Talk:White people/Archive 3

Untitled

older discussions may be found here Archive 1, Archive 2

Quality of the article

This article is in my opinion way to inclusionist, it handles to many topics that are not very relevant. I also wonder what a statement like 'Jews are considered near white' is supposed to mean. Does white refer here to a culture or to a colour? Jewish people in my opinion can have lighter or darker skins, as can any other person. Maybe it would be better to make a clearer seperation between simply describing people with a light coloured skin and then some part about cultural outages of it. All this stuff about summing up places of origin and determining whether those people are considered white or not is pretty ridiculous for you can only decide on individual basis what colour someone has. I think culture is a much better way to differentiate between different groups than skin colour which says nothing about an individual person. If a black kid would grow up in a white family it would take over that culture. Cultural differences do explain much more about Irish-Italian-Jewish,African relations than skin colour ever can.

The reason i am not changing the article myself is that i am not a native speaker.

Dutch American

I feel hurt and insulted that no mention is made about Americans of Dutch decent, do we not count are we not worthy? But in all seriousness, the obvious flaw with the whole list of X- Americans is that it does not take into account for example coloured people originating from Germany that have moved to the US.

Italians and Southern Europeans as White

People who were Sicilian, Italian, Portuguese, and Greek swarmed United States for immigration. Actually, 5 million Italians immigrated to United States, in a short period of time during the late 1800's, early 1900's. Considering that the United States was racist at the time, dont you think they would have limited migrants from these areas if they were not considered white. I am biracial, of Black, and Italian ancestry.

Italians, Portuguese, and Spanish are considered somewhat non-white in Australia. The reason why they were denoted as Wogs, was because they were of non-Anglo origin. Australians call Polish, Serbians, Russians, Wog too, and that is because they are Slavik, not Anglo. There are 1 million Italians in Australia or 5 per cent of the population, a big number, and we cant deny that Natalie Imbruglia is'nt white, because she is, and she is an Italian.

In Canada, many see Italian people as tanned skinned, but many realise that northern Italy, have more Nordic looking people, while southern Italians have darker complexions. Some Noridicists think that because North Africa has close proximity with south Europe, they think that they are mixed with Arab groups of North Africa. Has anyone considered that the Arabs of North Africa are mixed with Europeans, giving many with blue eyes, and light hair and light skin, because they are.

America was named after Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci. There is no way that Americans or anyone would admit nameing their country after a non-white. On the website below it shows how the White Australia Policy encouraged Europeans of all kinds to enter the country, because SOUTHERN ITALIANS, and other southern Europeans were considered sunburnt whites. To see, Anglo looking Italians, who are from both the north and the south, see websites below. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]

Adrian, January 12, 2006

It seems to me there are three sorts who are most apt to encourage this idea that dark or ethnic whites (ie. Italians, Irish, Greeks, Spaniards, Near Easterners, etc.) aren't or weren't always regarded as white. The most significant would be the Whiteness studies crowd, virtually all of whom are themselves white males, usually Jewish or WASP ethnically and far to the left politically (though they speak as expert authorities about other communities, such as the traditionally conservative Italian-American and Irish-American, Catholic communities). Why do they promote this incredibly divisive, revisionist anthropology that only the palest of whites have historically been regarded as white (with the absurd exception of the Irish -who are almost certainly THE palest of whites)? I suspect it is to encourage the largest possible percentage of the population to imagine themselves somehow outside the mainstream, disenfranchised and even despised, as this would tend to maximize the ranks of those amenable to left wing ideology. After all, it would be a great coup for the left to manipulate the traditionally conservative white ethnic working class into thinking of themselves as oppressed minorities. The second and less significant source would be a small segment of the black community, which seems to relish the spectre of ethnic whites being construed as 'non-whites', perhaps because they see this as a fragmenting of the white race (which they percieve as their enemy), or because they derive a perverse sense of pride out of identifying with white ethnics. It is telling that so many black rappers should demonise whites in general while praising or emulating white Italian mobsters. One gets the sense that they would rather be Italian than black, but recognize that the next best thing is Italians being considered 'black', or at least 'not white'. The third and least significant source would be a small segment of white ethnics themselves, some of whom encourage the idea that they are something other than white. This is to be expected given such recent social influences as identity politics, political correctness, and the hip hop culture, all of which reinforce the notion that 'white' is a 'bad thing' to be; that whites are generally racist and 'un-hip'.

Can someone tell me what you two are talking about? Are either of you even Italian or ethnic? Why do you people feel the need to comment on the "whiteness" or "blackness" of other races? I'm sorry, but you don't have that authority, and neither does anyone else. "Limited migrants?" What are you talking about? Hispanics are one of the largest immigrant groups (in other words, not "limited migrants") in America, but they are not considered white. And by the way, the US government DID in fact place immigration laws to prevent Italians from coming to America. All I can say is that dark, Mediterranean Italians, who make up much of the Italian-American migrants today, are not really considered "white" in many middle class, predominately "white" neighborhoods. I know this first hand. Who are you to comment on my ethnicity? Have either of you lived as an Italian? Have either of you been outside of your sheltered little environments? As far as I have seen, in mainstream American culture Italians have never been considered "white." They are swarthy criminals, "guidos," and thugs. You racists accuse African-Americans and different people of trying to "fragment" the "white" race, but you seem like you are just trying to unite what you see as a "white" race by playing on the Italians' racial ambiguity. Do you fear minorities so much that you have to convince Italians to join your "white" race? Do you just not want the liability of having another minority in America? As an Italian, I do not look "white" and culturally, I've had problems fitting in with mainstream "whites." In my personal experience, Italians have never socially or racially been your definition of "white" in America.

I will try to help, friend. May I suggest, if you cannot understand standard American English, copy pasting the words into Alta Vista's "Babel Fish" translator, and choosing "English to Ebonics" translation. Hope helps? :) What is your ethnicity this week? You seem black in most of your other posts in other articles (most of which are Afro-American themed). Seems we have another black who "wishes dey wuz Ah-tah'-yin" (Ebonics to English translation: 'wishes they were Italian'). I'm glad you posted this, as at least it proves creatures such as yourself do in fact exist. You're out of your &^$% mind, dude. Being black isn't that bad is it? The reason you don't look white is because you're not Italian, but some black guy who wishes he was Italian, or at least, that Italians (or "Ah-tah'-yins" as many African-Americans might say) were considered non-white. I know a lot of blackies like to imagine a kinship with Italians, but "you iz ri-dic-ulous" ;) . BTW, where were you when Rudy Guiliani was mayor of NYC? If only you blackies and Hispanics realized he wasn't white, a lot of racial tension might've been averted! LOL. For the record:(1) I am Greek (2) I guess middle class white Americans just don't realize that Antonin Scalia, newly confirmed justice Alito, Rudy Giuliani, Al D'Amato, Mario Cuomo, Geraldine Ferraro..... aren't white. (3) I don't believe for a second you're Italian - you're black. Some blacks have a peculiar fixation with Italians; they like to imagine Italians as distant cousins of theirs. They look in the mirror and see a dark face, thick lips, and tightly nit hair (featuires which many find attractive) and wish instead they saw a sexy, swarthy dark Mediterranean with thick lips. (4) I googled your IP and you seem African-American. In the future, if you want to claim to be Italian, use a different IP when you post as a black.

Why do you keep bringing up the whole cope-out "America was named after an Italian" issue? That has nothing to do with whether Italians are white or not. All throughout America, there are cities, states, rivers, and streets named after Native American tribes. That doesn't make Native Americans white, now does it? America and the world in general has changed very much since America was named after Vespucci. African tribes were once very great, but that doesn't mean black people in America are treated any better. Italians once discovered and named land masses, but that doesn't mean they are treated any "whiter" in America. I'm not trying to force you to sympathize with Italians in America. I could care less. And I'm not saying all Italians are non-white. But most of the Medditerranean immigrants known as Italians are really not very "white" at all. I am Italian and I have brown skin. This is not a bad or racist thing. If you are able to argue over the "whiteness" of a people, then I think they are ambiguous enough that they can be considered at least socially and at most racially non-white. Oh, and, no, I am not African-American, but if I was I would be very proud of my own culture. You are a racist. And that you assume I'm Black simply because of my ideas..well, I won't even say anything.

Because the country is named after an Italian. Correct; it is understood that European Spaniards are white, and persons mixed with Indians or blacks are not. The reason those areas have Spanish names is because white racist Spaniards got there before white racist Englishman. Both sodomized your ancestors. LOL - The status of Italians has fallen? All sane folk would agree that in any case, their status would have been at it's lowest at the turn of the 19th to 20th century, when they were largley newly arrived immigrants. It has only risen since - even the looniest racial revisionists would acknowledge this. You are in a class by yourself! Imagine a white guy trying to convince American blacks that Jamaicans weren't really black - thats what you sound like. Whites know their own kind - much love - but you're making an ass of yourself, dude. While just 1 in 10 Americans is Italian-American, 2 of 9 Supreme court Justices are Italian-American. Get a firmer grip, my African friend - stop being so envious of other races. Blacks have things to be proud of as well, I am sure.

You sound like a white supremacist... even though you are Greek and would hardly fall under that category.- Unsigned

__

Just because there are Italian on the supreme court does not make Italians white. There are Blacks on the supeme court, too. What is your point? Italians have the third highest drop out rate in America, along ith Blacks and Hispanics, and many Italian Americans live in low-income neighborhoods. I am a Southern Italian. I agree that it is now less of a culture shock for Anglicized Italians to mix with Anglos and whites now, but the same can be said of Anglicized Blacks, Anglicized Hispanics, and Anglicized Asians. Let's face it, Southern Italians and Mediterranean people have not always been and still are not always considered mainstream "all-American" (or "all-Canadian") white. Italians in North America, for the most part, have a unique culture and look that does not always blend in. And that is not a bad thing at all. I feel sorry for other Italians living in North America who are so self-conscious about their identity and appearence that they decide to argue fiercely that they are "white." Real Southern Italians are just as non-white as many Middle Easterners, Northern Indians, and Hispanics. (Oh, and Middle Easterners are legally considered "white" as well, but ask any person on the street whether a Middle Easterner is white and he will most likely reply "no." And what working class, down-on-his-luck, uneducated Middle Easterner or Southern Italian will have the cajones to debate with the government whether he is white? Isn't that the goal in the USA? To be "white?" Wouldn't it be an instant meal ticket to be designated "white"? Despite what they may hope for, no, apparently not. Italians and Middle Easterners may not be considered white in social situations or in white neighborhoods. But why should the government designate them as non-white if the groups are not complaining? That's less affirmative action and minorities they would have to deal with, right?) Italians and Middle Easterners may "legally" be "white", but that doesn't help much in social situations, does it? Since you are not of Italian descent, maybe you do not feel this way. (Nothing wrong with that at all.) But any Southern Italian who is proud of his culture and dark complexion, understands his past, or has had an ethnic slur shouted in his face should agree that he is not "white."

