Talk:African Americans/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

every time you give a black person the distinction of being "African American" out of a mixed group, you're making an assumption about an entire continent; not everyone from Africa is black. I guarantee all you politically correct morons out there have never called a white person an African American. Of course you could avoid all these problems by using the same standards on blacks as you would on whites by simply assuming that all whites are from Africa just as you do for all blacks, but that might be too forward, and in a polite society like ours, people would be all too pleased to point out which of the 192 countries you didn't guess they were actually from

Not only is that a good point, but let me add a few more. First off, why have we accepted "African-American" as being politically correct as opposed to "black", but we do not require the national origin before "White" or "Caucasion". As a black man, I prefer the term "black", just as my counterparts use. It seems as though the term African-American is the PC way for a white American to refer to us, but not necessarily so for the black community. Also, why has America decided that Africa must be the furthest that the black population trace their roots? Is it not possible that a black person can have a family tree that never originated in Africa? Of course it can, especially if you believe in the bible, in which case we should all be considered Eden-Americans. I think that calling me an African-American is just as bad as these people who have 1/32 Irish roots and consider themselves Irish, yet choose not to mention the other 31/32 of their heritage. These are the people who want to be "cool" by going around calling themselves Irish, or whatever nationality they choose, yet they rarely have any clue about there heritage. I feel that if it is so "cool" to be Irish, German, or whatever you want to call yourself, then why don't you move back to your homeland if it's so great. Personally, I would rather be called American than black or African-American. I am proud of my roots in this country, and that's as far back as I need to go. After all, why would I want to be associated with a continent that is drenched in poverty and corruption?

African Ancestory

"An African American is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa"

Everyone's ancestors were indigenous to Africa. This should say "recent ancestors". When I added this, someone reverted it saying that "This article speaks in centuries-old historical context, not hundreds of thousands of years of ancestry" but I can find no reference to this in the article's introduction. Kernow 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor should you expect to. This is the normal way of talking about this. Conversely, do you see discussion of presumed African ancestry in articles on ethnic groups that have no African ancestry in the last several thousand years? No, you do not. Try seeing how you do in the articles on, oh, the Germans, the Japanese, and the Incas in emphasizing their pre-prehistoric African ancestry. This is simply not how we (or much of anyone) writes about ethnic groups. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Other ethnic groups are not defined by their African ancestry. Regardless of whether "This is the normal way of talking about this", according to the Wikipedia definition, everyone in the United States is an African American. This is clearly wrong and can be resolved by the addition of a single word "recent". Kernow 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think this is sheer pedantry, and the wrong way to go. I'd appreciate if some others would weigh in. - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Jmabel, for reasons stated above. Badagnani 04:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC

US Census demography v cultural, social

See the long closing sentence

Blacks from African and predominantly black, non-Hispanic countries such as Haiti, the Bahamas, and Jamaica, though often referred to by their nations of origin and not culturally defined as African American socially, are demographically classified with black/African American by the U.S. Census; however in general, the cultural assumption is that if a person is black, native English-speaking and living within the United States, he or she is African American.

That should be rewritten as a second paragraph

Blacks from African and predominantly black, non-Hispanic countries such as Haiti, the Bahamas, and Jamaica are classified as black/African American by the U.S. Census.

Full stop. (Here I rely on others that the US Census does use the classification "black/African American" with slash and no hyphen.) Anyway, then somehow complete the second paragraph with content related to the two other pieces.

though often referred to by their nations of origin and not culturally defined as African American socially, . . .

however in general, the cultural assumption is that if a person is black, native English-speaking and living within the United States, he or she is African American.

--P64 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be incorrect

African-American describing someone with African descent residing in America seems to be incorrect. Africa being a continent and America being a country should encourage persons wanting to express their heritage through title to research which particular country in Africa they are descended from. ie German-American, Irish-American, Mexican-American etc if that is your certain way of thinking. But, if picking a nation to pledge allegiance to, true identity is where your citizenship is. I AM AN AMERICAN and Proud of my country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.192.73.97 (talk • contribs) 2 September 2006.

I can't tell if this is serious, trolling, or what. Do you understand how most sub-Saharan Africans arrived in America? They were forcibly brought as slaves. It is nearly impossible for a particular African-American to trace his or her ancestry through slave times, let alone work out where in Africa some ancestor may have come from. Not to mention that none of the modern (post-colonial) countries of the parts of Africa from which slave were taken existed at the time. Not to mention, either, that Wikipedia here is simply following existing usage, not inventing a new taxonomy. - Jmabel | Talk 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"niggers"

My edit, "pejoratively known as niggers", was reverted. I would like to note that this piece of information may be noteworthy in a truely comprehensive and non-biased encyclopedia. Jay Kana 01:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am answering you on the unlikely possibility that you are bringing this up in good faith. We have an entire article on the word "nigger". The word is not specific to African Americans. It refers, when used, to any person perceived by the speaker as Black.

Do you feel, for example, that the article on George W. Bush should mention that some people call him the "Smirking Chimp" and others the "Commander-in-Thief"? Or that our article German people should include such terms as "Boche", "Kraut", and "Hun"? I hope not. These are covered in List of United States Presidential nicknames and Offensive terms per nationality#Germans, respectively, which is where they belong.

In general, insults don't belong in biographies or in articles about ethnic groups, except when the can really be used to illustrate a point (as, in Talleyrand's biography, we describe the incident in which Napoleon referred to him as "shit in a silk stocking"). - Jmabel | Talk 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe for a second the edit was done in good faith. And this guy describeshimself as a writer and journalist on his user page. He is also, I note, of Italian ancestry. I wonder if he's gone to the article on "Italian American" and inserted "bohunk," "wop," or "guinea" there. I somehow doubt it. deeceevoice 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Latin America is not a race lol

""Many African Americans have a degree of European, Native American, Asian and/or Latin American ancestry as well.""

This doesn't have any sense becuase Latin AMerican like AMericans are of European, Native Americans Asian or Black ancestries too. I'll delete it. What do you think???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.16.20.183 (talk • contribs) y September 2006.

Actually, African, European and Asian are not "races" either. They encompass geographic territory and have hundreds of ethnicities that fall under the terms African, European, Asians and yes, also Latin American (or Latino). Actually, the use of Latin American in this article is the same of as the rest, seeing as there are individual "races" in Latin American under various Latin American nationalities that defy classifications as black or white or Asian, such as "mestizos," mulattos," etc. For example, the majority of Dominicans are mulatto, the majority of Mexicans are mestizo, and these are what is generally thought of when one thinks of Dominican or Mexican as an individual culture or "race", as opposed to nationality. Many African Americans do have a degree of Mexican mestizo..or Dominican, Brazilian or Puerto Rican "mulatto", with Mestizo and Mulatto etc. being in fact racial classifications within Latin American countries. Just as Asian could encompass Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc and European could be French, Italian, British, etc and any number of cultures and each of those as nationalities have citizens of various ethnicities and cultural backrounds. Though there are Europeans of various backrounds outside of Europe, there is a "racial" or cultural element given when people discuss them. Therefore, the argument of Latin American could be attributed to any continental classification, African-European-Asian etc. if perceived as such, but I don't think the general public perceives that as such and therefore, I think the article should remain as it is regarding the Latin American ancestry statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dynamicknowledge24 (talk • contribs) 8 September 2006.

