's analogous to, within dogs, german shepherd or chihuahua or labrador, or within cats, siamese, european shorthair, manx, etc.


 * 'Race' is well described on Wikipedia in the featured article on race. Humans are all of the same species, unlike for example the feline family which includes animals such as domestic cats and tigers which cannot interbreed.  I think that if you can accept that not everyone is the same as each other, and then celebrate and enjoy that diversity, then where is the problem with refering to race and mixed races (or "biracial")?  I would for example identify myself as a blue-eyed male caucasion, my wife is a brown-eyed female asian, my son (who I love as dearly as my wife) shares our genes and therefore our mixed phenotype and cultures/ethnicities.  I think it would be wrong for me to bury the concept that he has a mixed racial heritage.  RevJohn 12:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The word race derives from a time period in history when there was a great deal of slavery. Certain people were made to seem as though they were a different species through the word race because of their skin color. This made the slave owners feel justified in their abominably preposterous acts. I just disagree with race being the word that describes ethnicities. In my opinion, race should only be used to describe different species of animals, but not as describing different ethnic groups. Race is an ancient word that needs to be buried and systematically replaced with ethnicity among Humans. Stardust6000 1:10, 14 April 2006


 * let's also delete the page for the word "nigger". seriously, grow up.
 * oh, and yes, your son is pretty much by any account of mixed races. "race" is a common, established english word and is not disgusting, it is factual. too bad about the circumstances it was born of, but it's too late to change the meaning. i'm sorry if you have some kind of bizarre new definition for it and wikipedia uses the correct usage instead of your own. humans are a species, not a race. i think you need to look in a dictionary. Joeyramoney 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't get hooked on technicalities here. Mixed Race is a very common term, and although 'Multi Cultural' would make more logical sense, I'm afraid it's not the general terminology. Whether you like it or not, many individuals (Including myself) identify as Mixed Race. Also, I've never heard of it used as an insult. The only offensive synonyms I know of involve the word 'half'. SevenEightTwo 15:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Joeyramoney were you paying attention to one thing that I said. Your comments are the reflection of someone who hasn't paid attention. I was expressing my opinion on the words use. In no way was I suggesting that the word should be changed, obviously it's too late for that. You are the one who "seriously needs to grow up", because scientists are starting to use the word less and less. Oh and yes, I have looked up what the word means in a dictionary. Some of the definitions of the word is one of the reasons why I don't like the word. I have a right to my opinion and that is all I expressed, my opinion, goodbye!--Stardust6000 21:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To speak of races properly, you have to think of one BREED of dog, for example a Retriever dog. You have to then think of the various types of Retriever, such as Yellow Lab, Labrador Retriever, Golden Lab, and my fave, the Chesapeake Bay Retriever. That last came from the mixing of the various Retrievers including Newfoundlands, plus a few other straggler dogs, which became a fairly consistent type of retriever on its own. Those are the equivalent to human races, not Collies, Boxers, and other dog BREEDS as separate races. Scientists have said for years that the modern Homo Sapiens-Sapiens descends from Homo Sapiens mixed with stragglers from other Human ancestors. When I find the proper links, I will post them. Modern Humans are merely an animal in which only one TYPE has survived, while the rest were absorbed and/or died off. To think of "race" as being some immutible, unchanging, Popperistic, ahistorical creation that rose from someone's mind is fallacious. Again, the various types of Retriever dog correspond to the various human races. To reject the whole thought of race because of some Volkish non-sense, such as the idea of a "black race", or an "African race," is like rejecting evolution because of so-called "Social Darwinism." In short, if Humans equal Retriever dogs, then Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids equal the various sub-groups of the dog such as the Black Lab, Yellow Lab, and Golden Retriever.JBDay 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with using the word in that manor. In my opinion, race is nothing more than an illusion. I just hope that someday society will become race-blind. I am Lebanese, African-American, European, and Native American, and I don't consider myself to be multiracial, I consider myself to be a human being. There are many people that share my opinion. In fact, every person that I know personally agrees with me. So it is surprising to me that not one person here has understood me. Overall, I think people just use the word because it is simplistic. Depending on the way that it is presented I do often find it to be rediculous, but other times it doesn't bother me. The way it was presented in the article when I was first linked to it, bothered me. I hope that some of you think about the issue more, and come to understand what I've been saying. I believe the word has caused harm to the world, because people have over interpretted it. Thank you all for your opinions. Some of you might want to look at this website, it is very interesting.--Stardust6000 02:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stardust, I am of mixed ancestry myself. I do not like the way the government and its racial fascist allies try and lock everybody into some immutable catagory. HOWEVER, race has a historical basis in that it originated in times when tribes et cetera were isolated from each other. The Chessie dog is basically an illustration of a "tri-racial isolate" dog in that it consists of elements from various breeds all brought together and modified by breeding and historical circumstance. Tri-racial humans (mustees) have developed into their own "breeds," but are still Homo Sapiens sapiens.JBDay 23:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Change in terms
I believe the term multiracial/race is still used in common language to describe someone from a different ethnicity. As an encyclopedia we have to report this word and what it means. An approprietate solution would be to create a new page called multiethnicity. By basicly moving and editing the content from the present article (Multiracial) and leaving a link to reach the corrected expression.

