Template talk:AfricansinUK

Template contents
Recent edits have attempted to turn this template into a mixture of countries of birth and ethnicities. This is why many templates such as this have been deleted in the past. If anyone is interested in an ethnicity template for the UK, it is available at Template:UK census ethnic groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

African American and Afro-Caribbean
I think it's highly debatable and even offensive to suggest that these groups are not "African" particularly for those who value their roots. It doesn't matter if they haven't been to African. It they say they're African then they should be included here.--23prootie (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * African means someone from Africa. Afro-Caribbeans and African Americans are not from Africa. They are from the Caribbean and the United States, respectively, so they are by definition not African. This is common sense. A White person from South Africa or an Indian person from Uganda, on the other hand, are African since they hail from and emigrated to the UK from actual African countries. This is why they are discussed on the South African British and the Ugandan migration to the United Kingdom articles since they constitute the largest immigrant groups from South Africa & Uganda to the UK. This is also what Cordless Larry means when he indicates that this template does not cover ethnic groups, and why he removed the census categories to begin with: Ethiopian is not an ethnic group; Amhara is. "Ethiopian" is a nationality that actually encompasses hundreds of different ethnic groups. The same goes for Kenyan, Tanzanian, Ugandan, Ghanian, etc. This too is common sense. Kindly do not revert the page again. Middayexpress (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress is spot on. Trying to combine ethnicity and nationality or country-of-birth groups in templates is a minefield and arguably also constitutes original research. Also, 23prootie, I could turn the argument round and say that it's offensive to African Americans to suggest that they're African rather than fully American. What about European Americans who value their roots? If the same logic were to be applied, we'd be adding them to the European migration to the UK template. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify some points. As long as African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans say they're African or Afro, then they are African. Next. Ethiopian is not an ethnic group but British Ethiopian is, just like African is not an ethnic group but African American is. And. There's is not European America article so there is no necessity to categorize them.--23prootie (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what planet you are living on 23prootie, but there is no such ethnic group as "British Ethiopian". The latter actually refers to Ethiopian expatriates (by they Amhara, Oromo, Tigray, etc. -- actual ethnic groups) who have acquired British citizenship; nothing more, nothing less. I hope you understand that when people take the citizenship oath, it is not to become a member of the Briton ethnic group, but simply to acquire full status as naturalized citizens in said people's homeland. You see, by definition, an ethnic group is "a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed" and which is "further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups." Since "British Ethiopians" who have recently emigrated to the UK from Ethiopia do not speak a different language from their relatives back home as their first tongue, do not practice a different culture or religion, and, especially, are not biologically distinct from their relatives back home, they are not recognized by any reliable authority as constituting a distinct ethnic group (how could they? They didn't even come from the same ethnic group to begin with. Remember, Ethiopian is a nationality that encompasses hundreds of different ethnicities; it isn't in and of itself an ethnic group). Lastly, it makes no difference what African Americans -- who were not too long ago known as "Black Americans", by the way -- and Afro-Caribbeans personally say with regard to their being or not being African. The fact of the matter is that the status of "African" does not depend on how one perceives oneself, but of where one was born and/or raised i.e. one's citizenship. This, again, is why White South Africans and Indian Ugandans, among others, are African whereas African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans are not. The former, as citizens of actual African countries (where they were often born as well), emigrated to the UK directly from the African continent, not vicariously through some long gone ancestors like the latter. That's like arguing that Native Americans who have recently emigrated to the UK should be included in a template pertaining to Asian immigrants to the UK since their ancestors did, after all, migrate from Asia to the Americas thousands of years ago (although they themselves of course did not). It's, with all due respect, a very silly argument, and definitely original research. Middayexpress (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all I don't know what the fact are you talking about. Second we are not in the authority to say which groups is an ethnic group and which is not. Third, I think it is very shallow to define ethnicity and origin based on citizenship alone. Fourth, you said that "an ethnic group is "a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed" ". So that means Ethiopians in the United Kingdom qualify as an ethnic group since they share the common heritage of being from Ethiopia. Likewise, "the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits, by the African Americans and the Afro-Caribbeans that they share with the rest of the African peoples make them "African". Please.--23prootie (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's clear you don't know what I am talking about since you keep bringing up irrelevant points. You are misinterpreting that quote above to mean something it does not. Amharas, Oromos, Tigray, etc. are indeed all from the Ethiopia region, but they are different ethnic groups with their own unique histories, languages, customs, and religious profiles. I invite you to visit their respective articles and argue otherwise. This isn't an isolated case either but applies across the board to the ethnic groups in Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania, and all of the other countries encompassed in this article. African Americans & Afro-Caribbeans also do not share common cultural or linguistic traits with any of the ethnic groups inherent in the broad national labels such as "Ethiopian" or "Kenyan". To suggest that they do is to be grossly out of touch with reality. They are American and Afro-Caribbean in culture (rap and reggae aren't "African"), and speak English/Ebonics/patois rather than any language belonging to one of Africa's four language families. Furthermore, while African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans do indeed obviously have a genetic connection to the West Africans they came from, they certainly do not with the North and Horn Africans they did not come from. That's a fact, my friend. Until you can prove that those groups actually did, in fact, migrate directly from Africa to the UK and/or were born there (i.e. that they are African citizens), they are in no way, shape or form African ethnic groups. By the way, that quote you only partially reproduced above was taken from the ethnic group page and it pertains strictly to what constitutes an ethnic group, not to what constitutes an "African" ethnicity. You see, there is no such thing as an "African" ethnicity because Africa's thousands of different ethnic groups all have their own personal histories, speak different languages, have different cultures and customs of their own, and are biologically unique. Some of their ancestors weren't even originally from Africa (the Afrikaners from South Africa, for example). Your argument is based on the utterly preposterous notion that all of the continent's peoples do somehow constitute one monolithic ethnic group and that African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans -- descendants of various West African peoples that were brought to the Americas against their will -- who view themselves as somehow descended from this one mythical ethnic group are, by virtue of this self-delusion, African! lmao For your information, the quote reads: "marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups." This means that the recognition by others of a group's biological, linguistic, cultural, religious, etc. distinctiveness is enough to confer upon it "ethnic group" status, not recognition by the group's members themselves, as you have somehow misinterpreted. I'm asking you again to stop distorting facts and reverting the template. Middayexpress (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you continue your argument, I suggest you read first Tutsi and Hutu so that you will see that defining an ethnic group is murky and messy, and continuing to do so would be controversial.--23prootie (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an absurd and irrelevant argument. The Tutsi and Hutu both constitute distinct ethnic groups, and neither has anything whatsoever to do with this template and thus with immigration from Africa to the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Black British Article