Footnotes instead

I think the quality of this article could be enhanced with in-text citations in the form of footnotes (not just external links). In some of the sections, there are many statements that seem to need a citation (while others are very well sourced). If some of the original editors would like to change the external references section into footnotes, that would be extremely helpful. I'm not suggesting that every source needs to be a URL, but many statements seem to need a footnote (even if that is to a book). I just thought I would post my thoughts before adding a bunch of {{fact}} tags. Thanks. Ufwuct 23:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and I for one, appreciate your thoughts, however, there are footnotes listed at the bottom of the African American article in addition to external links and references. Those exist so people can look into the research given in creating this page. I don't feel EVERY sentence subject to controversy should be presented with a footnote, and I also feel that people should be willing to check out the external links and occasionally pick up a book to verify information as opposed to searching for everything on Wikipedia. After all, these books and references and ultimately, all the information given in this article, long predates the existence of Wikipedia. Just my personal thoughts, mind you. dynamicknowledge24

Andrew Jackson?!?!?!

I don't doubt the possibility/probability of some Presidents and many American Whites in general having African ancestry... But... Andrew Jackson... c'mon!!! He was the son of Scots-Irish immigrants... explain how he could possibly have African-American ancestry!!!

Well, believe it or not, some people of Irish and Scottish descent, even within Ireland and Scotland as nations themselves, outside the United States, have some African ancestry as well. I think instead of critizing the inclusion of this statement despite the fact that external links and references are included, I suggest any user of Wikipedia do their own legitimate research into the matter at hand (perhaps by tracking down the books listed or exploring the external links and references) instead of waiting for someone to explain it to them. dynamicknowledge24

Halle Berry Ethnicity

An user reverts Halle Berry's paternal parentage from African American to Black, this reason being because "we don't know her parents admixture," despite the fact the it is widely known, even stated by Berry herself, that her father is African American, and also an unregistered user continuously reverts the fact that she is the first "Black" actress to win the Academy Award for best actress, this user's reasons in stating that "she is ONLY half black." For anyone with a history in the United States (especially African Americans themselves), it is widely known (even discussed in that section of the article) that generally the terms African American and black are interchangeable in the U.S. and that also even so called "half black" individuals are in fact considered black and classified as such in the United States.

Moreso than that however, is the fact that Halle Berry herself has referred to herself as the "first Black actress to win an Academy Award for best actress," refers to herself as a black woman and black actress, as opposed to a "half-black" woman and "half-black" actress, and even dedicated her award to the many black actresses that came before her. I placed the picture of Halle Berry in the article "Who is African American" in order to illustrate an African American/black woman of bicultural heritage who is widely accepted as black, which is a photograph of a well-known person regarded as black. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, however, I am presenting the facts as they are known not only by the general U.S. public, but stated by Berry herself. I would appreciate if other longtime users and editors of this article would weigh in. Thanks. dynamicknowledge24

The problem is where do you draw the line? There are several U.S. presidents who have black blood, and now that we know it we can see signs of it in their appearance, but people are still waiting for the first Black president. Halle Berry could easily pass for Spanish, and that's exactly how she looks in the photo you showed. To me you have to be more than 50% Black to be Black since that's the way it is in most of the world. However the term African-American applies only to being Black in America so African-American should be based on the one drop rule.

Semi-protection Suggestion

I would also like to restore the semi-protection for awhile. Longtime editors of this particular article may remember the amount of vandalism this page has seen almost every other day, and how many times in the history of this page that semi-protection has been necessary. I have never posted myself before but I see a need for it now. Since a user took it off just a little over a week ago, I have seen statements in the article by unregistered users stating that African Americans should be kicked out of confederate states, a user put a portrait of a baseball player in the heading of the entire article with the caption, "A famous black man," and the continuous reedits of Halle Berry's caption (over 10 times now) despite the fact I only put it on the page less than one day ago. In fact, those who edit Halle Berry's page had to put up protection from vandalism. Also, for those who do not know anything about US racial classifications (and this article is on African Americans, a United States ethnic group), "Mulatto" is not a racial category in the U.S., neither is it even a common term in the United States.

As an African American, I care very much about the factual content (good, bad or indifferent) of this article. In fact, any proud African American should, or anyone in general concerned with presenting things in a truthful manner, because in many major search engines on the internet, you type in African American or Black history or African American history, this article on Wikipedia is one the first ones to pop-up. This article is being viewed by millions of people worldwide at any time during the day and therefore should not be allowed to be vandalized for even a second. I would like my fellow users and those who care about the true integrity of this article to weigh in their opinions about the temporary Semi-(or possibly full)protection question and maybe even rate the quality of the article and contribute ideas before editing about what would make it better. For the time being, I hope everyone is well and I await responses. --dynamicknowledge24

My opinion on this article is that it is lengthy and that some parts are very well sourced while others are not. My suggestion about footnotes still stands. For an example of the level of footnoting that we might try to aim for, take a look at this article. I will work on converting the sources to references, partly because this preserves information about the source even if one of the URLs becomes a dead link. After that, I'll add {{fact}} tags to unsourced statements. As for the need for semiprotection, I've seen far higher levels of vandalism on other articles, but I haven't worked on this particular article for long, so I'm not familiar with its history. Personally, I might wait 24 hours or something like that to see if it gets worse or if it subsides. Thanks for being welcoming of others' input. That openness is sometimes hard to find on talk pages. Ufwuct 03:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that semiprotection is needed for this article, please visit WP:RFPP. Keep in mind that an administrator might not automatically accept your request, though I can agree with of your points. You might want to see WP:SEMI first to review the guidelines so that you can build the strongest case possible before making a request at WP:RFPP. The semiprotected template, as posted before was not working because it was just a template, nothing more. It wasn't stopping anonymous IP users from editing. However, it might have been dissuading legitimate unregistered users from making good-faith edits. That is why El Rojo [1] and I [2][3] removed the tag. Thanks for your contributions to this article. Ufwuct 03:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

RE User 64.230.70.211

This user is editing recklessly despite incontrovertable evidence of how the general United States and Halle Berry perceives herself. Personally his comments regarding the criticism of other users are bordering on slander and I don't feel it should be tolerated, especially from a user who is not even registered. If he feels so strongly that Ms. Berry isn't "black," he should address that here in discussion toward popular opinion of the editors of this page, as opposed to editing based on personal opinion. I have a long history with this page and I do not appreciate what pettiness is turning it into.