The definition of "white" is often cultural. There's a significant difference between Latin and Germanic cultures, as there is between European and Middle Eastern/North African cultures; and in a predominantly Anglo society that considers itself characteristically "white", others who are perceived as culturally different, like people of Latin origin, might necessarily be "non-white". Hence, even though there's hardly a consistent pattern of physical appearance that can be observed to distinguish Southern Europeans from Northern Europeans (likewise, in many cases, between Europeans and Middle Easterners/North Africans - see my older post here), a majority culture may reserve one of its most salient self-designations for itself and deny that a group that is physically identical to it yet culturally different also shares that characteristic. In other words, since race is a big deal to most cultures, as it has been to the predominantly Anglo United States and Canadian societies, a group's own self-ascribed racial designation may stop where another's cultural one begins. --Jugbo 04:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In no way can the person above compare southern Italians with north Africans and Middle Easterners. They are in fact very different from one another. It is true that southern Italians have a dark complexion, nearly as dark as a Yemeni, or a saudi. Sure, people of Lebanon, Syria and other places in that region could have skin tones comparable to a southern European, but last time I remembered, people of the Levant, and northern India are mixed with white; the Aryans invaded India, the Romans conquested and colonised the Middle East and the Greeks colonised Pakistan. They are the reasons why those areas have light complexions. I dont see how Italians cant fit into mainstream white neighbourhoods. Only someone that cant see beyond a tan that has developed naturally for thousands of years while inhabiting the Italian peninsula.

• Middle Easterners and Mediterraneans such as Southern Italians are not really that different anthropoly-wise, my friend, so I do not understand your complete indignation at the suggestion. I am Southern Italian. And there is no way in hell you are more likely to find a redhead in Sicily than Britain. That is insane and has no basis in fact. And what is this whole thing about Canada? Are any of you Canadians in this argument even Italian? I notice that it's always Canadians that are fiercely arguing that Italians are "white." Maybe the Italian immigrants in Canada have mixed more frequently with the non-Mediterranean Canadians. Maybe more Northern Italians immigrated to Canada than Southern Italians (and believe me, there is a difference.) You see, this whole thing gets confusing, because "Italian" is a nationality as well as an ethnicity. So you see, you have people of German origins living in Italy saying they are Italian. When many people refer to "Italians" or "Southern Italians," they mean darker Mediterranean Italians. And maybe it is wrong of me to confuse the two, so I am clearing that up right now. All I can say is, American Italians are much different than Canadian Italians, or so it seems. In my Italian American neighborhood, we are mostly darker skinned. And when I moved into a mostly non-Italian White neighborhood, I was looked upon as non-white by many people, not including the ones who didn't voice their opinions. I have found that many of my fellow dark Mediterranean SOUTHERN Italians have had similar experiences. So don't go making the ignorant assumption Italians can "just fit into any white neighborhood" they enter, because you clearly have no experience in the matter. Maybe you have met one or two light-skinned Northern Italians or even a light-skinned Southern Italian and assumed that all Italians were light-skinned. But that's the exact same assumption that you seem to be fighting against. You seem to be saying, "It is racist to say Italians are non-white," when in reality 1.) You are probably not Italian, and should not be making statements like that, and 2.) You are actually making a similar racist assumption based on your limited experience by incorrectly saying all Italians are white! And also, it is not logical at all to say that an Italian's tan is the result of thousands of years in the sun. That doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary standpoint; obviously, the dark skin is more than just a tan, because tans are not passed from generation to generation. But dark skin is. So perhaps the tan Italians you speak of actually have...dark skin? Also, if Italians can fit into "white" society as easily as you say, why do they have the third highest dropout rate in the United States? Why do the majority of Italians live in low-income neighborhoods? Why were Italians the second most likely group to be lynched in the south next to Blacks?

The bottom line is: I am Italian, and I am NOT considered white by many people, and I have plenty of Italian friends, as well as White and Black friends, who would agree vehemently, and I am not an exception to the rule as far as Southern Italians go. There are many other Southern Italians who are not regarded as white, do not see themselves as white, and are not really white.

Irish-Americans and the Protestant Plot!

We have here: (for generations, Irish-Americans forbade their children to learn to read because they feared that it was a Protestant plot) [4]

I guess it must be true, 'cause it's got a reference an' all, some book written in 1959. What period does it refer to? Did all Irish-Americans "forbid their children to learn to read"? How many generations? Didn't the children go to school? Is this just a case of it's in a book so it must be true? Camillus (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Cough*bullshit*cough*

Sourced and referenced it may be, but its complete and utter bullshit. I can give a source and a reference for pretty much any wild assumption I want, but its not going to be true. "Irish-Americans" would have started to appear in the 1830's, and probably the most Irish-American university (University of Notre Dame) was founded in 1842. Forbade their children to learn to read, my arse. --Kiand 15:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(1) Go to any public or college library. (2) Find the book titled Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. This is the most highly respected standard reference on U.S. ethnic assimilation/acculturation available, edited and reviewed by hundreds of serious researchers in this field. (3) Look at the names of the two chief editors. One of the names is "Oscar Handlin." (4) Now look at the book that you (above) called "some book" and "bullshit": It is titled: Boston's Immigrants, 1790-1880 and was also published by Harvard after review by ethnicity scholars. (5) Look at the name of the author. It is "Oscar Handlin." Oscar Handlin is the most highly respected historian of Irish-American assimilation in the United States. I will be restoring the Irish-American history over the next day or so to reflect Handlin's findings. If you cannot come up with a similarly respected authority on Irish-American assimilation/acculturation who disputes Handlin's work, then I suggest that you may not yet be fully qualified to opine on the subject. (Incidentally, for your information, Notre Dame--indeed the very notion of U.S. parrochial schools--was invented precisely to overcome Irish-American fear that public education in the United States was Protestant indoctrination. Please, please, read at least one peer-reviewed scholarly work on Irish-American history. It will not hurt and you may even enjoy it.)-- Frank W Sweet 11:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A book written about "ethnic assimilation" in a country which then still had an effective apartheid is unlikely to be particularly reliable, respected or not. Nor is it going to be in "any" public or college library outside the US, if indeed a copy of it would be acquirable here.

I also think that having an entry refering to what might have been the believe of some particularly stupid and indoctinated emigrants for a relatively short period of time - we are talking at most 15 years here - is completely pointless in what is already a majorly over-complex article. Indeed, they would have had to be particularly stupid to have no concept of public education, considering it was introduced in Ireland in 1831, by the then British controlling government, and was not seen as a "Protestant Plot"

So we have what time frame for non-stupid people here? Late 1820's to 1831. Still worth even mentioning it? I think this is a case where some knowledge of Irish history as well as a bit of common sense over ride the single available source. --Kiand 23:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnote 28?

The sentence "Nevertheless, it has been shown that the same individual's perceived skin tone lightens and darkens on the Brazilian census depending on the rise and fall of his or her socioeconomic success. In short, it is proven statistically that money whitens, at least in Brazil" is followed by a reference to footnote 28. However, the footnotes only seem to go to 27. Has the reference been lost in later edits, or has it never been there? Has this indeed been shown, or is this bullshit? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 10:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the style, I'd say that's a Frank Sweet sentence. The note has probably been lost at some point. Paul B 10:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be note 27, and the previous one should be note 26. The numbering system adopted here is a recipe for chaos, as passages containing some of the notes are bound to be deleted at some stage, which means the whole system will become increasingly messed-up over time. Paul B 11:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that I should have foreseen this. On the one hand anything that disputes someone's prejudices is going to be challenged, so the only hope that a smattering of verifiable knowledge survives in this article is to cite unimpeachable sources. (And even this is not enough, since even Oscar Handlin--the greatest historian of Irish-American assimilation--did not survive the idealogues.) On the other hand, paragraphs get moved around, deleted, and reinserted. So, how can anyone cite references without its leading to chaos? Any suggestion or advice will be appreciated. Is there some Wiki trick that will solve this, or do I just insert the interminable footnotes right into the text itself? -- Frank W Sweet 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I just discovered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes . I shall try it out. -- Frank W Sweet 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not bullshit. The finding was reported in the most presitigious peer-reviewed scholarly journal of social history in the United States. You will find the data in George Reid Andrews, "Racial Inequality in Brazil and the United States: A Statistical Comparison," Journal of Social History 26, no. 2 (1992): 229-63. If the topic honestly interests you, and a visit to your local public or college library is inconvenient, then please say so and I will be happy to post here a link to a PDF of the article. -- Frank W Sweet 11:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Quite White

Gays, Leftists, students, criminals, and animals should also be considered nonwhite. There is some spiritual evidence to support the idea that these workers are not white, and that 'white' (or more accurately 'formerly white') 'liberals' are actually darker in complexion than their unrepentent 'white' co-workers.

I see. Thank you for your scientific observations. Please wait for the men with the strait-jacket. Paul B 11:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

O_O Isn't that white people mean people with full European descent??? And man, this is a very useful information, and since you have said that, I bet u never been to school. Watch your tounge. MeowKun 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Research, Research, Research!

I thought this article might end the confusion that many white people have on where they originated. To all the "white" people that struggle with their identity – please do more research before you speak! Many of your scientific counterparts are providing evidence through DNA testing and archeological finds that will help you understand your mutated genetics. Below, I've attached an article that might help you understand where you really come from. – Laura, Detroit (January 30, 2006).

Everyone's genetics is "mutated". That's how evolution occurs. What exactly are we suposed to "understand" from this article? Paul B 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that only very few people are confused about (and thus "struggle with") their racial or ethnic origins or identity, Laura. You use the word "mutated" as if it were worthy of emphasis (or shame), when really all genetics is about mutation. It's a vital phenomenon, and Paul is right when he claims that everyone has mutated genetics, as environmental adaptation and evolution (which are imperative to the survival of all organisms) are impossible without it. The only news in this article is about the gene, not where humans originated. --Jugbo 05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, if you did research on what your counterparts are discovering in the scientific field of genetics and anthropology, then maybe it would help you understand where “White” people came from.