 * More recently it has come to define a British resident with specifically Sub-Saharan African ancestral origins, who self-identifies, or is identified, as "Black", African or Afro-Caribbean. Black Britons also emigrate from other countries, such as Brazil (see Brazilian British) and the USA (see African American British).--23prootie (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that pointless unsourced quote that has absolutely nothing to do with this template. Or did you think Wikipedia itself was a reliable source? Middayexpress (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, 23prootie, when you say "we are not in the authority to say which groups is an ethnic group and which is not", don't you realise that that's exactly what you're doing? Have you read WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research? I don't see you citing any source for your claims. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion here is well developed, can I suggest that it becomes the central discussion for Template:OceanicsinUK, Template:EuropeansinUK, Template:AsiansinUK and Template:AmericansinUK. The consensus view should apply to all of these templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Middayexpress (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found these quotes in an Office for National Statistics guide to categorising ethnicity:


 * Country of birth
 * For many years, the only statistics regularly available in Britain were based on people’s country of birth. This was of limited reliability because, for example, a number of white people had been born in such countries as India when it was ruled by Britain. Country of birth has, in any case, become increasingly less relevant when used on its own to specify ethnicity, as second and third generation children have been born since the main periods of migration.


 * Nationality
 * Some destination countries use nationality as their primary criterion, implying that migrants cease to be minorities once they have qualified for citizenship. However, it is clear that many of the disadvantages and other experiences associated with minority status continue long after naturalisation has been completed. Also, the nationality laws associated with Britain’s former empire are far too complex for this to be a useful criterion on its own.


 * Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if what you have written has any bearing on the article. The article is not about categorizing British immigrants based on national origins or ethnicity alone. It is about categorising them based on ancestry, so it doesn't matter if that is based on nationality, country of birth or ethnicity. And why should Black Britis be included in this template. Well, let me ask you this, where would a Chinese American be included in the Asia template (along with the other Chinese) or in the Americas one.?--23prootie (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article cannot contain a mixture of ethnicity and nationality for the simple reason that this creates ambiguity as to which groups are classified where. It also gives people the opportunity to personally classify groups as he or she sees fit rather than according to where they actually migrated from, which is the exact opposite of NPOV. The Chinese American example you cite, moreover, is irrelevant since Chinese Americans don't migrate in great (if any) numbers to the UK let alone from Africa. You still have also been unable to refute that which has been presented above and consensus on this matter has been reached. I therefore strongly suggest you stop reverting the page. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why
The reason why I prefer these templates to be mixed ethnicity + nationality is because there are some articles that would be lost and left uncategorised if the focus is nationality alone. For example British Kurds, Assyrians in the United Kingdom and Maori in the United Kingdom. A considerable amount of articles would be left in the dust so unless you find a way that they get into a template that doesn't get deleted, they should stay right here.--23prootie (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those articles that "will be left in the dust", as you say, can and indeed should be main-linked from their respective national articles. That's still no argument for this bizarre mish mash of ethnicity and nationality you and only you are advocating. Consensus on this matter has been reached; kindly respect it. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts

 * 1) Everybody's ancestors came from Africa
 * 2) Genetically, African races differ more from each other than non-African races do from each other, & from some African races
 * 3) In America, the standard term is now African American; in Britain it's still black

131.111.164.110 (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, seem to have got accidentally logged out somehow. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 In Britain, African is used exclusive of West Indian
 * 5 Americans have had it so dinned into them that they must say African American, not black, that they sometimes unthinkingly say it in reference to people with no American connexion at all

Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
What i have been trying to say all along is that there are some articles in the templates that do not necessarily correspond to specific countries (ex. Scandinavian migration to the United Kingdom, British Indo-Caribbean community) while there others that are, by themselves, ethnicities (i.e. Assyrians in the United Kingdom, African American British). If the template remains geography-exclusive then there would be articles that would excluded simply because they don't correspond to a specific country.--23prootie (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an irrelevant point to this discussion, as this template features none of the aforementioned articles, nor do any of them apply to migrations of people from Africa to the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we are supposed to be discussing these templates in general, not just the African one (see above), but the point is that the templates shouldn't be a mish-mash of ethnicities and countries of birth. If that's the best we can do, there shouldn't be a template at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)