I speak as an African American and a person well-versed in African American history through personal study, professional institutions and life itself. I refuse to allow anyone to deface this page. If this continues, I will once again place a semi-protection block, as other users have seen fit to do in the past, which might I add prevented reduced the numbers of previous vandalism. I would like longtime contributors of this page to weigh in. Thank you. dynamicknowledge24

Please don't confuse my disagreemnet about Halle Berry with vandalism. I've made many positive changes to this article including adding Barack Obama's photo with reference that's very relevant to the discussion in that section. I added a photo of Tiger Woods to illustrate the complexity of hypodescent. And I've now decided that it's fine to call Halle Berry Black as long as we make clear this is only because she's American. In fact I added a sentence about Brazil to her caption to allow her photo to also illustrate the Afro-Latino reference I added. And btw there's no way millions of people read this article per day, or even per month. Even CNN doesn't get those kind of numbers64.230.70.211 06:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For those who are familiar with U.S. Census, Afro-Latinos are in fact demographically classified with Hispanics and not African Americans in the United States. Any non-Hispanic blacks are classified with African American. Actually, many African American census are stated as "African American/non-Hispanic". Predominantly black or mulatto Latino cultures such as Dominican and Cuban are classfied with Hispanic. Do your research.

On to my next point, there are separate articles for "Afro-brazilian", "Afro-latino", etc on Wikipedia and they have no bearing on this article whatsoever. This article is about an ethnic group in the United States, its history and perspective, not the perspective of cultures from other countries that have their individual articles. If your going to say, "she's black here, but white somewhere else," this article isn't about what she'd be somewhere else, this article is about what she is here in the United States, because she is in fact, an American. By Latin American standards, if most African Americans were born in Latin American, they would in fact be classified as mulatto, which is a racial classification there...

and for those in the know, the main reasons people self-identify more in Brazil as mulatto than black is because to be called "black" in Brazil is almost synonomous with being considered of low social class...a remnant from Brazil's own history with racism ... the one drop rule was never incorporated in Latin America, they have a very different history and culture than blacks in the U.S. period....do your research...

BTW Halle Berry herself has referred to herself as "black" in numerous interviews, even in the acceptance speech for her Oscar, and she is viewed as black by the vast majority of African Americans (so, essentially how you or I look at her is irrelevant). Also, perhaps you don't know that African Americans collectively are referred to as "Black America"

If I were to use your logic, in every article about an ethnic group, we would say, "here they are this, but there they are that." For example in Italy, there are many people in Northern Italy who say Sicilians are closer to black than white, but you will never here such a thing in the U.S.

Now before I revert those particular additions, I would like to compliment you on the Barack Obama addition. Personally, I thought that was a great addition and perfectly suited for the article as a whole and it was well placed.

Now, ff other users, (especially longtime editors of this article), find my logic about your other statements wanting, they know they are more than free to express themselves. After all, that is what the discussion page is all about. On a final note...I cannot imagine the amount of people who log on to Wikipedia each day. I know there are over a million articles created in English alone, and many more hundreds of thousands in other languages, also, CNN is American, not the WORLD WIDE WEB, which is global. If only a fraction of those numbers see this article worldwide, that only adds up enough to keep this article the best it can be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.49.221.43 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 13 September 2006.

If you read the references that were added, half-Black Latino go from being White to being Black the second they move from Brazil to America. That is extremely relevant to any discussion about being Black in America and the one drop rule. It's impossible to write an article about the Black experience in America unless you use other countries as reference points, especially when people from those countries come to America, and many self-identify as African-American. There's no point in having Halle Berry's photo unless it can be used to illustrate the points made in the section she was added.64.230.66.19 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did read the sentence, and as I pointed out, for those who know US demographics, blacks from immigrate from Latin American countries are classified with Hispanic (and in some cases, South American) and not African American, just as whites from Hispanic countries are classified as Hispanic instead of White. So as far as them being "automatically" black upon entrance to the US, that is a false statement.

While many will assume them to be black or African American socially, and SOME ( and not commonly) will identify as African American, that is not the social standard they are measured to when they generally self-identify demographically or by the government when they immigrate. I know this for a fact, especially in my travels through Latin America. Also, as far as it being "impossible" to write about the black experience in America without references to other countries, try reading the one of the thousands of books in the United States about African American or black history. I have several in my own personal library that have no mention of blacks in other countries. As a matter of fact, there are many African Americans in certain areas of the US who don't even know there is such a thing as black Latinos.

I must once again stress that African American culture is completely different form that of Afro-Cuban or Afro Brazilian or any other Afro Latino cultures, which is why they have their own pages and is not merged with this one. Perhaps you should read through them. If you actually know any personally from any of those countries, ask them if they identify demographically with Latino or Hispanic as opposed to African American. Once again, I am removing the reference.

If I can jump in here, I think you're missing the point. The article explains that when Latinos with Black blood enter the United States they are Black whether they like it or not. It doesn't matter how they self-identify. Similarly, when Halle Berry steps out of the United States she becomes mixed race, and when she steps into most of Latin America, she becomes White. In those countries if she self-identifies as Black, people will just look at her like she's stupid. I don't know where you get this naive idea that we get to decide what race we are. So if Halle Berry decides she's Oriental, she gets to be the first Oriental acrtress to win an Oscar too. LOL! Timelist 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(LOL!!!) First of all, just so we are clear, Halle Berry would actually be considered "MULATTA," racially by Brazil and most of Latin American. These users have obviously never traveled there or done adequate research on their racial classifications. Second, I think it is you who is missing the point (Lol). First of all, many Latinos, including Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, Brazilian, etc. have "black blood" as a basic part of their multicutural racial make up, (most members of these cultures identify themselves as a mixture of Indigenous, Spanish and African) yet most of them are not considered black in the U.S., despite having black blood in their basic heritage. It depends on how evident "black" features are in an individual. If "Timelist" followed this discussion from the beginning, the user I debated with first stated Halle Berry isn't black because she was only "half." I used the fact that black indentity in the US, (which is what that particular article regards), is still black even if there is other admixture and also noted that not only do most Americans regard her as black, but that she herself does. Second of all, if anyone stepped out of their country to another one, they would be perceived differently. When I was in Mexico, most people assumed I was a mulatto from a Latin American country (their guesses were Cuba or Puerto Rico), despite the fact I am not mulatto, even by old American standards. Most African Americans visiting Latin American would be perceived as "mulatto" (racial catergory in Latin America) by Latinos in those countries before they open their mouths. When I say I am African American, they accept that as fact, just as when a Dominican says they are mulatto to an black person in America, it doesn't matter if that black person accepts it or not.