In the previously attached Washington Post article, paragraph two, it clearly states that skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. Did you hastily respond before you thoroughly read the article Jugbo and Paul? Why did you focus so much on the word “mutated”?

You seem intelligent Jugbo, so I am attaching a few more documents that supports where and how “White” people originated, as well as, humans.

First, research the “Out of Africa” theory that has supporting scientific evidence that humans originated in Africa, then migrated to inhabit the rest of the world. The leaders in this field are Chris Stringer, British Museum of Natural History and Dr. Spencer Wells, National Geographic.

Here are a few more links for you to review, please do more research before you speak.

NPR Health & Science

Oldest Human Fossils Found: Ancient Skulls Provide Crucial Details of Evolution [5]

Newsweek, Feb. 6, 2006

DNA Testing: In Our Blood (*paragraph 5)[6]

Science News

Early Brazilians Unveil African Look [7]

The Japan Times

DNA evidence backs up 'out-of-Africa' human origin theory [8]

These link will help you get started in your research. Laura Feb. 2006 6:10

I've read the article, Laura, but your emphasis was on "mutated" ("...your mutated genetics"), so Paul and I addressed that. You made no explicit point on the African origin of humanity, which, as you now make apparent, is your focus. As I said in my post: "The only news in this article is about the gene, not where humans originated." If you wanted to argue that humans originated in Africa, then you should have cited an article that deals primarily with that idea rather than this article that deals with it marginally, in order to make your intended message more obvious. My main issue with your post is that you suggest that there is some kind of epidemic of "confusion" plaguing "many white people" who "struggle with their identity", assumedly because they need Laura of Detroit to come rescue them from their ignorance of who they are and where they "really come from" in their inability to educate themselves. I see that you leave Paul's question unanswered: "what exactly are we supposed to 'understand' from this article." I would also like to know this, because you leave us with the sense that your white readers are supposed to experience some kind of inner transformation upon reading this, yet I remain unmoved by the repetition of the Out-of-Africa hypothesis. If you would just come out with it, everyone would know what your point is. --Jugbo 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don’t get so emotional Jugbo, my intent was to add relevance on previous discussions where contributors to this site lightly touched on the topic of mutated genetics being the cause of white skin, yet they failed to go indepth. Even you previously stated, on December 27, 2005 that you have no education in genetics. So, I am very shocked and amazed at how you can regurgitate your personal opinion and philosophies about genetics without backing it with relevant documentation.

I provided the information so readers can review the articles and provide their own opinion, so I cannot tell you or Paul what you “should” get out of the article. And, yes it is a tangible statement to point out that white people struggle with their identity; it’s plastered all through this site (Arabs are white, Chinese are white; no, no if you’re a Spaniard your white, if you live in the upper longitude you’re white, the Egyptians were white, if you have a Native American father and white mother, then could I be white? blah, blah, blah etc…etc…etc…). The confusion is obvious.

In regards to Paul’s comment, he is right everyone’s genetics are “mutated.” The articles that I attached supports that mitochondrial DNA does mutate periodically, as well as, reconfirms that white skin is a direct result of this periodic mutation.

I cannot change nor alter the massive ignorance of white people, as you stated. But, if readers reviewed the attached articles maybe they can learn how white skin derived, how to trace their roots through DNA testing, as seen in the attached Newsweek Feb. 6 article; or maybe they can research the migration patterns of humans origination from Africa to the rest of the world.

It’s up to the readers to form their own opinion, just like you did when you voiced your personal opinion on how “unmoved” you are by the repetition of the Out-of-Africa hypothesis. Laura, Detroit Feb.7, 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you go too "in depth" with this issue of genetic mutation, Laura. The information was relevant; yet you extract this topic from the objective, non-assuming, scientific environment in which it should be discussed by coloring it with your own prejudices and misunderstandings.

I don't have an education in genetics, so I don't understand the complex details of it (which aren't necessary in this discussion, anyway); but I do share basic knowledge with the general public about genetics, and I'm capable of reading articles that explain findings plainly, so readers who are not formally educated in this area may understand. What were my "personal opinion and philosophies about genetics"? I expressed no such thing; but I did tell you what I think about your interpretation of, and ideas about, certain social issues, and such statements require no documentation, because it doesn't exist, except what I, myself, write.

What I argued, Laura, is that if you wanted your readers to receive a certain meaning from your initial contribution here, then you should have specified what that meaning was. Obviously, you want your readers to note the African origin of humans and that white people have evolved from these original people, yet you left us with the impression that your argument was that the genetic mutations of white people are extraordinary (and, perhaps, stigmatic), and that this knowledge is supposed to relieve white people of their alleged "confusion" and "struggle". You can't just say "read this" and expect everyone to know that the particular message you're trying to deliver is not the main one of the documentation you chose. That's vague, and it leads to misunderstandings like the ones that the two of us have here.

Laura, your perception that "white people struggle with their identity" is entirely subjective, and sounds like a projection of your own personal issues on another group. Do you wish that white people experience this pain? The unspecific examples that you give of white people "struggling" with their identity is the discussion (and disagreement) and exploration, on talk pages and in articles, of the phenomenon and history of the designation and identity of being white. It's called debate or peer review, not "confusion"; and non-white people engage in the process on this "white people" page, as well. The same thing occurs in the discussion of black people. It doesn’t indicate that white people (or black people), whoever they may be in whatever way (genetically, socially, idealistically, etc.), universally or in general or at all, "struggle" with an insecurity and "confusion" of who they are because they aren't informed of the genetic history of the world. Believe it or not, Laura, race isn't everything to everyone. Some people live mainly through their spiritual, social, or intellectual identities or through a balance of these and other ones, rather than mainly through their racial identity, as some apparently do. You exaggerate the importance of the information you share.

If you believe that you "cannot change nor alter the [alleged] massive ignorance of white people", then what are you doing. If your posts are supposed to "help" white people, then you would, indeed, have an impact on this. This is the purpose of this free-content encyclopedia - to influence the thoughts and minds of others through democratic education, and that's what you're doing. However, when you misrepresent circumstances (like the identity of anyone but yourself) or the statements of others (like those featuring the alleged "confusion" of who is white, or my post as "emotional"), then you make the process more difficult and less productive. --Jugbo 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I almost took out my violin to play sympathy music to your response. My question to you Jugbo, is when your professor assigned (as an example) Romeo & Juliet, did you ask the professor to “specify” what the meaning of the story was before you read it? I doubt it.

It’s up to the readers to form his or her own opinion, and not for me to tell anyone what they should get out of the articles that I posted. Me telling people what to do or think would be like Bush telling the masses to believe and support that Iraq was invaded because of weapons of mass destruction, and the people blindly follow. There are still people out there that can think for themselves Jugbo.

I’ve read and reread the White people’s page, and there is definitely confusion about whose white and where whiteness originated. I’ve read the Black people page (thanks for letting me know it existed) and they didn’t seem to have the same problems with identity as the contributors on this page.

Another thing I noticed on the Black people page is that the contributors were trying to eradicate the misconceptions and labels that Eurocentrics put in place to destroy their true history. Why don’t you go to the Black people page and defend comments that may be offensive to Black people just like you do on the White people page. Frankly, I think that would be quite interesting.

I stick to statement that I cannot erase the massive ignorance of white people. My comments will only touch a few that choose to read what I've posted and not the greater population - it's that simple.

Jugbo, I discovered that contributors could edit comments with an explanation. Feel free to do so if my posted comments offended you so much.

Laura, Detroit Feb. 9 2006 (UTC)

Laura, if you have something coherent to say, say it. This page is for suggestions and discussion to improve the article. We all know that humans evolved in Africa. It's not an exciting revelation, and the only people who are "confused" about this are creationists. We already knew that skin-colour changes occurred as a result of mutations, the only thing that's new here is that one such mutation has been identified. It's also widely believed, btw, that the very dark skin of many modern African peoples is also recent mutation. The Khoisan have relatively ligher skin. This all tells us nothing about modern black people or white people, or how or why various populations have been put in one or other category over time. "Black" and "white" are not scientific categories. Paul B 01:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said to Jugbo, feel free to edit my comments if it offends you so much. Laura, Detroit Feb. 9 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, Laura. We aren't seeing eye to eye, here. You obviously aren't understanding me, and I'm not understanding you. Everyone is entitled to their views, so I'll leave this discussion with you believing whatever you believe. I hope you enjoy Wikipedia. --Jugbo 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientists Find DNA Change That Accounts for WHITE SKIN

According to the Washington Post article, dated Friday, December 16, 2005, a team of scientists from Penn State University have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that explains WHITE SKIN.

The newly found gene known as SLC24a5 partially controls skin color, a small mutation in the gene, of just one letter of the DNA code, is responsible for one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. This mutation explains why people of European ancestry have different coloring than people of African or Asian descent.

Leaders of the study, state that the work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa. That means that light skin arose independently at least twice in human evolution, affecting populations with the facial and other traits that today are commonly regarded as the hallmarks of Caucasian and Asian races.

THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE THAT WILL HELP EXPLAIN WHERE WHITE SKIN ORIGINATED [9]

White people are declining in number these days. Due to high standard of living in their nations,immigration,intermarriage,low birth rate ,whites will be extinct in another 100 years or less.

Yay! - no more white people! But, seriously, care to support your assertion? You seem to be fantasizing, here, and anyone endowed with common sense would be unlikely to believe what you've said (especially since you left your claim unsupported). These aren't imminent threats to the existence of white people everywhere, because they aren't occurences that are exclusive to or extreme in white populations. They are found everywhere, and no group is going to go "extinct" because of them. --Jugbo 05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

White people food

I think this article is missing one important facet of white people culture: What exactly do they eat? I tried to do any entr about your average white person's favorite foods but I could find no significant resources on the internet. All I could find are articles that constantly mentioned how much white people like mayonaise and that hardly constitutes anything. Mosquito-001 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget Wonder Bread, lots of sugary stuff (Barbecue sauce, Root Beer, etc.) --Vizcarra 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

White people don't universally enjoy the same foods, guys. To claim otherwise is what's called a stereotype, and those tend to piss people off. Claiming that a certain food is among the favorite ones of white people in general is like claiming that Latinos like spicy food, or that black people like watermelon and fried chicken. These are more traditional foods, which would be a more appropriate term when talking about foods that white people (and everyone and anyone, in fact) eat, like Italian or French cuisine (or "American", which is significantly German with hamburgers and hot dogs). You're not going to find a reliable source listing the favorite foods of white people because, frankly, no one cares (unless it's of some medical or anthropological significance); and a survey or study would likely bring up varied and inconsistent results. So to answer your question, Mosquito-001, white people eat food. --Jugbo 05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This section made me smile. --66.229.183.101 03:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL... wtf What do "white people" eat? People in Germany, in Romania and in Finland all eat different foods. So called "white people" are not all the same, you silly, silly person.