It seems like a reasonnable proposition.

That is an excellent solution, I think that I might start working on that soon. I know that since this is an encyclopedia this has to be reported. I was just expressing my opinion on the use of the word among humans.

Multiracial children
Apart from the first paragraph of this section, a lot of this section sounds like unsubstantiated personal opinion. As such, I deleted parts of it. --Atemperman 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mother's genes dominant?
Is it true that the mother's genes are typically dominant among "biracial" children? I have- albeit,unprofessionally- observed how for example half-Asian/half non-Asian children always look more like their mother. ie. if the father is white and the mother Asian, the children "look more Asian", but if the father is Asian and the mother white, the children "look more white". I've noticed the same thing among mulattos. Although I have to make the exception among half East Asian-half South Asian people; a person who is half Chinese-half Indian looks the same to me, regardless of which group their parents belong too. Le Anh-Huy 20:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

i don't think so. i know a girl whose mother is korean, and you wouln't know that she had an asian bone in her body. --Colorfulharp233 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. That's not how heredity works. Every child has half of his/her father's genes and half of his/her mother's genes. Genes do not carry markers identifying them as somehow being female or male genes (except, in a way, those on the sex chromosomes). Dominance and recessiveness are properties of genes themselves, independent of which parent the genes are inherited from.--Atemperman 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please investigate the concept of epigenetics... You may be surprised.  Additionally, women are the sole sorce of fetal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which may favor the mother's DNA by spontaneously aborting or preventing mitosis in sperm/egg combinations where the father's nuclear DNA lacks complete support for the mtDNA.  Deathbunny 21:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * mtDNA has nothing to do with coding for outward appearance; the mitochondria are solely about energy production in cells, metabolism. Tmangray 05:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That depends... If there is incompatability between the combination of the inherited nuclear genome (fathers genes and maternal nuclear genes) and the mtDNA from the mother, the fetus may self terminate.


 * The mothers combined genome would be basically guaranteed to function with the mtDNA, otherwise she likely wouldn't have been able to concieve and finish a pregnancy. This means at least a 50% chance that a fetus will survive based on her inheritance.


 * The father's contribution lacks this guarantee and, if drawn from another regional population, there is a longer period for mutations to have occurred in his DNA and her mtDNA between conception now and the last period these two strains were interbred.


 * This increases the probability, slightly that a self-termination of the fetus for mitochondrial pathologies is going to favor a fetus expressing the mother's genes more often and therefore show the mother's phenotype.


