Talk:Black Scottish people

Changes

I have edited the paragraph to add some less known early black footballers in Scotland, one at Hearts, and Walter Tull who signed for Rangers so was technically a Rangers player although he never appeared on the team due to the outbreak of WW1. I also removed the last part as it said Rangers banned their own fans (plural) but the citation states only one fan was given a lifetime ban. Furthermore the phrasing gives a false impression it was the Rangers support who made the racist display, in actual fact it was the celtic support, although no celtic fans were banned by the club. 109.155.136.144 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The source cited says that: "The Glasgow club banned some season ticket holders following racist abuse aimed at Walters". That suggests it was more than one. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The other source says there was only one supporter banned. You historic revisionists need to get your propaganda sorted! 109.155.136.144 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a revisionist. I know nothing about the incident, I was just going by the source that was provided! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What about Black Scots BEFORE Whites Came into the Area?

Blacks have been in Scotland before whites came into the area. Don't act like they are from slaves or recent immigrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.197.169 (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That is patently ridiculous.--24.17.205.130 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, before people from germanic/nordic cultures came, it was mostly Celtic. Before that, it was the pre-celtic culture which exists today as the Basque culture. Before that ... well those, those were the glorious times, the high-point of the great and glorious Wooly-Mammoth Empire! 80.195.247.62 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Emeli Sandé is not black Scottish

She was born in Sunderland with no Scottish ancestry.

I propose to remove her from the black Scottish article.--Windows66 (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

what?

Quote from article: "The same report also suggests that Black People in Scotland. while there has also been predictable criticism that Black people are not well represented in Scottish society generally." I can't correct this as I don't have even the slightest clue what this is attempting to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.229.170 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is why this anon is just removing it :p 74.132.180.61 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The original wording was: A report in 2000 suggested that Black people in Scotland had difficulties in feeling a sense of Scottish identity, whilst there has also been criticism that Black people are not well represented in Scottish scoiety generally. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

References

I have reinstated this wording, but please feel free to edit it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Scottish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629181741/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7666.xls to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7666.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303183114/http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2000_ems.htm to http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2000_ems.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Soap

Ip, please note that 3RR is actually over 24 hours and exempts soapbox rolling. Anyway, kindly stop erroneously claiming that a cite was removed from the lede. The temporal dif clearly shows that I rolled to the original [1]. I did this because the phrase tweaks were soapboxing; the stats bureau link doesn't even mention Sub-Saharan Africa much less Afro-Scots. What it does actually indicate is that "the census question on ethnicity changed between 2001 and 2011. In 2011, tick boxes were added for ‘White: Polish’ and ‘White: Gypsy / Traveller’. Also, ‘African’ was included as a separate category, whereas in 2001 ‘African’ was a tick box within the ‘Black’ category." [2] Ergo, "African" and "Black" are separate self-designation options per the bureau, so the original lede was correct. Soupforone (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The source clearly states both African and black identities in the census are affiliated. In any case, this article refers to both, and thus specifically people who have black African or sub-Saharan African origin. I am not sure if you are a North African Berber or Egyptian, but your agenda seem to be blindly attempting to distance the obvious association of many black people with specifically sub-Saharan African ancestry and origin. My latest edit is a compromise. If we are to resolve this, then we need to discuss the issue and compromise. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but per WP:CIV, please avoid making personal remarks and comment instead on the phrasing. That aside, the stats bureau link does not mention Sub-Saharan Africa or Afro-Scots. It doesn't do that because African is a separate census option from the Caribbean or Black option (see Figure 2 on page 11 [3]). Please do not conflate the two, as they are different self-designation options. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it a problem that we are assuming that people who have given their ethnicity as African in the census are black, though? I'm sure most would be considered so, but some might not be. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Soupforone (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You are again incorrect. The origin and ethnicity on the census form have special categories for Afro-Caribbean, African and Black (with a note regarding specifically Black African to the latter categories). Black in this article is about those who are of such indigenous sub-Saharan African origin or descent, and thus Black African. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans are all "black". Indigenous North Africans are Berbers and Egyptians, but they are not sub-Saharan Africans. North Africans in the census responded under Berber, Arab, or another category. Dutch-South Africans/Afrikaners and other White South Africans (British, Portuguese) reply under white, European or other ethnic categories specific to their ethnicities. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That is inaccurate. The African census option is separate from the Caribbean and Black census option; please do not confuse the two as they are different self-designation entries [4]. Berbers (including the transregional Tuareg) have the option to choose the African category or any other self-designation entry, such as the Other ethnic group write-in option. As to the Sahara, although it's a desert now, it was verdant for most of its existence. During the Holocene Wet Phase, various proto-Berber populations actually inhabited the area, including the Kiffian and Tenerian cultures [5]. There were also some proto-Khoisan populations, from whom the modern Haratin of the Maghreb descend. The Uan Muhuggiag mummy, which was excavated in Libya, is a relic of these early non-Berber inhabitants [6]. In the other direction, Berber and Coptic related DNA is today found among other Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations below the Sahara. [7] This only further underlines that the Sahara was not always a geographical barrier. Instead, biologically, linguistically and culturally distinct populations have inhabited all parts of the continent, as they still do. Soupforone (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The UK census relies on self-categorisation, so people can tick whichever box they want, ItaloCelt84. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The Scottish census is different from the ONS one, but is also based on self-designation [8]. Soupforone (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There are specifically sub-Saharan African ethnic categories, and this is specifically what Afro-Caribbean and Black refer to, with those of indigenous sub-Saharan African origin. North Africans, like Berbers, Egyptians or Arabs, have distinct cateogires which are not covered under "black" or under the context of this article. As for your assertions about the Sahara, it has always been a desert. The extent of the Sahara fluctuated at different times, but there has always been desert areas in the region (as is stated in the sources you yourself provided), with the longest periods still being like that of the present where the desert is a vast expanse. Berber populations in the Sahara were still not in the sub-Saharan region (tropical and savannah central, west and southern Africa). The relic of a supposed Khoisan individual in southern Libya is a rare case of a minority hunter-gatherer population that some presence there. In any case, there is no evidence of such sub-Saharan groups in the far north of the Sahara, nor is there any evidence that Niger-Congo or Khoisan groups ever had any settled presence north of the Sahara. as for the presence of some Afro-Asiatic ancestry below the Sahara, I never doubted this, but they are confined to east Africa and the Sahel semi-arid region along the Sahara. Those Afro-Asiatic groups are also not Berber, but specifically of the Cushitic, Chadic and Omotic groups, not Berber, Egyptian or Semitic.