A Couple of White guys - Alito and Scalia

Notice how WHITE Italians get when they are conservatives on the SUPREME COURT? How SILENT the 'Italians are not white' crowd here gets? What a bunch of ASSES you are. The fact that 1/3 of the justices of the US Supreme Court are now Italians or Jews appointed by WASPs is undoubtedly a STINGING blow to those whose life efforts are spent trying to make people think of Mediterraneans as oppressed non-whites.

What the hell are you talking about? How does being on the Supreme Court make you "white"? In case you haven't noticed, there is also a black man on the Supreme Court, but that doesn't make him any more "white."

The point is not that being on the Supreme Courts makes a non-white person white (only genes can make a person 'white'), but that left wing racial revisionists that usually encourage the notion that Italians aren't white (with an eye towards increasng the fold of left leaning 'Victim-Americans') suddenly get real quiet, and even call folks whose names end in vowels 'white racists' when they are conservative Italian-Americans nominated for the Supreme Court... also, it's worth pointing out that if Italians (and Jews and Irish for that matter) really weren't 'white', their 'non-whiteness' doesn't seem to be an obstacle (given that so many of them sit on the nations highest court).

Actually, genes do not make a person "white," either. Only the opinions of other people and a person's appearence can make a person "white." Italians have no "genes" that make them white in any way whatsoever. And obviously their "non-whiteness" DOES indeed seem to have a negative affect on them, since Italians have the third highest dropout rate in the United States. Also, Clarence Thomas is "non-white," but his "non-whiteness" doesn't seem to be an obstacle. And, being an Italian from a mostly Italian neighborhood, I noticed Scalia and Alito are much lighter than most Southern Italians I know, as well as myself. Maybe this shows that lighter Italians get ahead. Maybe not. I'm not saying all Italians are "non-white," but many Southern Italians are not really that "white," myself included (I have been called non-white countless times.) And many other dark Mediterraneans are still considered non-white today.

As far as I know there is no "Italians are not white crowd" here or anywhere else. It's a chimera. Some authors at various times in history have considered Italians to be less "white" than more northern Europeans - e.g Madison Grant. This has no more bearing on modern Supreme court decisions than the similar debates about whether certain Asian people were or were not considered to be white. Paul B 13:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

":As far as I know there is no "Italians are not white crowd" here or anywhere else." - Are you joking? Just read the accompanying article, or scroll up on this page, for chrisakes. All of the articles pertaining to 'white' as a racial identity at Wikipedia are essentially revionist attempts to redefine white as narrowly and as pale as possible (in the manner of 'Whiteness studies'). This is accompanied by a profoundly disturbing Orwellian aspect - they not only misrepresent present racial categories (eg. 'Italians aren't white'), but often claim additionally that it was always thus (eg. 'Italians have always been considered nonwhite'). Or they will claim, for instance, that Italians and other Mediterraneans have historically been classified as non-white, but recently (eg. since WW2) been granted 'white status' (ahem - then why did they name the country after an Italian?). Of course, even if such revisionist histories were true, it wouldn't change the fact that Mediterreans are white and always have been so, regardless of claims to the contrary by left wing 'whiteness studies' academics or right wing Nordic supremicists. Imagine someone suggesting that the paler skinned mongoloids such as the Japanese and Chinese were of one race, and the darker skinnned mongoloids such as those of Southeast Asia and the Philippines another? It'd be rather obvious BS (despite differences in complexion, they're clearly all of the same race), and racist as hell (the racist Japanese regime of the WW2 era infamously indulged such fantasies, earning the wrath of their Asian neighbors and proving themselves the Asian counterparts of their similarly racist Caucasoid Axis brethren in Europe).

Contrary to the post modernist, whiteness studies propoganda mill, 'race' itself is not a 'mere social construct', though there are social constructs about race (the absurd suggestion that Mediterraneans aren't white being a perfect example of such!). However politically incorrect or unfashionable it may be to say so, the fact is, there are readily discernable 'races' (what we would call 'subspecies' if we were talking about any other animal than man). It is fashionable nowadays to suggest the concept of race is invalid because there is more genetic variation within 'races' than between 'races'. But the same is true of closely related sub-species throughout the animal kingdom, yet no one is questioning the validity of the concept of 'sub-species'.

I can find no-one here who said "Italians have always been considered nonwhite". Please do not make up quotations. A Nordic supremacist implied that southern Italians were nonwhite and a black-American claimed (to general ridicule) that "Greek people do not resemble Irishmen and look more bi-racial than Indo-European" (I've no idea how you can "look" "Indo-European"). Neither of these were members of the mythical "whiteness studies crowd". It is well documented that in the US in the early twentieth century southern Europeans were considered to be less white than northern europeans. That view does not typically apply now, but the concept that "Hispanic" identity is distinct from "white" identity does exist and is enshrined in US statistics on race. This still has, along with other factors such as language, religion and ethnic stereotypes, an impact on ideas about people of southern european descent, particularly Italian-Americans. In Europe itself, things are different. In Britain the notion that the Spanish are any more a "different race" than, say, the Swedes, would be thought bizarre by most people. It is not our job to say whether this is right or wrong, but to report on the facts and fairly discuss the reasons why this is so, including arguments against it. Paul B 09:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Anonymous, "Wikipedia Editor", or whoever you are, please read Do Middle Easterners resemble Northern and Southern Europeans above on this page to see that not everyone' agrees the North Africans and Middle Easterners count as white,...

I could care less what the article you cite says, the fact is, the conventional defintion of 'white' includes North Africans and Middle Easterners. Incidentally, Middle Easterners and North Africans are both counted as white by U.S. standards, and 'Hispanic' or 'Latino' in the U.S. is officially a lingustic category, not a racial designation; the notion that 'Hispanic' is an officially designated 'race' in the U.S. is a widespread misconeption. The U.S. census very clearly states that 'Hispanics' can be of any race.

..and that the person who objected (user:Icemountain) clearly does not represent the "politically correct" "hard left" - rather the opposite.

So what? Wrong is wrong, from left or right.

The passage you altered refers to what is almost universally accepted as the meaning of "white" in this context. The page then goes on to discuss when and where other peoples have been included and excluded from the category, and that includes North Africans etc. It is false to say that the category always includes these people. This is not the Caucasoid article. "White" is not a scientific category but a cultural one. Paul B 08:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cut the crap, huh? 'White' is a colloquial term for 'caucasian', just as 'black' is for 'negroid' and 'yellow' is for 'mongoloid'. Sure, the term 'white' has political connotations that 'caucasian' does not. For example, few if any challenge the notion that the inhabitants of the subcontinent are 'caucasian', though they certainly were regarded as 'nonwhite' by their British masters. But North Africans and Middle Easterners certainly can be counted uncontroversially as 'white'. Do you really think a typical Moroccan or Algerian is so different in apearance from a typical Italian or Greek? Have you ever been to the Mediterranean? If you do think the differences between Southern European Meds and North African Meds is so profound, I submit you are no better than a Nordicist who would claim that Italians and Swedes are of different races, or a WW2 era Japanese who would claim that the Japanese were not of the same race as, say, the Filipinos. They are all 'meds', with a more or less similar appearance (ie. they are swarthy white people). Go to a night club frequented by Euros in Casablanca and try to disinguish the locals from the tourists - you can't. And certainly, most North Africans and Middle Eastereners themselves overwhelmingly self identify as 'white', and regard their being perceived as 'nonwhite' by certain Westerners as racist. Now, if you want to have an article called "The Nordicist Concept of White", or "White as seen by the Whitness Studies Left", or more generally "White as defined by certain Racists", what you are saying would make sense.

Also, Paul, will you please read the Wikipedia 'Whiteness Studies' articles and associated links before you claim again that there is no such thing? It (Whiteness studies) does indeed exist, and it's influence is profound in the pages of Wikipedia. Of course, I must say, the fact that you find it hard to believe such a thing exists (so absurd are their claims) speaks volumes about the insanity and illegitimacy of this burgeoning 'field'.

Perhaps we can compromise on something for the associated article here - find some way to include both of our perspectoves here - rather than simply having a silly edit war. You are clearly a reasonable, intelligent person, as believe it or not am I. I suggest we negotiate a reasonable compromise here. Perhaps we can negotiate this on your personal page? You tell me...

Double Standard

If ever there was a 'social construct' posing as an objective reality, it's not the concept of 'race' or the 'white race' but the concept of 'Hispanic'. Now THERE's a genuine social construct for you. It's amazing (and infuriating) that the descendants of the English, Dutch, and French should be so demonized for their ancestors' crimes against 'people of color' while the descendants of the Spanish - who did everything the English and French did, and did it longer - are branded 'non-white victims'. The Indian and African descendants of the victms of the Spanish pathetically identify themselves as 'Latino' (NEVER 'Afrocanic' or 'Indianos' -I guess 'Eurocentrism' is good sometimes, huh?), while the white Spanish descendants of the tormentors of their ancestors eagerly embrace 'nonwhite victim status' and shamelessly accept ethnic charity (Affirmative Action). What gross disrespect to the memory of the countless Indians and Africans murdered by the Spanish.

Kind of like the way anyone who stands up to white people is a "bandit, seccionist, raider, or any other name white people can come up with to demonize those of hispanic decent who stood up for their rights. Read up more on the concept of "hispanicity" and you won't sound so ignorant. Mosquito-001

Mosquito - Your comments make no sense whatsoever. The point here is that several white European nations are guilty of historical crimes against humanity in the Americas and elsewhere, among them the UK, France, Portugal, Spain, and The Netheralnds, with Spain playing the role of evil Imperialist over the widest geographical area in the New World for the longest period of time (starting before and stopping after the British and French). Yet in the U.S., white Spaniards are not demonized like their French, English or even Portuguese counterparts - rather, they are counted as 'nonwhite victims' and given ethnic charity (affirmative action), which they lap up like puppies at the saucer. Meanwhile, Indians, Africans, mestizos and mulattoes from Latin America pathetically identify as 'Latinos' or 'Latin' or 'Hispanic', in the final insult to the torment of their ancestors. We wouldn't tolerate Boers from South Africa coming to the US and identifying as African-Americans, or Englishman coming to America by way of colonial India identifying as 'Asian-American'. Similarly, any black African from a former British colony who called himself 'Anglo' or 'English' would be lambasted as an Uncle Tom. Yet when it comes to people from Latin America, we do precisely this (in the US). It's just wrong, and it needs to stop.