 * Admittedly, it's a probability issue... Deathbunny 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. mtDNA NEVER affects phenotype.  Survivability of the fetus is immaterial.  mtDNA is entirely inherited from the mother and only affects the metabolism of cells, not hair color, skin color, etc. Tmangray 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * mtDNA can influence the phenotypes observed by eliminating some based on paternal inheritence. Example: Out of 100 combinations of egg and sperm, 50% were more like the mother and 50% were more like the father.  If there were an incompatability between paternal DNA and mtDNA and 2% were not viable, then those born would be 50 more like mom and 48 more like dad which means a change in phenotypes observed...  Deathbunny 20:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is an indirect effect, if true. The mtDNA itself does not code for phenotype at all. Tmangray 17:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an indirect effect potentially influencing genotype and therefore phenotype in favor of the mother. Deathbunny 03:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Only in the aggregate, if true. It has no effect at all on a given individual's phenotype.  We are agreed that the effect on the aggregate result is indirect, whereas the effect of the nuclear DNA is direct, and leaving aside the effects of other genes and external influences, and also the possibility that the mother and father share the same gene that might otherwise be discarded by the incompatibility factor, always 50-50 as to phenotype. Tmangray 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't the same 50-50 for both mother and father. Why?  Within the Mother's genes are a 100% gauranteed functional combination and a second set of chromosomes that likely works also due to the mosiac effect for some genes.  There are no assurances for the Father's genes unless he happens to be her brother.  So, any loss due to incompatibility is (probably) much more likely to have occurred due to paternal incompatibility thereby affecting the observable phenotype of the children.  Deathbunny 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely false. mtDNA NEVER codes for phenotype.  The effect you allude to has to do with fetus viability.  You are obviously unclear about the point you make. Tmangray 17:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said mtDNA codes for phenotype. I merely suggested it as a potential factor influencing phenotype.  Sort of like the "Bombay Phenotype" for ABO blood types:  In the Bombay Phenotype, the phenotype is typically an O-blood type in spite of being genetically AA or AB or such because the genes for A or B antigen mean nothing if the resources needed to create them don't exist.  Like in my theoretical influence by mtDNA, this would screw up your observed blood type phenotype ratios without changing the genotypes or dominance pattern for the genes you expect to be expressed.  The question was about dominance of one parent's phenotype over the other's and mtDNA incompatability has a potential influence on phenotype going a single direction...  Deathbunny 18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you just compare two random celebrities: Mexican actress Bárbara Mori is of Japanese heritage on her father's side and Mexican Mestiza on her mother's, and Kristin Kreuk who is Dutch on her father's side and Cantonese-Chinese on her mother's, there is a huge difference between the two, and both would conform to my suspected theory. Another example would be Halle Berry (whose father is black, mother white) and Javine Hylton or Bob Marley (father white, mother black) for Mulattos. Le Anh-Huy 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using the word 'mulatto'! 82.17.192.23 02:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * mulatto isn't offensive to all, and many mixed-race people call themselves mulatto.

it wasn't her father that was japanese, Bárbara Mori's grandfather was japanese. Colorfulharp233 20:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

about the pictures...
how do we decide what to do with them? Colorfulharp233 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh
If a person is born to a mother that's 75% Chinese, 25% Portugese, what does that make the kid? 15%? or 10%? I ask because my mom's 75% Chinese, 25% Portugese and I was never really sure if I was 15% Portugese or just 10%. Why sigh, cutie pie? 07:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If your father is neither of those two, you're 37.5% Chinese and 12.5% Portuguese, plus half of whatever your father was. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, my dad's 100% Chinese. My mom is 75% Chinese, 25% Portugese. But it's complicated, because my great-grandpa (on my mom's side) was 50% Chinese, 50% Portugese. But he married a Chinese woman (different dialect), and that makes my grandpa (my mom's dad) 33% Teochew, 33% Mandarin, and 33% Portugese, and his kids (my mom was the youngest of them) 25% Portugese, right? So does this make me 15%, or 10%? Why sigh, cutie pie? 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * okay, your grandfather was 25% Portugese, and 75% chinese. and that makes your mom 12.5% Portugese, and 87.5% chinese, and you are 6.25% Portugese, and 93.75% chinese. and plus, if your mom was one-quarter Portugese, you wouldn't be ten or fifteen. you'd be 12.5%. Colorfulharp233 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is no mystery, you are Chinese! All of this pulling for the Portuguese part is just your wanting a European connection. If you REALLY wanted to break it down, how about oncluding that black that I know is in the Portuguese? --71.235.81.39 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So what is that? Like, one-eighth? Why sigh, cutie pie? 20:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * yep. Colorfulharp233 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Human. Deathbunny 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine and you aren't a problem if you're say a mix of German and Polish, or German and English or French and Swedish, a typical mix or a red- blooded American, but once you start mixing black in their you're causing trouble. I've known some biracials and they must be so God damned angry and lost. If I bump into a white guy I have something in common, we probably share similar backgrounds and culture, if two black guys meet they probably have had similar lives but how often does a biracial meet someone who they can directly relate to? Maybe more about the social and cultural implications of being a coloured should be included?