Do you think, for example, when Beyonce tours in Brazil, she automatically changes her ethnicity to suit them because she is light-skinned? Or if she or Halle Berry goes to South Africa, they automatically claim they are "colored." Do you think news reports in Brazil won't say Halle Berry is African American despite the fact news reports in the United States will? Your ethnicity doesn't change when you leave a country, just people's perspective of it, which would apply to anyone in the world, not just Halle Berry. I will reiterate my point once more, this article is about African Americans, an ethnic group in the United States. Also, how another country perceives a person is irrelevant. For example, if a mestizo (racial classification in Latin American) from Mexico comes to the U.S., there is no Mestizo classification in the United States, very few Americans will say, "you are Mestizo," ....all the general public would say is that person is Mexican, despite the fact that "Mexican" is not a race, but a nationality. So you think that person would never think or say they are Mestizo again? Once again, Afro Brazilian, Afro Lation etc. have there own articles (which by the way are about them with no reference to African Americans) dynamicknowledge24

PS. Another thing, you said it should be made "evident" that Halle Berry is black by US centric ideas. The fact that this article is about African AMERICANS, an ethnic group in the UNITED STATES, and that at the very beginning of the "Who is African American" section, the very FIRST sentence states, " that to be considered black in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not even half of one's ancestry need be black." All of that is not "evident" to you. LOL

Also, if you live in the U.S., you know that African American identity is synonomous with black identity. As a matter of fact when people in the US say a "black" person (which is actually more commonly used than African American,) they are referring to African Americans, if they are talking of any other black culture, they typically say it by national descent or ancestry, such as Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, etc. I state this because the Tiger Woods caption says he is African American, but not black, which by U.S. standards is a complete contradiction, and in an artical about African Americans (also referred to as "blacks" and "black americans") makes no sense. Period

First of all Halle Berry has four times more White blood than most African-Americans, so she would be percieved very differently from other African Americans when she leaves the US. Second of all calling Halle Berry Black is not factually correct. She is at least 50% White, probably more so since her Dad probably has white blood, so technically she is either mixed race or White. The fact that she is percieved as Black in the U.S. makes her African America (i.e. Black when in America)but her biology remains static no matter how different cultures react to it. Now if Halle Berry is married a typical African-American, her kid would be mulatta in Brazil, but Halle herself would be considered White. Timelist 04:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, have you taken a blood degree genetic test on Halle Berry to say she has "four times" more white blood than most AA's? Most AA's have various degrees, therefore there is no standard. Also, believe or not, many Europeans in various European countries have some black African ancestry as well, (if you didn't know, black African Moors conquered various European nations over the centuries and made "genetic contributions" to several European societies) and just like certain US presidents, now can pass for white, therefore, you cannot ascertain her mother's complete racial genealogy anymore than you can her father's. I was not aware you were a geneticist. Also, if you have ever been to ANY Latin American country for an extended length of time, the concepts of black and white racially are based completely on skin color and traits in all Latin America, and not parentage. Anything naturally even slightly darker than white skin is called, "Moreno" Trigueno" Mulatto" etc etc. Why is it that you think slightly over half of Brazil's population is identified as "mulatto" and "black," as opposed to white? To be considered "white" in Latin America, you literally have to be not only of overwhelming predominant European ancestry, but also have "white" skin combined with "white" facial features. Those who are called "white" in Brazil are predominantly descended from "pure" Portuguese, German, Italian, etc etc. I know this to be a fact and nothing you can say or argument you can make can change that and you can present no evidence to support your claims. If you bother to research into what I am saying, you will find out it is the truth. If you travel internationally, or even know people directly from those nations, maybe you'll learn. You can tell me no different. Not only am I married to a Latina, but I have lived in Latin American countries for months at a time, as well, and also done extensive research into the racial demographics and issues of Latin American nations.

Anyone with two eyes can see Halle Berry doesn't have "white skin." I don't know where you are from or what you intend to prove, because obviously IF you are American, you're very disconnected from general perception, because I have never in life had to have this kind of argument, because to most people here, its common sense. The basic facts are these...EVERY nation in the world has a different perspective on cultural and racial issues. THIS article is not about the world's perspective on the black people in the United States. If that is your issue, you should take it to the "Black" people page or the "White" people page. THIS article is NOT about your personal perspectives contradicting the facts presented in this article about an AMERICAN ethnic group, or your personal guideline for who is black or not in America,(or anywhere else for that matter), only the guidelines of the United States and the ethnic group this who's history and culture this article is about. This article is about African American history, culture, issues and contributions in the United States, period. Any other issues as far as race is concerned belongs in other pages.

dynamicknowledge24

I quote from the article: Many Latino immigrants to America are shocked to discover they've become Black the moment they set foot on U.S. soil. "In this country, if you are not quite white, then you are black," said Jose Neinstein, a native white Brazilian and executive director of the Brazilian-American Cultural Institute in Washington. But in Brazil, he added, "If you are not quite black, then you are white." You are not being a responsible editor because you're give more weight to what you can see with your own 2 eyes and your personal travels than you do to what can be verified. That's original research. And as for Halle Berry's race, the typical African-American is only 13% White, and the typical White is about 99% White, so there's no reason to assume Berry (who is a cross of both) has more Black in her than White. Thus it's POV one drop rule pushing to call her Black. Just call her the first African American or first colored woman or say she is perceived or self-identifies as Black. It's not POV to say African American because that's based on America's standard for being Black which she fits. Timelist 05:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

"the journal article "The Politicization of Changing Terms of Self Reference Among American Slave Descendants" in American Speech v 66 is 2 Summer 1991 p. 133-46."

It's been a long time since I read through this journal article or visited this African American page. I don't have my copy handy but I think everything from the journal article has been taken out of this article. If someone has a copy handy maybe we can put some stuff from the journal article back in. --Gbleem 03:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst

"Whilst not as common as "mixed", "biracial", or even "multiracial", mulatto is rarely used to refer to people of mixed parentage because many consider it inherently derogatory."

Something is wrong with this sentence. I'm not sure what it is saying. I'm confused. --Gbleem 03:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for recent changes

After doing quite a bit of the initial writing on this article a long time ago, I'm finally getting around to revisiting it. I've skimmed/read some portions of it and made some changes -- which were summarily reverted, wholesale, by an editor going by the name of User:Dynamicknowledge24. Here is a rationale for some of the changes, which were reverted -- automatically, clearly without even examining the changes. Perhaps we can discuss those at issue here.