Well said Anonymous, I agree with your statement. For those that are not from the States here is the definition for Hispanic and Latino according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

His·pan·ic (h -sp n k) adj. 1. Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America. 2. Of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture. n. 1. A Spanish-speaking person. 2. A U.S. citizen or resident of Latin-American or Spanish descent.

Usage Note: Though often used interchangeably in American English, Hispanic and Latino are not identical terms, and in certain contexts the choice between them can be significant. Hispanic, from the Latin word for "Spain," has the broader reference, potentially encompassing all Spanish-speaking peoples in both hemispheres and emphasizing the common denominator of language among communities that sometimes have little else in common.

Latino which in Spanish means "Latin" but which as an English word is probably a shortening of the Spanish word latinoamericano refers more exclusively to persons or communities of Latin American origin. Of the two, only Hispanic can be used in referring to Spain and its history and culture; a native of Spain residing in the United States is a Hispanic, not a Latino, and one cannot substitute Latino in the phrase the Hispanic influence on native Mexican cultures without garbling the meaning. In practice, however, this distinction is of little significance when referring to residents of the United States, most of whom are of Latin American origin and can theoretically be called by either word.·A more important distinction concerns the sociopolitical rift that has opened between Latino and Hispanic in American usage. For a certain segment of the Spanish-speaking population, Latino is a term of ethnic pride and Hispanic a label that borders on the offensive.

According to this view, Hispanic lacks the authenticity and cultural resonance of Latino, with its Spanish sound and its ability to show the feminine form Latina when used of women. Furthermore, Hispanic the term used by the U.S. Census Bureau and other government agencies is said to bear the stamp of an Anglo establishment far removed from the concerns of the Spanish-speaking community. While these views are strongly held by some, they are by no means universal, and the division in usage seems as related to geography as it is to politics, with Latino widely preferred in California and Hispanic the more usual term in Florida and Texas. Even in these regions, however, usage is often mixed, and it is not uncommon to find both terms used by the same writer or speaker. See Usage Note at Chicano.

Laura, Detroit 17 February 2006

Not really white

So called white people aren't really white, get a piece of paper and see what I mean now get off your high horses. They’re the same shade as pigs. Now I propose a few re categorizations. Vomit yellow, pink or blue.

This is mentioned in the article. It's explicitly stated that "...the term "White" is a misnomer, as almost all people (regardless of race) have a skin color which is some shade of brown." The designation isn't about arrogance. It's simply a colloquial term referring to relative skin color, as the people we call "white" are (along with some East Asians) the lightest people, just as the people we call "black" are the darkest, rather than literally black. It's also the most practical term, so it isn't going away, regardless of your propositions. --Jugbo 03:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The real page about the White Race.

This is the real page about the real White Race, a page that sheds light on most of the comments above: http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/medish/index.html#gallery

Needless to say that it is a parody. Still I point it out. Some people do not get it.

That was an excellent website. it is true, the people of Nordic origin has absorbed much Mongoloid traits. But I disagreed with one aspect of the website. Italy had two massive Germanic migrations however. I was reading a website, it stated that Italy has a 5 per cent Nordish admixture found mostly in the north due to Lombard and Gothic invasions, not to mention many decades of Austrian rule. - 21/02/06

Maybe, but you know, no one is perfect.

AMERICANS ARE NOT WHITE!!

Americans are not White!!! They could call themselves Martian if they want. So-called "white" Americans, according to their own one-drop rule, are not White and have never been White:

Genetics

"In European Americans from State College [in Washington D.C.], the west African and native American genetic contributions are low (0.7% and 3.2%, respectively)."

(Shriver et al., Hum Genet, 2003)

As to their European blood, many Europeans are not White either:

"The Tat-C haplogroup was observed at significant frequencies in each of the southern Middle Siberian populations studied. Surprisingly, it reached its highest frequency in the Siberian Eskimos and Chukchi from the Chukotkan peninsula. The Tat-C haplogroup was absent in the Lower Amur and Sea of Okhotsk region populations that have maintained greater geographic and/or linguistic isolation (e.g., the Udegeys, Nivkhs, and Upriver Negidals) and was only detected in the populations likely to have had recent contact or shared origins with the populations of southern Middle Siberia (e.g., the Okhotsk Evenks, Ulchi/Nanai, and Downriver Negidals). Because the Tat-C polymorphism originated on a Y chromosome containing the DYS7C deletion (haplogroup 7C), which was present only in the Middle Siberian Tuvans, Buryats, Tofalars, and Yenisey Evenks, the Tat-C haplogroup probably entered the Lower Amur and eastern Siberia from southern Middle Siberia. This conclusion is consistent with the previous hypothesis that the Tat-C and 7C haplogroups arose in central Asia and migrated west to northern Europe and east to Chukotka (Zerjal et al. 1997).

"The network of Tat-C and DYS7C haplotypes revealed that the ancestral Tat-C haplotype (7C[11-11-10-10]) was found only in southern Middle Siberia, indicating that this Y-chromosome lineage arose in that region. Moreover, the limited microsatellite diversity and resulting compact nature of the network indicates that the Tat-C lineage arose relatively recently (Zerjal et al. 1997). The absence of the Tat-C haplogroup in the Americas, with the exception of a single Navajo (Karafet et al. 1999), along with its high frequency in both northern Europe and northeastern Siberia, indicates that the Tat-C lineage was disseminated from central Asia by both westward and eastward male migrations, the eastward migration reaching Chukotka after the Bering Land Bridge was submerged. Both the M45 and Tat-C haplogroups have been found in Europe, indicating both ancient and recent central Asian influences. However, neither of these major Middle Siberian Y-chromosome lineages appears to have been greatly influenced by the paternal gene pool of Han Chinese or other East Asian populations (Su et al. 1999)."

(Lell et al., Am J Hum Genet, 2002)

Tat-C Frequencies

Yakuts..........87% Eskimos.........61% Chukchi.........58% Finns...........55% Buryats.........52% Tofalars........47% Lithuanians.....47% Lapps...........42% Estonians.......37% Maris...........33% Latvians........32% Nenets..........30% Tuvans..........18% Chuvash.........18% Russians........14% Ukrainians......11% North Swedes.....8% Gotlanders.......6% Norwegians.......6% Poles............4% Germans..........3% Armenians........3% Slovakians.......3% Danes............2% Belarusians......2% Turks............1%

7C Frequencies

Nenets..........50% Tofalars........47% Tuvans..........28% Buryats.........15% Maris...........17% Czechs...........6% Estonians........4% Russians.........4% Finns............2% Yugoslavians.....2% Cypriots.........2% Poles............1% Slovakians.......1% Turks............1%

(Kittles et al. 1998, Rosser et al. 2000, Dupuy et al. 2001, Wells et al. 2001, Lell et al. 2002 and Puzyrev et al. 2003)

So, stop pasing off as White and face up to the facts.

You mean to argue that "white" Americans "are not white!!!" Obviously, not all Americans are of European extraction, otherwise there wouldn't be non-white people to be absorbed into the white population. The infamous one-drop rule is largely considered racist, and is maintained mainly by the uneducated, and, therefore, hardly provides a convincing premise for any argument. The studies that you cite don't reveal any of these white groups to be "not white", but rather that a (mostly) small amount of them have a small amount of non-white admixture that doesn't change anyone's identity. Even a significant amount of non-white ancestry wouldn't necessarily make them non-white, because this wouldn't be considered to be non-white admixture into white populations if they these people weren't considered to be white in the first place, especially in the case of NE Europe, which has the highest frequency of, not only mongoloid admixture in Europe, but also of the traits that are most popularly (and, apparently, inaccurately) considered to be indicators of white racial "purity" in the world (i.e. those of blondism). So we see that whiteness really doesn't require such homogeneous pedigree, and, that, by a rational definition, it depends mostly on appearance, like any other "race". So no one you're talking about is "passing off" as white. --Jugbo 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. Firstly, I mean only the so-called ¨white¨ Americans. Secondly, you say it is a small amount of them (¨whites¨) that have non-white admixture: that is just your saying so, DNA analysis shows otherwise: the percentages given are an average. It does not mean that 0.7 per cent are pure African and 3.2 per cent pure Native American, and the rest pure ¨Whites¨. Needless to mention the amount of them with Eastern and Northern European origin, with a significant amount of Mongoloid ancestors. Finally, modern science proves that so-called ¨white Americans¨ are actually a mixed people. If they want to call themselves ¨White¨ that is another matter. But let´s separate facts from fiction. As to your assertion that race depends mostly on just appearance, that is again your saying so: there are many examples of a ¨White¨and African American couple that have several children and often one of them looks White and the other one Black: They have the same genetic background in spite of their appearance. Race should be dealt with on a scientific basis, not based on political agendas, myths and superstition.

I don't really understand what you are trying to prove here, though the passage on Tat-C may be consistent with longstanding theories of migration associated with the Europe-wide spread of Indo-European languages from Central Asia. "Non-white" admixture is not the same as the presence of a particular genetic marker, since "white" is essentially a phenotypical, not a genetic category. In any case, "one drop theory" is scientifically nonsensical, since there can be no clear definition of a "drop"! Paul B 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to prove what science is proving. Not conceptions like phenotypical. By the same token you could talk of a fat race, a skinny race, an ugly race. Let´s talk science. Not myths and superstition.

If "fatness" were a defining and innate feature of a geographically delimited endogamous group, then we could have a "fat race" yes, just as we have a Pygmy race. You are proving nothing because you are presupposing the very pre-existence of the "races" that you are claiming to be somehow "mixed". Only if you have the concept of pre-existing "pure" races can you meaningfully speak of "mixtures". You then have to ask where these "pure" races are supposed to have come from and when was their "pure" identity defined. Paul B 15:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the term White and puts a lot of emphasis on the term as used in USA. Well, the term has been used there and continues to be used to refer to a race, and often the concept of purity has been used a lot there in relation to races. There are not many nations in the world, by the way, that make such a big issue of race, and of concepts of purity, both in common parlance and officially: look at the population census. Well, it happens that their ¨whiteness¨is being challenged by scientific evidence. That's all.