First, most black/white mixes are called black and many of them accept that, even though I am sure that they wonder why they have to be that. Many also look more black than white. I am a light-skinned black man and I have come across many mixed people who look more black than I do! No, my parents were not mixed either. I think as in any society, when you have a dominant group who has all types of racial hang-ups(it seems as if this came from the racially unsure and not pure Anglo-Saxon), many wonder "if I am half of the 'bad' race and half of the 'superior' race, then how come I don't get all of the benefits of the 'superior?' This happens in the so-called hispanic world and in the Arabic(not a race) world.

The mixed person will have something in common with the black man. Why? They more often than not will face the wrath the American white racist. This is coming from within their family! So much value has been put on 'white' in America that all European groups who did not know what white was or who were not regarded as whites (Italians, Greeks and those types, which really are not white) jumped onto the 'white' bandwagon to escape discrimination. What do they do? They pick on the black man in order to make themselves seem closer to whites. They become a type of racist. Their goal is and has been to deflect attention from their not so white (mixed) appearances and history by always making a distinction between their 'whiteness' and the black Americans 'blackness.' These performances by wannabes who never had a racial thought in the 'old world,' stand out in AMerica in order "to be down" with the dominant group.

The mixed person will indeed identify with the black man because of racism by whites. These whites will always remind them that they are black, despite being half white. I know it must be hard having one foot in the 'door or freedom' and the other in 'the door of oppression,' these reminders often make the mixed person identify with the black side more. HOWEVER, that seems to change more so when the child comes out looking more white AND raised in the suburbs AND when the father is white! I have seen many mixed people who look more white than black just going 'undercover' as Italians, hispanics, Greeks or whatever. They do not associate with blacks and they want to get lost in the white mix. I think that many of these people, if they can admit that they are half black, are a part of the reason that some want a biracial identity over black since many cannot 'pass' for white.

As far as this article goes, I don't see why the prime focus must always be on white/black mixes. Whites and blacks have been mixing sine the beginning of time. How do you think you modern and CERTAINLY ancient "middle-eastern" peoples were formed? I think you should focus on other mixes just as much. Asians mix (almost demand in doing so) with white probably more so than backs, but no one ever identifies them as mixed. Their kids usually assume whiteness or they try to get passed off as white by the way that they speak, act and the names. When you focus on black/whites mixes, you seem to be focusing on the US racial BS which is based upon slavery and the notion of being 'white,' which seem to include previously excluded groups every decade due to their population increases and mixing with 'whites.'--71.235.81.39 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Colorado
I removed:
 * In some, there were even official political parties called "Colorados", or "coloreds".

"Partido Colorado" means "red party", not "Coloured". See DRAE and Casa Rosada.

Multiethnic
The term, Multiethnic is another way to describe the word multiracial correct. So, should this be added to the beginning of the article?--Stardust6000 21:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity can be used as a subdivision within a race, example my race is white-European, but im ethnically Greek or ethnically Scottish, both generally distinctively different ethnic wise but both would describe themselves as white-European.

Biblical Implications
There's some question over it in the bible which I think we should include, namely regarding the offspring of a white and negro relationship, under The Curse of Ham and saying God won't allow people to 'mix their seed' with blacks, what do others think?

It may not be true, a matter of opinion, but many believe it and it's the root cause of much of the hatred and prejudice mixeds endure.

82.27.251.153 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sephardic Jews are sons of Ham, not the Negros. Sign your posts from now on. I'd remove your comment, but I'll wait to hear from someone with more power. At least you asked a question, however vile, unlike "Coloured."JBDay 06:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

True, a lot do believe it. However, in biblical terms, Jews, the Sepharadim(East and West both) are sons of Ham. The idea that the so-called blacks are from Ham was first propounded by the Black Brahmins in the North and was used to try and reduce class consciousness amongst the "blacks," and to create a bogus community transcending class lines. I'll try to find links related and post them. JBDay 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BS. The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan. These are black peoples. Jews are not a race. Ancient Hebrews were black or a black mix. Stop using US standards of race when comparing others. If you want to, then you have to discount most of who you were lead to believe were "caucasoid" or white to be seen as black, as they would be here.--71.235.81.39 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