First paragraph

1. I removed the reference to "Latin American" ancestry, because it makes no sense in the context of racial designation. Latinos can be of any race.
2. I've reverted the language and pared it down even further. The definition states that African Americans are those "whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa" [emphasis added]. "Indigenous" is the key here. The only other non-black people considered indigenous to Africa (and, IMO, erroneously) are Maghreb Berbers (as opposed to eastern Berbers, who are black). There need not be anyone else specifically excluded from the category of "African-American" in the opening paragraph, which is a general statement of what follows in the article. Other, non-indigenous groups who do not fit the category are addressed at length later on in the article as the definition is refined(under "Criticisms"), a fact which made the material previously in this paragraph -- which I deleted -- redundant.
3. "Have" is unnecessary and implies something recent or only those still living -- when past immigrants, living and deceased, fit the category also.
4. The final sentence changed was simply unnecessarily long. Semicolons to join independent clauses are overused. It's better to simply make two sentences out of one. deeceevoice 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nomenclature," etc.

As I indicated in my edit notes, it is Wiki style not to use quotation marks when referring to specific terms. Italics are used instead. Quotation marks are used for direct quotes. Many of the changes under this section are simply no-brainers. The reverts seemingly were made by someone who appears to take a proprietary view of the article and simply did an automatic revert -- again, without really examining the changes. They restored a typo, grammatical and syntactical errors, etc. The others are editorial/copy edit changes that clarify, pare down or fix verbiage. They are improvements in the syntax or structure of sentences, or corrections of typos. There is one passage that seemingly credits Jackson with single-handedly bringing about the change in terminology to "African-American." This is simply a gross over simplification and cannot be substantiated. If the author believes he/she can subtantiate such a preposterous claim, then I invite him/her to provide an appropriate citation should they decide to revert the text again. No one (at least no one who is educated or who carries any weight) considers any white people indigenous to Africa, so that clause has been deleted. The only non-black peoples even remotely considered to be indigenous to the African continent are Maghreb Berbers. Period. Reverted. Please read the edit notes before making blanket reversions. deeceevoice 09:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Rationale...first of all, if you have ever traveled and stayed in Latin America, (or even did some worthwhile research) you would know there are governmental racial classifications specific to those Latin American countries, such as Mestizo, Mulatto, etc. For example, the majority of Mexicans are mestizo, while indigenous and white people living in Mexico are classified as different races. Also, mulatto is ALL Latin American countries means having both European and African ancestry, not specifically having one black parent and one white. Next, I was not the one who including the Jesse Jackson statement, though I remember having conflict with the author who did. Personally, I do know for a fact that his popularity in the 80's did do alot to promote to use of the term African American in mainstream society, and while he is not the only one to be credited..(I also recall mentions of Malcolm X and others prior) his popularity in the 80's contributed greatly to the adoption of the term in mainstream society, just as Martin Luther Kings' popularity contributed greatly to the advances of the Civil Rights movement (though he himself was not by far solely responsible for its success, but he remains the most widely-known figurehead of the civil rights movement.) As far as citations go, I think certain editors are overdoing, asking for citations for things that are commonly known throughout the United States.

Ask ANY Carribean immigrant to the US if they have ever been assumed to be or mistaken for black american before they open their mouth. I would bet any one you ask who has been in this country more than a few weeks would tell you yes. Not only that though, but every ounce of information in this article can be found in the books referenced below, (if anyone on wikipedia would bother to read any), the external websites listed below (did anyone check) footnotes and the abundant links that are in other sections of the page. This has been here for months without much damage to it, (especially when protection was up, which I was not the user who activated it) generally accepted by the vast majority of longtime users and editors of this page...now I find myself debating with a few new users who disagree with what has been established, even in black history textbooks that where written before Wikipedia was even established. Personally, I welcome any user who wishes to improve the page or add on, but they just started editing based on personal opinions and not facts and with no comments prior to editing from the discussion board or longtime editors, which I find a little distasteful.

As far as Deecevoice is concerned, I have alot of respect for the many quality edits you have done in this article, dating back several months. Hopefully we can all come to a resolution about this which will improve the article, instead of destroy what has already been established. dynamicknowledge24

Ditto for the other changes that were reverted. I also reverted "In a similarity to," which corresponds to no known form of standard English with which I am familiar. It made wrong something that was perfectly fine. deeceevoice 09:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the reverts were a problem as well, especially since "rv" or "revert" are not used by this editor in the editor summaries, with space in the edit summaries entirely reserved for scolding other editors. I have declared my intentions to improve the format, style, and sourcing of the article[4]. I would think these types of edits would be relatively free of controversy. I have no interest in arguing over Halle Berry's ethnicity or race, aside from making sure that all discussions (in general) are made in a civil manner. Let's see how this whole thing evolves. Thanks. Ufwuct 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty formerly an image of a black slave?

I was interested in tracking down the photo cited in the New York Post article. I quickly searched on Google and found instead an article claiming the slave hypothesis to be an urban myth.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/liberty.htm

Before I research further, can anyone else cite evidence in support of this claim?

Johkc 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Johkc

I'll poke around a little... but if it can't be verified, I'm thinking the section should be deleted. --Ling.Nut 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Timelist's edits

I think we need help at African American -- User:Timelist continues to insist on his/her edits which are horribly misspelled and delete valid information about Halle Berry's self-identification. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani 04:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are not consistent with the article. The article states that half-Black people are considered Black in the U.S.. Thus all we are allowed to say is that Halle Berry is considered by Americans to be the first Black woman to win the Oscar for Best actress. To state for a matter of fact that she is Black is not only a violation of wikipedia's neutral point of view, it's also factually incorrect (she's not of predominantly African origin) and it also imposes a US centric definition of Black as the correct one, ignoring the countries in Latin America, not to mention all the mixed race Americans, who do not regard Halle as Black. Just because the article is about how Blacks are regarded in America does not mean wikipedia must abandon its neutral POV policy for a U.S. centric POV, and an outdated one to boot. It's also pushing the one drop rule which is rooted in racism. It doesn't matter how Halle Berry self-identifies. That's of no relevance at all. Lot's of celebs self-identify as 5'10" when they're really only 5'8" or claim they're 45 when they're really 50. Timelist 05:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the fact that she self-identifies as Black to the caption. That should solve the problem.64.230.66.19 05:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is part of U.S. history and the conceptualization was originally that any degree of African blood meant that one was "negro." Racist whites originally believed that black blood was a form of contamination but today it is usually considered a point of pride for those who identify as Black and/or African American. I'm not certain you can claim that Halle Berry is less than 50% black, nor is it certain that people who have 49% or less African blood may not self identify as Black. Today it's generally by self-identification, as some African Americans are very light in skin color.