"This only further underlines that the Sahara was not always a geographical barrier. Instead, biologically, linguistically and culturally distinct populations have inhabited all parts of the continent, as they still do. "

This is again incorrect. Sub-saharan, black populations were never indigenous to the regions north of the Sahara, in North Africa. This genetic barrier has been shown in every study, and the Berbers cluster closer to Europeans and Middle Easterners than to sub-Saharan Africans. The oldest Y-DNA an mtDNA lineages are confined only to indigenous sub-Saharan populations. Just as there were no black populations indigenous to North Africa, there were never any white populations indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, there were no Middle Eastern or Semitic groups in sub-Saharan Africa until the historical period, first with the Ethiopian Semites arriving in east Africa circa 1000 BC, and then Berber Tuaregs migrating across the Sahara in caravans after the arrival of the domesticated camel about 2500 years ago (camels are indigenous to central Asia, and were endemic there until humans domesticated them and brought them to North Africa in the historical period). The Sahara has always been a barrier, but the extent of that barrier varied between different times. It was a massive desert expanse for most of its history, despite wet periods where it was less arid and was not a barrier in certain locations. To this day, certain parts of the Sahara are more arid than others (e.g. southwestern Algeria, northern Niger, northern Mali and much of western Sahara was always a desert over the past 50,000 years). Just because there was certain wet phases doesn't negate that for most of of the past 100,000 years, the Sahara was a vast desert expanse for most of that time. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No indigenous Berber or Egyptian populations have ever been found south of the Sahara, and all indigenous populations of sub-Saharan Africa are black (Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan) or have Khoisan features. These populations were isolated from the Middle East and the indigenous North Africans for tens of thousands of years, and some lineages for over 100,000 years. The Sahara was a desert expanse for most of human history, despite occasions of relatively short wet periods or wet phases. A small amount of Middle Eastern Semites settled in east Africa circa 1000 BC, and were the ancestors of the Amharic and Tigrinya in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Even in these cases, the Semites merged with indigenous black/sub-Sahran populations and thus are intermediate between Middle Easterners and sub-Saharan Africans. The other Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Sahel are Chadic and Omotic speakers, and they are black and not related to the Berbers and Egyptians of the North African Mediterranean coast. They do not have, or have extremely little, of the Middle Eastern markers found in Ethiopians, or in Middle Eastern or North African populations. They have some Afro-Asiatic markers of the Horn of Africa, but those are not associated with the Middle East or North Africa. They do not have any of the uniquely Berber markers of the North African coast found in Riffians, Kabyles, Shilha, Arab-Berbers, and in many Tuareg groups etc (E-M81 [9]). ItaloCelt84 (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is not quite correct. The Scottish census bureau has African, Caribbean and Black, and Other ethnic group self-designation options, but no distinct Sub-Saharan, North African or Berber options [10]. Even if it did, these are self-designation options as pointed out, not obligations. Berbers can choose the African category or any other self-designation entry, such as the Other ethnic group write-in option. Anyway, as pertains to the Sahara, I indicated that it was lush for much of its existence rather than for all of it. The point was that it was habitable during various periods, such as in the Holocene Wet Phase. This is certain since human fossils have been excavated in the area and dated. During the 5.9 kiloyear junction around 3900 BC, the Sahara dessicated and its inhabitants moved to other locations, including southwards. This is probably when most of the Afro-Asiatic-speaking E1b1b carriers began dispersing from in and around the Nile Valley [11]. Consequently, Beja, Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in the Horn, and many Nubians share the same ancestral component as Copts [12]. I'm aware that the Chadic and Omotic speakers do not (as they appear instead to be of Nilo-Saharan origin), nor indeed do they carry the E1b1b-M81 Berber marker (the R1b haplogroup found among Chadics does not appear to be Berber associated). Anyway, for the early Khoisan presence in the north, please see North African Protohistoric [13]. Soupforone (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Scottish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610052137/http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/articles/andrew_watson.html to http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/articles/andrew_watson.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100728140834/http://www.le.ac.uk/snccfr/resources/factsheets/fs4.html to http://www.le.ac.uk/snccfr/resources/factsheets/fs4.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)