YOU are using USAmerican standards of race!! The idea that there were EVER such as a "black people/race" is historically ridiculous, and is Anglo/USAmericocentric! "Africa" is a continent, not a race, and the people from the North/Levant/Horn are darker Caucasians, not Negroid. Continents didn't matter historically, and mountain ranges and deserts were far more of a barrier to migration than bodies of water ever were! Civilisation originated in areas not far from bodies of water, think Babylon(Iraq) or Carthage. Mediterraenean, not SSAfrican! The ancient clanÑ, capital letter for emphasis, of Ireland, MacAuliffe, is Phoenaecian in origin, their name means, essentially "first clan(tribe.)" They origially had an alif at the head of their name excluding the patronym Mac. Science has shown that the original inhabitants of Ireland as well as the British Isles are close relatives of Basques and MacAuliffes tend to be dark haired/eyed/swarthy as Basques are. Considering alif comes from Proto-Canaanite, it stands for "ox," perhaps those Irish are Hamites themselves!! This all fits with the late Barry Fell and his writing that Ireland was part of the great trading system with Carthage and Phoenaecia. Perhaps I'll set up a few pages on those very topics. This could be discussed for hours on end, and would spill over into thousands of related topics. Wiki isn't set up for that.JBDay 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cuba and Brazil?
"Race and racial mixture played a significant role in the politics of many Latin American countries. In some countries, notably Cuba and Brazil, a majority of the population can be described as multiracial." This affirmation is false! See this pages:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Cuba
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Brazil
 * The majority of population in this nations are white, not multiracial.

--201.19.208.227 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In Cuba, I can't say the majority, but a decent amount is what I not question as white. The other white types which people like you would call white at the drop of a dime, are mixes leaning toward white. There are whites there. I would say that Cuba's whites are more white than the so-called white wannabes in Argentina. Now in Brazil, you know that those people are so mixed up that you can't make one out from another. They have so many mixed (some very odd too) combos that you have to pull straws to find an actual 'white' one. You may find a 'whiter' one, but hardly a white one. Of course you already know that there are plenty of blacks there along with the mixes to a white type. You know, the Portuguese were already mixed with the black man from back in the day. You can even see the Portuguese in the former Chinese territories with black traits. I know, you will go out of your way to pretend that the black man never stepped foot in Portugal and it is the whitest of the white land, but you know the truth deep down. DOn't get mad because American whites don't see you as official. The Portuguese and Spanish empire did not think that a man would come on a mission of white supremacy and not include them!--71.235.81.39 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no "black man," just as there is no "white, yellow, red, pink, or brown man." Funny thing, I have relatives/ancestors with those or close as surnames, and it originated as that, descriptions. They were not set in stone races, no matter what the various racial fascists want it to be. The Moors were in Portugal, the Negro never saw even the shoreline until the Portuguese colonisation penetrated below the Sahara in relatively recent times. It has been for years the tool of the Anglo-Saxon/Ashkhenazim to equate anyone not them as Negro in order to discriminate against those people. JBDay 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though the multiracial population of Brazil is fortunately high, it is not officially the majority. So, I'm taking out Brazil from this citation. --ClaudioMB 06:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mestizo
Firsh and foremest, I'm not sure if I spelled it right. Anyways, I read into the "mullato" thing, and it got me wandering. If a child with two mulatto(European and African) parents is Mulatto. What about a person with two Mestizo(European & AmerIndian)parents? I happened ti be in this case, though I don't look like a stereotypical Mestizo. I have Blue eyes, light brown hair, and my flesh, while dark, is not a typical color of an Indian. I was just wandering, am I mestizo, Indian or White? I mean, I know I'm all three. Just because you're part of two races, doesn't mean you are part of a different race from either of them.


 * It's more a descriptive catagory, not an etched in stone law. Yes, you are all three, and don't you forget it! I know a few people of your description who are of Mexican-Bavarian origin, mainly from Texas. Your description brings to mind the Moorfish, dark with blue eyes, mainly Mexican.JBDay 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

isteve.com
I looked at a few of the articles on that site, and I question their use as a reputable source. Anyone else wanna take a look at this?

Cultural differences
It's not right that "in Brazil, If you are not quite black, then you are white.". So, I removed that from the article. --ClaudioMB 07:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a broken link on this article.--ClaudioMB 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unscientific
This article is OUTRAGEOUSLY unscientific as currently written. Even a cursory reading of modern scientific literature on the matter will show that scientists do not consider "race" to be a valid scientific category (for one thing it has no meaning at the level of the genotype), and so the pseudo-scientific language used on this page is misleading at best. It uses terms like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" which are totally obsolete and unscientific terms invented by Blumenbach in the 18th century, as part of a theory of "Caucasian" (white European) racial supremacy. (This is not my political opinion, it is historical fact.) The barely-noticeable caveat to that effect within this article does not change the misleading way the terms are used throughout.