Here is a segment from Halle Berry's 2002 speech:

"This moment is for Dorothy Dandridge, Lena Horne, Diahann Carroll. It's for the women that stand beside me - Jada Pinkett, Angela Bassett and it's for every nameless, faceless woman of colour that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened.

I believe these people mentioned by Berry, in comparison to herself, are all African American and black, as is Berry. Badagnani 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice how she was smart enough to use the outdated term "woman of colour" and not Black. She's smart enough not to offend all her mixed race fans by pushing the one drop rule. Look, I have no problem with us saying she self-identifies as Black and that she's accepted by other Blacks and is considered Black in America. But I do have a problem with us saying she is Black, because then we're telling every mulatto in the world that they're Black, we're saying the one drop rule is correct, and we're going against biology which states that your race is defined by MOST of your ancestors. Also, the whole point of the section is that even people who have substantial white blood are considered Black in America. The whole point of adding Berry's photo was to illustrate that key point. If we simply say she's Black period, oh and by the way she has a Caucasian mom, we're not making the key point. We need to say that Americans PERCEIVE her as Black, despite her white mom. Timelist 05:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you not know that you're not supposed to revert more than 3 times in one 24-hour period (or 6, 7, or 8+ times if you count the times you reverted after logging out and using your IP address, then logging in again), no matter how strongly you feel about an issue? Not to mention that consensus on controversial subjects is supposed to be built here at "discussion." Badagnani 05:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, most of my edits are not reverts. I aim to try something different each time to get a consensus. Second, it's the person who only recently added Halle Berry to the article that started the controversy, so she should be building on a consensus, since she disrupted the status quo with her one drop rule pushing. Third it's just better to call her the first African American because people will always argue that she's mixed race if you claim she's Black. But by calling her the first African American, her title and place in history is secure, since by definition African American is based on American cultural ideas about race, and we don't have to defend it. Timelist 06:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, as 1) the article is titled African American and she is clearly of African descent; and 2) she herself actually used the term "woman of color" (presumably she used the term, which I do not believe to be out of date, to show solidarity with other U.S. women of color of various heritages, including Mexican Americans, Native Americans, etc.). Badagnani 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I did not start a controversy because this is the fact of the United States. You are the only person who seems to have taken a serious issue with this. There is no issue among the American people about her self-identifying as a "black woman" and "black actress." She has even stated in numerous media and publications that quality roles are scarce for black actresses such as herself, and that even now, sometimes she doesn't get roles because the company "didn't want to go black." Besides you TimeLine, where is the controversy? Among the American people? No. Among African Americans. No. How much consensus is backing you in your persective on this article. The original caption "first black woman to win the Academy Award for best actress" is exactly how it is stated in numerous publications, newspapers, magazines, even in the news media at the time etc.. and there was not ONE public controversy about that. So why do you have an issue with it? Where is all the controversy outside of you that you say will come? dynamicknowledge PS: This article is not about pushing the one drop rule, it is about who is defined as black or African American in the United States, that simple.

In addition to all the points that Badagnani made, African American(A.A.) sounds better when mentioned with Academey Award(A.A.). The first A.A. to win the A.A. for best actress. Also I see all the time in print the distinction between Black and mixed race/interracial. If her historical legacy depends on increasingly outdated and U.S. centric standard of being Black, it could be jeopardized at any time. However her title as first African American is much easier to defend, because everyone knows there's a lot of white blood in Black Americans, and everyone knows about America's more inclusive definition of Black. People shouldn't have to read the entire article to understand why Berry is considered Black. If you just call her African American, they understand it's a cultural term that doesn't have to follow pecise biology and is based on America's history. Timelist 06:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you don't realize that "black," in its various constructions, is also a culturally defined term (a flexible and metaphorical one at that, because even in Africa there are varying skin tones, none of which is actually "black." But, as you say, this is not the article Black so the question isn't of greatest relevance if we stick to "African American." Badagnani 06:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is general perception...[[5]]

[[6]] [[7]] [[8]]

I could get many more...but that is beside the point. I am inclined to agree with the fact this article is entitled African American, however, in the Black person page, there is an entire section about black identityt being African American in the U.S. I merely stated as it has been stated countless times before. I don't see it as this major of an issue, but in the the United States, I would like to point out that "Black" is a culture, which it is used in this caption, and not always completely determined by biology. I think to mention where she inherited her black heritage(african american) since black is also listed in the heading as something African Americans are also called (note also:black). If this is not suffient evidence, I could get a hundred more, but whatever works. As long as we construct this into a great article. I myself would like to see more consensus on this myself before we make a final edit regarding this. Once again I ask, generally speaking( because no one answered) where is the controversy?

To try to answer both of you at once, I do realize that Black is alo a cultural term. That's the point. African-American is a nice eloquent way of saying "considered Black in U.S. culture". And you say there is no controversy except for me. If I had the time, I could probably find you THOUSANDS of cites where people complain about Berry being called Black. There are all kinds of controversies over the race of mixed-race people such as the article on ancient Egyptians. Even the mulatto article had to be protected, and so did Berry's article itself. This page doesn't need to deal with that crap and if vandals try to erase Berry's place in history, we have a much stronger case with the moderators if we call her African-American, because then the standard for being Black in other countries don't matter, and since it's a cultural term, self-identification trumps biology. Timelist 07:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try to sign your posts with four tildes and set off your posts from others with the use of colons. I am fine with keeping "African American" and "European" as opposed to "Black" and "caucasian" in this context, and also in support of keeping the Berry photo, as she's a prominent and well regarded self-identifying member of this ethnic group. Badagnani 07:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My question to you, "was there ever ENOUGH controversy to make it a real issue in the United States? No, there wasn't. Besides you, who has made it an issue on this page? Has any long time editor have? Now I am guessing you are not from the United States. Mind you, this is only an assumption based on some of the things you have previously state. Now I have no doubt you could find people who have an issue with it (there are people in the world who have issues with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING) but it doesn't change the facts of how she is preceived generally in her own country. The only reason "Black people" is its own article instead of purely African American because black identity and those who identify with it extends worldwide. Let me ask you a question. Do you think if she herself read this article, that she would be offended by being called "a black actress?" as she has through every form of media in the U.S. If it were that controversial, do you think the media or people in general would use it as they do?