Yes, this article is about the use of the term White in a racial sense, and that means it discusses the full range of usages in different contexts. It has a lot about US attitudes partly because many contributors are from the USA, but also because, as you say, the USA has a history of obsession with race and racial hierarchies that is unparalleled in any other country and which has continuing cultural significance within the USA. "One drop theory" developed at a particular time - before modern genetics - when models of race were different. But even at that time it was recognised that Europeans must have evolved and diverged from other groups, so by definition they must have had "non white" ancestors. And of course the more rabid exponents of Nordicism were always finding admixtures in various parts of the European population - indeed the standard view at the time was that the so-called "Alpine race" of central europe had expanded from Asia. So there never was any clear and simple model of "white" ancestry and identity. Our job is to explore that as fully as we can. The scientific evidence does not and cannot challenge the "whiteness" of people, only give us more information about the various ancestries of people who are currently categorised as white. It may also challenge the basis for that categorisation, but only if it is understood to depend on an isolated common deep ancestry of all people currently labelled as white, which it need not do.

I looked at that article from which you quote. It makes no claims about the limits of the term "white" or about the phenotype of the progenitors of the haplotype.Paul B 19:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is something called linguistic registry. We must agree to use the same linguistic registry in order to understand each other. The article reads about the term White using the linguistic registry of the term in the USA. According to that registry, and the historical concepts associated with the white race in that country, "White Americans" cannot be considered White anymore in the light of the scientific data available nowadays".

Nonsense. The science tells us about the complexities of population ancestries, but cannot tell us how to properly use the word White, or who to include or exclude. It may, however, tell us whether some of the arguments used in the past to justify exclusions and inclusions were soundly based or not. Paul B 01:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess we will not come to an agreement. In any case I have presented facts; you have presented opinions.

As to the comments of discarding as nonsense the meaning of White in US society and the validity of the one-drop rule in American popular culture, I quote from the one-drop rule article in this Encyclopeadia:

Many scholars publishing on this topic today (including: Naomi Zack, Neil Gotanda, Michael L. Blakey, Julie C. Lythcott-Haims, Christine Hickman, David A. Hollinger, Thomas E. Skidmore, G. Reginald Daniel, F. James Davis, Joe R. Feagin, Ian F. Haney-Lopez, Barbara Fields, Dinesh D'Souza, Joel Williamson, Mary C. Waters, Debra J. Dickerson) affirm that the one-drop rule is still strong in American popular culture.

So, the conclusion is irrefutable, unless Americans or others want to change the rules in the middle of the game, now that they do not suit them.

And if you want more evidence, here is more:

Statistics

Sociologist and anthropologist Robert Stuckert examined census and fertility data to estimate how many blacks in America had passed as white, and how many whites had African ancestry as a result. His statistical tables showed that during the 1940s, 15,550 light-skinned blacks per year crossed over to live as whites, for a total of about 155,500 for the decade. Based on these figures, he determined that by 1950, some 21% of whites (about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four generations, and he predicted that this number would only grow in the decades to come.

(Robert Stuckert, Ohio Journal of Science, 1958)

Genetics

"All nine major European haplogroups [H I J K T U V W X] were observed in our sample and did not differ significantly from a previous study of a similar North American control population (Torroni et al. 1994). In addition, a nearly identical percentage of individuals (8.2% in control subjects and 8.5% in patients with PD) did not fit into these nine predefined haplogroups and were classified as 'others.' This group most likely consists of rare European haplogroups (e.g. R or Z) or the historical admixture known to exist in the North American white population (Finnila et al. 2000; Richards et al. 2000)." [Note that R and Z mentioned in the article as examples of rare European haplogroups occur at a combined frequency of <1% in white Europeans (Am J Hum Genet, 2000)].

(Am J Hum Genet, 20

"..you say it is a small amount of them ("whites") that have non-white admixture: that is just your saying so, DNA analysis shows otherwise: the percentages given are an average."

Notice that I said "(mostly) small amount of them" (ie excluding NE Europeans, a major percentage of which do have detectable non-white ancestry), so DNA does not show otherwise; and I know that these are percentages, but thanks for trying to clarify the obvious, anyway.

"It does not mean that 0.7 per cent are pure African and 3.2 per cent pure Native American, and the rest pure "Whites".

I know that, that's why it's an admixture study.

"Finally, modern science proves that so-called "white Americans" are actually a mixed people"

A "mixed people" averaging at approximately 0.7% when considering the entire group, and approximately 2.3% in the 1/3 of the group that actually does have non-white ancestry, doesn't make anyone non-white [10]:

"The mean African admixture among White Americans is low - roughly 0.7 percent African and 99.3 percent European admixture."

"Among the thirty percent of Whites with African genetic admixture, the admixture ratio averages to about 2.3 percent..."

So, not all white Americans have non-white ancestry (at least, none recent enough to influence their genome), and those that do at most have 20% black ancestry, yet they still identify as white, and justly so, as that is their prerogative, not yours (see, also, the advertisement for this book at the top of the same page, that provides a concurrent argument.)

"..there are many examples of a "white" and African-American couple that have several children and often one of them looks white and the other one black: They have the same genetic background in spite of their appearance."

Yes, well, their genes aren't going to matter to others if these mixed individuals identify as white, along with their looking white (as in the example of Carol Channing). As Paul pointed out, everyone is descended from non-white people, so everyone, including every white person, has non-white ancestors; so are we to consider the racial category of "white" to be non-existent? Clearly, it doesn't matter, as white people exist anyway, with varying amounts of non-white ancestry. You're advocating the often-refuted myth that white populations are more vulnerable to a kind of "pollution" (as some would say) of non-white genes, when that's simply irrational. There's no exclusive condition of white people that makes them particularly disposed to be made non-white by any amount of non-white admixture. Your argument that the presence of even a small percentage of non-white genes in an individual makes them 0% white is what's un-"scientific", here (on a topic that can't be scientific). Those that have some non-white ancestry are only part non-white.

As for the Native American component of the white American population, that's treated differently in this society, of which you're obviously a stranger. A white American that has a significant amount of Native American ancestry may still be considered "white", like Jonny Depp, Elvis Presley or Jessica Biel, and it really doesn't matter what racial purists like you think about it. I can't refer you to any source but the American people on this, and since I'm part of that group, this a point on which my "just saying so" is valid.

"Nonsense. The science tells us about the complexities of population ancestries, but cannot tell us how to properly use the word White, or who to include or exclude. It may, however, tell us whether some of the arguments used in the past to justify exclusions and inclusions were soundly based or not."

Paul sums it up here, and your "facts" still don't "prove" the point of your argument that "Americans are not white!!!". All of these scholars may reveal that the one-drop rule still has a significant holding in American society, but that doesn't mean that it's "scientifically" valid (as the once-widespread belief that the Moon is made of cheese isn't, either). Not all Americans buy it, and I, for one, as an American, don't. You have presented no "irrefutable" conclusions, just legitimate studies and your own angry rantings on what makes white people white (or non-white) in the eyes of the American people, two groups to which you obviously don't belong. You can't take one American cultural myth and hold the entirety of American society to it, because, as I've argued, it doesn't boast universal adherence; and belief in it, rather than scientific "proof", is clearly what matters in this issue, and you must agree, if you believe that it's prevalence in American society is what validates it. You've shown that science can't prove your point and that the only thing that keeps this "theory" alive are ignorant racists. --Jugbo 02:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not writing angry rantings. I am just mentioning facts. You say that you can claim to be white even though you are not. OK, that is what I said. You can say whatever you want, if that makes you happier. But you cannot use a double standard: one for saying when other people are white or mixed, and another for saying when you are white or mixed. When I read in different places that the US is a predominantly white country, I have to smile, to put it mildly. I am not American, but have lived in the country long enough to know it well. You use racial terms as a social marker, not as a racial reality. You call Black people African-Americans, denying their European background, when everybody who is into the subject knows that so-called African-Americans have close to a 20 per cent of European background. They should be called African-European-Americans, if you are so interested in point out the racial identity of people. You use racial classification as a caste system, and that is all that I am denouncing, with scientific evidence, evidence that will shed light on this issue more and more. Because you are as White as your fellow-Americans that you call Black and as white as many of those fellow-Americans that you call Native. You can only discuss percentages, but you all share the same ancestors. That is why you are American. And do not get confused. I do not think that there is anything wrong in being mixed. It is a lot of people who like to call themselves white who think so, insulting their own blood. I am European, of full white ancestry, from a place that is thousands of years old and where my people have lived since the dawn of history, but the way the term white is being used in some countries, by people who are not even white, is making me ashamed to call myself by that name.

Anonymous, identifying humans by color (“white”, “brown”, “black”, “yellow”, “red” etc.) are ridiculous Eurocentric labels. It goes hand-in-hand with their ignorant one-drop rule, which were both implemented to categorize people.

Since you’ve stated that you are “European, of full white ancestry, from a place that is thousands of years old and where my people have lived since the dawn of history,” (250,000 thousand years after Africans were striving), let me tell you how your ancestors used the color label and one drop rule to destroy lives, cultures and nations.

Let’s go back to AD period when your ancestors (Greeks, Romans etc.) modeled a religion (Christianity) to suit their own image (i.e. Caucasian long-haired-blue-eyed Jesus). With their rewritten, plagiarized bible in one hand and their distorted definition of being “civilized” and “white” in the other, your ancestors have placed people in bondage; displaced and divided families; raped and murdered children; claimed land that they did not possess; forced people to follow a distorted religion and belief system different from their own; killed people for not believing in their religion and values; and forced people to change their cultural identity to fit into the Eurocentric’s categorized superiority color concept.

From “white” Europeans enslaving people from Africa, New Zealand, and South America, to boost their economic status; to the Australian Aboriginals who were slaughtered by the thousands by “white” Europeans, who took their land and children and claimed it as their own; to former African slaves in Uruguay and Argentina that were completely annihilated by “white” Europeans who felt that they did not fit in to their community any longer; to Native Americans who where murdered and displaced on reservations, so “white” European descendents could take their land; to “white” Colonial attitudes that have had a historical hand in shaping notions of superiority amongst African tribes, such as the Hutu and Tutsi that sparked mass genocide; to the most recent atrocity that “white” European descendents are trying to force on the people of the Middle East and their Muslim religion that will no doubt continue to bolster a factions warring against Westerners, which includes (“white” Europeans). That should be the real reason why you should be ashamed to call yourself “White.”

Non-white people do not care about the percentage of admixed blood that runs through "White" people's veins, because they have been taught to identify a person by their skin color through the teachings of Eurocentric values that categorize people by color. So, when a non-white person or a person of color sees “white” skin that person is classified as a white person regardless of where they originated (including America).