This article may be a legitimate topic for Wikipedia, but only on a sociological basis, NOT a scientific one. Many parts of this article need a complete re-write to reflect this, preferably by someone who actually has a solid grounding in the objective science around the matter.

To me this article represents Wikipedia at its most confused, confusing, and subjective. Richard Tapestry 08:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Calm down, please. You are wrong, race is a valid catagory, only not the Kantian, Popperistic way that people tend to mistakenly use it. Using terms such as "Negroid" has nothing to do with any form of supremacy whatsoever. "Caucasian" and "White European" are not synonymous, as a large proportion of Anglo-Saxon ancestry comes from Mongolia/Tibet area. Dark skinned NEast Africans are Caucasian. Continents are not a determining factor in race at all. In fact, if people such as you were not playing into the hands of the Aryan Nations, NOI, Zionists et cetera and their race infatuations, then race would become a mere description and continents would become even more irrelevent than they are. No, in ancient times people travelled by boat on a daily basis, continental travel over land took months, if not years. Bodies of water are more a determining factor and deserts, mountain ranges were the factors in separation of peoples, not continents. Objective science? People would have to agree on definitions. I don't see that any time soon.

JBDay 16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate your patronising tone. What do you know about "people such as" me?  You are inferring bizarre notions about my opinions on this subject that have no basis in reality or in what I said.


 * "Caucasian" and "white" European were explicitly synonymous for Blumenbach (as Caucasian is synonymous for white in popular usage now), which is what I was talking about. He did include some western Asians and northern Africans in this category though, which is the only place I can figure you are drawing your ideas from.  But for reference let me quote his definition:


 * "Caucasian variety. Colour white, cheeks rosy; hair brown or chestnut-colored; head subglobular; face oval, straight, its parts moderately defined, forehead smooth, nose narrow, slightly hooked, mouth small. In general, that kind of appearance which according to our opinion of symmetry, we consider most handsome and becoming. To this first variety belong the inhabitants of Europe (except the Lapps and the remaining descendants of the Finns) and those of Eastern Asia, as far as the river Obi, the Caspian Sea and the Ganges; and lastly, those of Northern Africa."


 * That speaks for itself.


 * His coining of the term "Caucasian" was based on his theory that because he believed people from the Caucuses to have the most perfect skull-shapes and to be the most physically attractive Europeans, they must be the origin of the European race (and in fact of the entire human species - placing his so-called "Caucasians" at the top of his 5-race hierarchy).


 * However, the word "Caucasian" has no real scientific meaning, nor does it have any legitimate anthropological meaning. The same is true of his other racial categories ("Negroid" or "Ethiopian", "Mongoloid", "Malay", and "American"). Blumenbach's ideas and terms are completely outmoded, 250-year-old pseudo-science that aren't used by any mainstream researchers or academics in any relevant field.


 * Moreover, if people inherently can't agree on the definitions of a subject, I don't think it belongs as an article in Wikipedia, which is supposed to reflect a neutral mainstream consensus, not any given theory on a topic - which is how much of this article reads to me.


 * Richard Tapestry 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Ethiopians are Caucasian, but that's not the point of my discussion. Blumenbach was never the only one to use the three terms Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. They were used by many others and not to make a hierarchy. Race is more of a dialectical process, meaning what was a race at one point in time is at the same time it was labelled, it was already changing. The unscientific ideas of continents being somehow racial boundaries have greatly influenced population movements and have althered things a bit. For example, East Africans are Caucasian not because of, or not, Blumenbach or his nutty theories, but because of their connections to the Caucasian peoples, who have differing head shapes. When they come to the USAmerica, they are considered "black" because of the incorrect assumption promoted by those who equate "African" with "Black" with "Negroid." Historically, genetically, linguistically, in evrey way they are Caucasian. They have no genetic, linguistic or cultural ties with Negroid peoples whatsoever. Their history is with the Persians, Greeks, Indo/Aryans(in the correct sense of the word), Hamitic tribes, and other peoples in the area. I'd say they are closer to Caucasian/Russians more than anything else, consanguinity is what counts. Skin color is not an effective marker of race, never was. This could go on forever, and this is not the only topic which has no consensus.JBDay 05:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable or irrelevant parts of this article
Then I will specifically point out the parts of this article I object to and think should be removed. The opening paragraph under "who is multiracial" makes an argument based on one particular source (Michael Levin) who clearly has his own agenda and does not reflect mainstream scientific or even sociological opinions. He might be cited as a minority opinion somewhere, but as presented here it's made to look as if his opinions reflected the mainstream consensus. This is not the case - it promotes an agenda, and this is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