Now, I have no problem with your edits or comments. but you seem especially intent she not be referred to as "black" in any form, and I am curious as to why, especially considering that is how it is used...(also, I would like to note that for many African Americans, the term "african American" is not the eloquent way of saying black, actually, more people commonly use the term black in U.S society than African American, and there are in fact many African Americans who reject the term African American and prefer the term "black" over "African American" and vice versa. As I asked before, why is it such an issue to you that America and African Americans in general view Halle Berry as black? I just don't understand that. It's like, no matter how much evidence you have that this is the general view (which is what is reflected in this article) you particularly seem intent on not letting that view prevail, and I am just very curious as to why. dynamicknowledge24

We seem to have reached consensus, but since I was asked where the controversy is, here's a quote from Ann Coulter[[9]] who is a notable enough figure to have been listed as one of the 100 most influential people on the planet by Time magazine in 2005: It's interesting that Berry makes such a big deal about being black. She was raised by her white mother who was beaten and abandoned by her black father. Clearly, Berry has calculated that it is more advantageous for her acting career to identify with the man who abandoned her rather than the woman who raised her. And no, I don't endorse such arguments, I'm just demonstrating the enormous controvery. As for why I care so much, I should be asking you why you care whether her mother is called Caucasian and not European (the latter sounds nicer) & why you feel its important to point out that the Black blood comes from the paternal side Timelist 07:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First, Oprah has been stated by Halle Berry to be one of her heroes, in fact, she stated in her Oscar acceptance speech, so do you think the opinion a woman (who is non-African American) making some backhanded comment about her cultural heritage matters. Halle Bery herself has stated she has even been called nigger to her face by certain Hollywood type. I don't see your point with the quote. One woman making that comment doesn't make it ENORMOUS controversy. if it were ENORMOUS, there would be far more people making the argument.(Once again, I am very curious about where you are from, you never seem to answer that). As far as the use of the word Caucasian, the terms Caucasian/White is even how it is listed in US national census, not as European (and its irrelevant which one sound "nicer" to you, that is the way it is). Next, I mentioned both sides of her heritage, her mother's and a father's just because some people have wanted to know which parent is which culture, it is mentioned in all of her biographies and is even public knowledge. Personally, alot of the things you and I are debating about is common knowledge in the United States. If I may mention that if you are indeed in another country (or not), do your research before you make comments. It's tedious to debate about things most people in the US already know and I don't feel the need to justify this article or African American perspective to the world, seeing as this isn't about other countries with or without a lack of an open mind. This is about a specific culture, in a specific country, period. dynamic knowledge24

Please sign your posts with four tildes after your comments and set off your posts from others by use of colons. I think Timelist has made it clear that s/he objects to someone being called "black" if they have less than 50 percent African blood. It just goes to show that the definition of "black" is flexible, and this editor has a different definition than the person herself. The U.S. government has laws regulating the blood quantum necessary to qualify as American Indian, yet historically we know that the tribes themselves adopted members who were not genetically Indian, but who learned the ways and language of that particular tribe. It's a cultural identification. The case of black/African American isn't exactly equivalent but I think our discussion here goes a long way toward understanding the issues that color the varying definitions and concepts that these terms represent within the United States (the nation that is the subject of this article). Badagnani 07:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally understand his objection, however, that objection is not the general view of United States society, and this is what this article is based on. Note the comment in the section "generally accepted by whites and blacks." There will always be objections to certain things, there are still people who think African Americans shouldn't have the rights they've gained, etc etc. Though I strongly disagree with Timeline's edits on this page regarding this issue, my most recent edit left out the term "Black" but readded the parental cultural factor, 1) because I think it is relevant and 2) as a compromise so we can get past this particular issue to continue to make improve this page in unity. dynamicknowledge24

As an additional mention about the use of the word "Caucasian", the term European is not used in the United States in reference to "White Americans," but the term Caucasian is, whether it sounds "tacky" or not. To say black and European heritage is not accurate to me because black is a race while European is not a race, but an inhabitant of a continent. To say African and European makes more sense...however, since African Americans technically are not "Africans" and white Americans are not technically "Europeans," the American usage of African American and Caucasian I think are more suitable. I hope Timeline finds this a fair compromise to this issue as a whole, because I would prefer not to argue about this further and to work together to make this article the best it can be.

But we're speaking to a global audience, and we lose credibility with people outside the U.S. if we describe a half-Black person as Black when they're not used to seeing things that way. Yes if they read the article it's explained, but most people look at the pictures, & very few people read the whole article. I still haven't read it all yet. LOL! And even if they do read it, they'll wonder why were describing U.S. racial opinions as fact, and not describing them with neutrality Timelist 07:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but there is no such thing as a "global" audience, because different people in different nations have different historical experences, and thus different perspectives. For example, if a black dominican tells a black american he is mulatto (despite having no white parent), it's not the black americans place to argue with that dominican because in the Domincan Republic, that's how the majority identify themselves, because of their nation, culture and their history, just as black americans identify themselves based on their culture, nation and history. They are two different cultures with two different perspectives and neither has to right to tell the other they are wrong, because it is facts based on their own cultures, facts in their own countries. As far as cultural and racial matters are concerned, there is no such thing as "global facts", because EVERY nation has a different opinion and standard. When I read about Brazil or any other country, I don't change their information to change my nation's point of view, because their point of view is just as valid. Your saying certain admixtured black people aren't black because certain people worldwide don't see it that way? So??? It's irrelevent how they see it. It's not about them. If they don't understand U.S. laws and African American history, then they have plenty of means to research and gain a better understanding of it. US racial opinions are facts in the US, just as South African ones are in South Africa, or Brazilian ones are in Brazil. If certain people don't read the entire article, or do their own research then they are not interested enough to understand, and that is their problem, not ours. Personally, I think you wanted to change this article to suit your own view (since there is no such thing as a global view)....which is the problem with alot of people in the world in general (and one of the reasons for many wars that plague mankind.)

I really like Badagnani's quote (here on the discussion page, not yet in the article) of Berry's acceptance speech. Looks like something that should be in the article, fully and properly cited. Mentioning her self-identification is good info too. As for choosing Black versus African American, I think by the time the reader has advanced to that section of the article s/he knows these terms are interchangeable in common usage in the US. So choose according to taste. BUT stress her self-identification. That is the key point. And by the way, does anyone else think it's getting a little warm in here? A little more compromise and a little less heat might be a little more productive... --Ling.Nut 13:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

BY speaking to a global audience, I mean we can't endorse any one country's definition of Black, not even the country we're writing about. Yes it's a fact that Halle Berry is Black in America (at least it used to be true before the one drop rule became controversial) and yes it's true that she's Black in her heart and soul, however based on her ancestry she does not appear to be Black in objective reality. Brazil's idea that you can't have visible non-Black ancestry to be Black is just as absurd as Amerca's idea that you can't have visible non-White ancestry to be White. The truth is in the middle, between both cultural extremes. I read of a Latino woman who is 75% Black, 25% White, but self-identifies as White, however when she needed an organ transplant, she self-identified as Black and got a Black organ which is more suited to her biology. When it's a matter of life or death, smart people stop playing games and go with the truth. But by all means, talk about how she identifies with other black woman, her admiration for Oprah, and how Oprah hired her to star in Black movies. She is of course African American. But I get very uncomforatble when the word Black is used loosely, because there are many life or death situations where racial terms must be used correctly and I've heard of cases where your type of thinking has cost stubborn African Americans and Afro-Latinos their lives in medical rooms across the Americas. Timelist 16:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There are ways to cover every terminological base. If you don't wanna be the one to assert that Berry is Black, but wanna make the point she is called/referred to as Black in respectable usage (perhaps even by herself; I'm not sure which term she prefers) you can quote an eminently respectable source like NYT or some other periodical and say that they say it...