In regards to “Blacks” being called African-American it was not the choice of “white” Americans to do so, they are not that thoughtful. Black people chose African-American, because they did not want to be categorized by the Eurocentric label and/or definition of being called “black”, which carries a very negative connotations [[11]]. Instead some prefer to be recognized and appreciated as being descendents of Africa; just like Irish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, etc.

And, many of my African-American friends would rather rip out their own heart, than to admit that they have 20 percent of European blood in them, let alone be called African-European-Americans; it’s repulsive to them, just like it’s appalling to many “whites” that deny their African ancestry.

The main article of the White (People) page sums it up best, because it states that those who believe in the physical reality of "White" as a replicable human category use three kinds of definition to advocate the notion: ancestry, appearance, and self-identity. All three criteria must match in order to define one as White. The ancestry definition applies the label to anyone whose ancestors were all (or almost all) Europeans, but only if they "look White" and they also self-identify as White.

So, based on the Eurocentric label put in place by your ancestors and their European descendents, American “Whites” are “White.” People of color did not make the categorized labels on who is white, black, red, yellow and/or brown your ancestors did. You are officially a member of the racist "White" society...Welcome.

Laura, Detroit 25 February 2006

I basically agree with most of the things that you say. It is precisely those who think themselves as the sole descendents of Europeans, who think that they are better because of that, and are so racist, that as you point out, would deny that they also have African or Native American origins. In fact they are so racist that they have managed, by social pressure, that African Americans deny or ignore that they are also 20 per cent of European origin. That does not make them any better: it is just a fact. An American has many reasons to feel proud. It has many reasons to be proud by being just American. They do not need to try and identify in the way they are doing. In an identification system based on something called race, which is used with a lot of social connotations and certainly not soundly based. That is the sick part of American society. I do not agree with the one-drop rule. I am just giving self-called White Americans a taste of their own medicin. Because they are so stupid that they think that they are better because they are "White". And, come on, everyone knows that.

Bullshit. You cannot claim that every white American feels the same way in this or that respect, just as you can't claim the same thing for any other group. Both of you show ignorance when you express prejudice and sweeping assumptions about others as you've done. Everyone thinks differently, and time changes prevalent social ideas. Anonymous person, your "European" home country, whichever one it may be, also harbored racist ideas, as has every other group of people in the world, even if not on an institutional level. Would it be fair for me to point out the ideas of Hitler, or Ferdinand and Isabella, or of the slave traders, and hold you responsible for them? How about if I assumed that everyone in Europe was racist, and would agree with the ideas of the Third Reich or the Spanish Inquisition, or with those that pervaded the Jim Crowe South (even there, not everyone thought or felt similarly). What if I demanded that another society change their identity and the way they see things and interact to suit my ideas because that's the way I think it should be. And why do you care so much about white Americans calling themselves "white". As I've argued, it's not inaccurate, it's just a colloquial term, of no major consequence (to most people, anyway), and one doesn't have to be 100% European (which most white Americans are) to be "white" in the U.S., and that's why you're wrong. You're taking an idea that has it's roots in the American racial Dark Ages (when not everyone agreed with these racial ideas, which characterize this era because they were institutionally sanctioned, not even held by every American) and imposing it on a modern society. Obviously, you're still clueless about American society after having lived here, and you show it by projecting your foreign prejudice on everyone in this country that you don't understand has many facets and many different people who think and feel in many different ways, as every other place does. You're just cherry picking certain aspects of this society in an attempt to justify your prejudice. And you are writing angry rantings because you started this section with ALL! CAPS! AND! EXCLAMATION! MARKS!

Laura, you're so profoundly racist that you really should refrain from speaking here, as your posts are pure hatred. No one should be "ashamed" of being born into a certain group for any reason. All these atrocities did happen, but it's not a new story. People do terrible things to each other, they always have and always will, and that's part of life, whether you're an animal, plant or bacterium. Barbarism is necessary for life and civilization (if not for the creation of it, then certainly for it's maintenance), and it's never going away; so you should abandon your apparent fantasy that malice and violence are deviations from what's natural and normal, and that wherever they show up that someone is to be blamed or hated. Historical Europeans have done terrible things, but that track record is shared with everyone else, whether they have built a civilization and contributed good things to the world or not. As you undoubtedly know, Egypt has given us all great things, but do you really think that Imperial Egypt was all hugs and creativity? It wasn't. They colonized, conquered, destroyed, enslaved and killed (and discriminated based on race), like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Kushites, Hittites, Persians, Arabs, Mongols, Incas, Mayas, Aztecs, Byzantines, Ottomans and various other peoples have, some never having empires. There are two sides to that coin. And although no one has done this as much as Europeans have, that's only because these detrimental effects are magnified by the fact that Europeans have built the largest and most influential empires the world has known, which is normally impressive and prestigious when done by others, but horrible and unspeakable for it's crimes whenever white people did it. That'll change, when the negative repercussions of these European empires fade, and their time is looked at as just another one of human history. Therefore, you should stop hating, and look at everything in it's context, rather from your egocentric black American perspective. I, being a non-Christian, could point a finger at all Christians for certain trespasses and chapters of history that I resent, but I know that not every Christian is hateful or responsible for what other Christians have done. To believe that would be to assume that Christians are more prone to hatred and are responsible for the world's problems, and would be my biased perception from the perspective of my own time and environment. Both of you have anger to vent, but it can be released by simply thinking about these things in realistic terms and understanding them for what they are, rather than by antagonizing other people in your ignorance. --Jugbo 00:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I think this thread is drifting. I have asserted that "White" Americans are not "White" according to the one drop rule that they themselves created and applied. I am not saying that all Americans believe in it, but as I have quoted above, it still has a significant holding in US society. That is not a personal opinion, it is shared by scholars that I have quoted above. So, this US "White" society should begin to apply their own rule to themselves since they are applying it to others. I think I have done it correctly: that is, quoting and presenting evidence, not personal opinions. In addition, I think these considerations should be introduced in the article, obviously in a proper and respectful way, but stating facts. Jugbo, do not get mad at Laura. If you are an American you will understand how sensitive an article dealing with the white race can be. I did not write the article. The article was written. No one can expect that this issue will not cause controversy. I am also sorry if sometimes I was carried a little away.

White people as a whole did not create the "one drop" rule. It's a rule that was promoted by Lothrop Stoddard and his supporters for a period within a specific cultural context. It did not exist outside the USA. Ironically, its life was actually extended by the civil rights movement which promoted non-white solidarity by attacking categories such as "mulatto", "quadroon" etc, and insisting that all mixed race peoples were "black" as part of a unified political identity. If you look at Australia you see the opposite argument. There it was widely believed that the native ("Aboriginal") peoples should be absorbed by the white settlers by interbreeding, so that they ceased to exist as a visible separate race. In other words, it was not "one drop" makes you non-white, but that "one drop" of Aboriginalness will be invisible in a sea of whiteness. The fact is that there have been many many different models of racial difference, absorbtion, separation etc in different contexts. The problem with what you say is that you extrapolate generalisations about "white people" from a brief bit of the history of the USA. Laura goes further, she projects modern attitudes onto the ancient world, absurdly claiming that the "(Greeks, Romans etc.) modeled a religion (Christianity) to suit their own image (i.e. Caucasian long-haired-blue-eyed Jesus)." So, does she actually think that Greeks and Romans had long hair and blue eyes, or that eye colour has some relevance to how Chrisatianity was modelled? Paul B 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The image that sometimes was associated with Jesus was obviously not created by the Greeks or Romans. It was created later in history. But that is another matter, and subject for a long discussion, but I do not want to drift. I am not stating that all Americans created the one drop rule. Obviously all theories are created by individuals. Communist Russians did not create Marxism as a theory, it was created by an individual, but it was obviously embraced by a dominant part of that society. By the same token, it can be argued that the one drop rule continues to be dominant in US White society. It is not a personal perception. I have seen that among a lot of White American friends myself. A lot of friends that were good people and who did not consider themselves racists or at least that is what they said. It is just a mindset that has been implanted in them in such a way that it is just part of the way the see the world. So powerfull continues to be the influence of that theory. But, again, obviously anyone could argue that that is only a personal perception. I do not present my personal opinion. Just look at the article about the one drop rule in this encyclopeadia and its influence today in US society. It is supported by serious scholars. US "white" people are using it to refer to Middle Easterners and others as non-white. I am not speaking about the Government, but about popular culture. So, if they apply it to other people, why not to themselves.

Tsk Tsk Tsk…Jugbo, you just proved a valid point. Anonymous’ stated “how “white” Americans use racial terms as a social marker, not as a racial reality, and how they point out the racial identity of people. “Egocentric black American perspective?” Did you not just justify his claim? Did you not just plaster your racial label on me? A racist, who? At no time in any of my discussions have I claimed that any race was better than another, which is the definition of racism. Nor have I belittled you with name calling, I may have said you are an emotional person, but I never called you any outlandish names nor used profanity to express myself.

What happened to your statement that this site was a free-content encyclopedia - to influence the thoughts and minds of others through democratic education, peer discussions and debate. Why do you get so angry, when questions and/or different views are posted that challenge certain standards or the history of “white” people? Are you the White people’s page watchdog? I have every right to post my opinions on this site’s talk page. The reactions and feedback that I receive from you and others helps me learn and understand how others feel about certain issues. So you can rant and rave all you want, but I am not going anywhere, and I will continue to voice my opinions Jugbo.

Now, for your information the American racial “Dark Ages” is not a bygone era, it’s still prevalent and going strong in today’s modern society, where do you live in a cocoon? Not only is it prevalent here in the States, but it is also a global issue. Do you not remember the recent riots in France this past December, where non-white youths burned the city in protest to the horrendous treatment they were receiving by “white” Europeans?

Are you not reading how a Danish illustrator portrayed Mohammad in cartoons, in which some or all of the cartoons have been reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries, leading to violent protests involving hundreds of deaths, particularly in Muslim countries? These cartoons are just like the American portrayal of Blacks that were drawn with big lips, big buck eyes and/or like monkeys; both are culturally insulting and intended to humiliate people who are different or have different beliefs from white people.

How about how the American media portrayed Katrina hurricane victims as being “refugees” instead of “evacuees”, or how the APR showed white people with a loaf of bread in their hand with a caption that read, “struggling to survive,” yet a Black man’s captioned read that he was “looting a store”. Or how about the bungling Barbara Bush who claimed poverty-stricken refugees who lost everything in Hurricane Katrina were actually better off thanks to the devastating floods and were so happy in their makeshift camps they would rather stay than go back to their impoverished communities.