I also object to the "Beyond Admixture" section in its entirety. I don't think this is relevant to the article - Ethiopians are not considered "mixed race" on the sociological basis that is the main thrust of this article, which is and should be more limited in scope. Moreover, as you in fact point out, most "ethnic" groups have sources elsewhere - e.g. the Celts originate in Spain, and a large subgroup of the British population has Middle Eastern y-chromosome DNA. This is a separate topic which, while perhaps appropriate for a separate article (e.g. scientific studies into origins of given populations - or even an own article on Ethiopian origins), I strongly feel does not belong in an article on "multiracial" people. (The Oxford study, which I am aware of, could also be mentioned instead in the article on Ethiopa or one of the articles about its many ethnic groups.)

And I agree with the person above who questions the use of www.isteve.com as a reputable source. If you remove the sentence which relies on this source (referring to Caucasoid and Negroid peoples, etc.), and the following unsourced assertions, this paragraph ceases to make sense, making the whole section untenable.

I think "Beyond Admixture" should be removed, and the section about Michael Levin removed or completely rewritten. I would appreciate someone else's input on this. If a third party doesn't have a sound reason these sections should remain, I will go ahead and edit them.

Richard Tapestry 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you about Levin. I do wonder what is the "mainstream" you mention. "Mainstream" was that the people of Ireland were descended from transplanted Vikings, now it is shown that the original peoples of that area are more closely related to Basques and the original people of the Mediterraenean, such as Carthaginians, something that was considered by mainstreamers to be a crackpot theory until recently, some still do. See Barry Fell. I agree, Ethiopia does not belong in this article as it is not racially mixed, although there are groups of Jamaicans who are squatting there now at the behest of the Ethiopian aristocracy and they may intermix with the Caucasian native peoples changing the genetic mix, but that is in the future. I also agree that separate articles ought be written on those very topics you mention.JBDay 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tapestry, I thought you were going to rewrite/remove the Levin nonsense and remove the "Beyond Admixture" drivel. JBDay 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean to, but I've been preparing to move country, so I've been quite busy lately. (I thought I had more downtime before things got crazed...) You could do it, or if not I'll get to it as soon as I can.  Richard Tapestry 08:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted the "Beyond," but haven't gotten to the part on Levin yet. Is there evre going to be a consensus on things such as this: Not in my lifetime...and Allah/Jahweh/God cried... JBDay 22:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm only 16 but feel i understand my heritage and culture very well, although at times i feel split. I wonder whether i feel more black, or more white. I'm from the Caribbean (Trinidad) and England. I studied poetry during GCSE and thought i would post this!

 == Half-Caste' == '

- Excuse me - standing on one leg - I'm half-caste - Explain yuself - wha yu mean - when yu say half-caste - yu mean when picasso - mix red an green - is a half-caste canvas/ - explain yuself - wha yu mean - when yu say half-caste - yu mean when light an shadow - mix in de sky - is a half-caste weather/ - well in dat case - england weather - nearly always half-caste - in fact some o dem cloud - half-caste till dem overcast - so spiteful dem dont want de sun pass - ah rass/ - explain yuself - wha yu mean - when yu say half-caste - yu mean tchaikovsky - sit down at dah piano - an mix a black key - wid a white key - is a half-caste symphony/ - Explain yuself - wha yu mean - Ah listening to yu wid de keen - half of mih ear - Ah lookin at yu wid de keen - half of mih eye - and when I'm introduced to yu - I'm sure you'll - understand - why I offer yu half-a-hand - an when I sleep at night - I close half-a-eye - consequently when I dream - I dream half-a-dream - an when moon begin to glow - I half-caste human being - cast half-a-shadow - but yu must come back tomorrow - wid de whole of yu eye - an de whole of yu ear - an de whole of yu mind - an I will tell yu - de other half - of my story