By the way, it's very important to note that I don't have a type of thinking. I am not staking out a position. I have no personal investment in any outcome of this discussion. I'm just trying to help find a compromise solution. In fact, in my humble opinion there is too much debate (i.e., trying to arrive at a categorical truth) and not enough discussion (trying to arrive at a solution that is at best optimal and at worst acceptable) in this thread. I have no desire to debate you on any point; not even one. I want to see a nice working compromise. Is one available? --Ling.Nut 16:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The compromise we reached is to neither deny she's Black nor confirm it. We're just going to call her African American. Timelist 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While I adibe by the compromise, I would just like to state of few facts. First of all, very few things related to African American identity period is NOT controversial. The term itself is controversial, how Africans from Africa relate is controversial, statistics are controversial, many black americans don't relate to the term African American, and that is controversial. (Once again I stress people read this full article before editing or expressing opinions without the full knowledge of this culture.) Almost anything related to people of African descent could be considered controverial. Every culture written about in any encyclopedia or even here on wikipedia, abides by the standards of the country the culture is written about. For instance, colored is a racial catergory in South Africa and not in many other parts of Africa. Yet if you read about the demographics of South Africa, that racial classification will be there, because that is the culture. I once again stress that there is no GLOBAL opinion on anything,(even appropriate form of government, or the role of woman, and especially race-relations etc.) only facts as each country relates them within their own populace. I would like ANYONE to tell me one thing that is a GLOBAL fact, an opinion shared by every person in every country in the world. As far as this goes, this article can't even speak to a GLOBAL audience because the whole world doesn't speak English (which is why wikipedia has various different languages)

As far as your medical point of view, any geneticist can tell you that your "race cannot be determined by genetics" because race is a social construct, not biological. Try to do genetic testing one day to determine every gene you have in you, and they will tell you there is no complete accuracy, only estimates of degree based on certain traits. Even medically speaking in the United States, blacks and Latinos tend to be more ethnically mixed, however, successful transplants happen "crossracially" everyday between ALL peoples in the United States. While it is preferred that the organs tend to be more compatible if coming from a similar ancestry..... blood type (which is crosscultural) and numerous other non-racial factors play more of an important role. For those who know about this, let's say there is a black transplant patient, and there are two donors who can give...one black and one white...the white persons blood type can match the black persons, while the two blacks blood type may not match. Therefore, the transplant will come from the white man to a black man as opposed from the black man to the black man and vice versa. That in fact is fairly common in the medical field. So this argument loses its validity.

As far as the one drop rule is concerned, it is actually not called the one drop rule anymore and that is not what creates racial catergorization. Halle Berry was always considered black, even by the white people at the all-white schools she attended, and by the vast majority of people she encountered... because of her physical features...and not her biology. That is actually how it is determined, not from the one drop rule. Lets say a person is born to a "mulatto" mother and a white father and the child comes out with completely "white" features. That person will be considered white by everyone the encounter, including general society and demographic, based on their features and not their biology. One drop rule was mentioned in the article as a historical reference, not the reason people identify now. Thus the reason why certain US presidents were white "despite having some black ancestry" because the "black" features were not evident. This is called "passing for white." I would really encourage you to do more reserach Timelist (obviously you are haven't done as much research as you should on this topic) before you edit on facts that other users have contributed. I am not stating my OPINIONS here. I am stating the facts of the culture and society this article addresses. (PS: the same logic appies to Tiger Woods, he is generally viewed as "black" not because of hypodescent or one-drop rule, but because of his features.) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dynamicknowledge24 (talk • contribs).

Dynamicknowledge, I suggest you do a lot more research because race is very much based on genetics, and when mulattoes self-identify as Black instead of as mixed race they frequently get the wrong the drug dosage and get misdiagnosed for certain diseases. This is a medical problem that is extremely well documented and doctors are trying to encourage mixed race people to identify themselves genetically, and not based on all the nonsense you mentioned. And you are also incorrect about the one drop rule not dictating your thinking. If race were only based on appearance, then mulattoes would be considered Black in Brazil, but instead they appear White to Latin Americans. These are cultural perceptions that have been dictated by each countries history. But anyway, we've reached a nice compromise, so let's not waste time & space dragging this discussion out any longer. Timelist 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise, but I would like to point out that II have doen my research and that I don't rely on presumptions or make edits before I read articles in their entirety, nor do I compare the standards of the United States with others. As an African American, I can tell you whether things are determined by a one drop rule or not. I not only read this...I live it. (which obviously you don't.) I don't presume to tell you about your culture (whatever it may be) so I would appreciate if you don't presume to tell me about mine. Like all things in the world, black features are percieved differently crossculturally. The stories I have told you are true with evidence to back it up and ANY African American can tell you (if you know any) that people consider you black by your physical appearance moreso by blood degree and as far as genetics (if you are an African American, do genetic testing and see what they tell you about genetics and race...when you do that, then come back on this topic). If you do not know what constitutes black features in the US....(for the last time...we are not talking about Brazil or whatever other nation you want to throw at this article) then do your research, make some black american friends or whatever you need to do to not speak in ignorance. For the record, for all the controversy you say you were trying to avoid by your editing in this article, it seems to me it was your edits that created it, because no one else on this page seemed to have that much of a problem with it. That Halle Berry story is a story she herself has related to various media, and personally, your comments remind of certain types of people who presume to know more about others perceptions than they actually do. Unless you live here or are a member of this culture, I don't think you can presume to know anything about this. Period. However, those are my final comments to you about this particular matter, irregardless of your response. I live with this compromise to avoid further contamination of this page, so I will just agree to disagree. For all users of Wikipedia, I hope we can continue to work together to create the most representative and informative article about African Americans that we can. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicknowledge24 (talk • contribs)

What about Tiger Woods?

I thought my addition of Tiger Wood's photo did a good job showing the range of controversies regarding this issue, using a very notworthy figure, who's been very influential in redefining what it means to not be Black, however if others really dislike the addition, I wont push it. It just seems very relevant to the article, that's all Timelist 08:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)