Did you forget what sparked the recent Cincinnati riots? Racial problems still flourish in America and throughout the planet. I can go on and on pointing out facts to you, but you’ll just claim it as being angry ranting or brush it off by saying that you are not moved or it’s not a new story, which is typical.

To answer your statement, some people are “ashamed” of being born or belonging to a certain group – it’s called self-hatred. White people often people feel ashamed of perceived atrocities committed in the past by their ancestors. This includes colonialism and conflict in the 20th century. White self-hatred is often related to feelings of dissatisfaction about the current capitalistic nature of society and social issues such as income inequality and pollution. It is often argued that evidence of widespread White self-hatred in academic circles is the protection that political correctness offers to all racial or cultural group with the exception of mainstream whites.

Black self-hatred can show itself in the form of embarrassment or shame in those things that are culturally identified with African heritage. It is ingrained in subtle ways from childhood. A person becomes reluctant to share or perpetuate activities or traditions that have in the past cause them pain. They come to hate those things and in extension themselves. There is also personal, Jewish, and gay self-hatred.

In conclusion to your response, history does show how the Assyrians to the Ottomans and others have colonized, conquered, destroyed, enslaved and killed based on race, but I’m glad you cleared it up by stating that no one has done this as much as Europeans, whose “empire” was developed off the plight and destruction of others.

I am very awed by your writing style and I look forward to your response, but this time show more intelligence and avoid the name calling and foul language – it’s not justified.

Laura, Detroit 26 February 2006

Paul B, this is the second time I’ve encountered your poor references to back your statements. I reviewed the Lothrop Stoddard link and it does not validate that this person promoted the one drop rule. It does however state that he authored over two dozen works, most related to race and civilization, echoing the themes of his previous works about the dangers of "colored" peoples against "white" civilization; next time be a bit more accurate.

I never stated that the one drop rule existed outside of the U.S., I stated that it was implemented to categorize people. Since you consistently use a “u” in color, you may live outside of America, so let me clarify the one drop rule’s racist past.

It has been called the most evil rule the U.S. ever devised. It was crafted during one of the most shameful periods in America's history -- the brutal enslavement of African people in the deep South in the 1800s. Wealthy Southern slaveholders (“white” Europeans) wanted to increase their stable of enslaved Africans, so they mandated that anyone with any African blood had to be a slave.

In the post-slavery era, vicious segregationists in many pockets across the U.S. didn't want to live or interact with former slaves (or anyone who resembled them). It was later used by hate-filled segregationists during much of the 1900s in the South and the West. And despite this horrible history, a dwindling segment of local people are trying hard to save it.

The "one-drop rule," which essentially states that if a person has even one African ancestor, that person must categorize him/herself as black. A category called "mulatto" existed for people of mixed racial ancestry, which was generally thought of as African and any other combination, but it was deleted in the 1930 census, which was way before the civil rights movement Paul.

Your Australian statement is very disturbing. Your support for “white” Europeans to steal Aboriginal children from their natural parents, and their distorted belief that the native ("Aboriginal") peoples should be absorbed by the white settlers by interbreeding, so that they ceased to exist as a visible separate race, supports my statement that European’s categorized superiority color concept and distorted definition of being “civilized” and “white” destroyed lives, cultures, and nations.

Go back and read what I said Paul, I did not extrapolate generalizations about "white people" from a brief bit of the history of the USA, but gave examples of “white” European atrocities that span the globe.

As for as my views on how Christianity was modeled to suit the Greeks who originally rewrote it the Tanakh ( Hebrew Bible, Jewish Bible, Old Testament, First Testament, and so on), or the Romans who slaughtered those that did not believe in their Christian belief, or the Caucasian looking Jesus, Mary etc. I will pass explaining my views. We will debate for a long, long time and I prefer not to do so.

Laura, Detroit 26 February 2006

I just noticed (after I posted my following comments) that Misza13 deleted Laura's above comments before I returned to respond here. Therefore, my following post was made in response to the most recent post made by the anonymous person who started this section, rather than to Laura's posts which succeed those and precede mine that follow here. --Jugbo 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are presenting personal opinion and perceptions. That the one-drop rule is prominent in American society (i.e. not just in the white American sphere) was not your only argument. I'll quote you:

"Americans are not White!!!" (opinion and personal perception)

"So-called "white" Americans...are not White and have never been White." (opinion and personal perception)

"As to their European blood, many Europeans are not White either." (taking the one-drop rule out of context, injecting your opinion into the matter and coloring it with your personal perception)

"So, stop pasing [sic] off as White and face up to the facts." (anger, and, perhaps, political agenda? - see below)

"Race should be dealt with on a scientific basis, not based on political agendas, myths and superstition." (opinion and personal perception)

"Well, it happens that their ¨whiteness¨is [sic] being challenged by scientific evidence. That's all." (opinion)

"So, the conclusion is irrefutable, unless Americans or others want to change the rules in the middle of the game, now that they do not suit them." (personal perception)

"But you cannot use a double standard: one for saying when other people are white or mixed, and another for saying when you are white or mixed." (personal perception)

"They should be called African-European-Americans, if you are so interested in point out the racial identity of people." (opinion and hypocrisy)

"You use racial classification as a caste system." (hugely affected personal perception)

"Because you are as White as your fellow-Americans that you call Black and as white as many of those fellow-Americans that you call Native." (opinion and personal perception - and lie)

"I am European, of full white ancestry, from a place that is thousands of years old and where my people have lived since the dawn of history." (lie)

"It is precisely those who think themselves as the sole descendents of Europeans, who think that they are better because of that, and are so racist, that as you point out, would deny that they also have African or Native American origins." (personal perception)

"That does not make them any better: it is just a fact." (interesting that you should feel the need to emphasize this)

"In fact they are so racist that they have managed, by social pressure, that African Americans deny or ignore that they are also 20 per cent of European origin." (personal perception)

"They do not need to try and identify in the way they are doing." (opinion)

"That is the sick part of American society." (opinion and personal perception)

"I am just giving self-called White Americans a taste of their own medicin [sic]." (that's just what you think, therefore, it's an opinion based on personal perception)

"Because they are so stupid that they think that they are better because they are "White"." (also interesting - and telltale, it's opinionated and a personal perception)

"And, come on, everyone knows that." (personal perception)

"I am not saying that all Americans believe in it, but as I have quoted above, it still has a significant holding in US society. That is not a personal opinion." (now who's changing the "rules" in the middle of the "game"?)

"So, this US "White" society should begin to apply their own rule to themselves since they are applying it to others." (who are these 'others' that you keep referring to?)

"I think I have done it correctly: that is, quoting and presenting evidence, not personal opinions." (another lie)

"If you are an American you will understand how sensitive an article dealing with the white race can be." (dealing with any race - more telltale statements)

"I am also sorry if sometimes I was carried a little away." (I don't believe you)

"it can be argued that the one drop rule continues to be dominant in US White society. It is not a personal perception." (of course it is - you don't know everyone's thoughts. Maybe it's just outstanding to you because you're the one with this racial preoccupation)

"I have seen that among a lot of White American friends myself. A lot of friends that were good people and who did not consider themselves racists or at least that is what they said. It is just a mindset that has been implanted in them in such a way that it is just part of the way the [sic] see the world. So powerfull [sic] continues to be the influence of that theory. But, again, obviously anyone could argue that that is only a personal perception." (no personal perceptions, anonymous? - it most certainly is)

"I do not present my personal opinion." (lie)

"Just look at the article about the one drop rule in this encyclopeadia [sic] and its influence today in US society. It is supported by serious scholars." (It is not. Apparently, you still think you've got scientific backing, here)

"So, if they apply it to other people, why not to themselves." (more personal perception)

Whew! Well, Mr. Anonymous, I think it's apparent that you've lied throughout this discussion, and that you're the one who isn't white, here. You're probably just an angry brown Cuban who paddled over to Miami to hate whitey at a closer proximity. I think you have an inferiority complex. You obviously think that white people are above you, and that if you can't be white, then no one should be able to be white. You're the one who thinks that being white is so damn special, and that's why you have this racial insecurity that white people think that they're better than everyone else. Yes, your problem is obvious, and you should keep it to yourself. --Jugbo

18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Jugbo, I think that your comments like: you are a brown Cuban, or you are not White, and some others, are enough to know who you are and what you stand for: you are the best proof of what I am saying: as if Cuban was a race, or as if brown was I race. You are a perfectly American "White" wannabe. If you want to call me brown or whatever is supposed to be a race for you is of no concern here. I would rather call myself by any name than call myself white, if that means that I am supposed to be classified in the same group as you. I grew up in a country with a fascist dictatorship. For long, when I was a kid, I thought that Jews where the guys with a trident whose job was to help Satan in Hell. I used to say then, do not spit like a Jew, and things like that, and I am 40 years old. Many racist mindsets have been spread in many countries for years. The US is a good example. The way the term white continues to be used reflects racists like you. Racists who decide who is white or not, brown, or whatever, to classify them and perpetuate a caste system. I have made conclusions based on citations. You have only shown what you are. And I admit that I have made a clear statement: White Americans are not white. And I stick to that presenting evidence, read it well. Americans are a mixed people of European, African, Native American and Asian ancestry. The result of this melting together shows itself in different combinations in the American man and woman. In some of them one element is much more present than another. But they all share basically the same ancestors. By the way, you can read the Autobiography of Walter White: A man called white. I quote: "I am a Negro. My skin is white, my eyes are blue, my hair is blond. The traits of my race are nowhere visible upon me."[1]. You can find it in the African American article of this great Encyclopeadia.

As to the comments of Laura. The behaviour of Europeans in history have been certainly positive and not so positive, like any other people. The problem is not so much how Europeans have behaved in the past. Civilization is developing and the values that a growing number of us share nowadays did not come into being in a few days. The problem is that a lot of people in some societies continue to stick to some of those values, just sometimes hidden in a veil of political correctness.

Well said and duly noted Anonymous.

Laura, Detroit 27 February 2006

By the way you can call me Felix, from Latin Felix, Felicis, "the one who has the protection of the gods", and related to Spanish feliz, or Italian felice, just meaning "happy". With a name like that you will understand that I give a damn how you call me: white, brown, black, blue or dull. But this is not a chat. We are here to propose changes to the article and to support it with evidence. Not to present opinions without a single citation. So, I propose working in the part of the article called Criticism of the Term. As you can see I do not want to impose any changes. I am raising the issue for discussion with a goal. And if you do not like my expression in English you can choose between French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese or German. But I guess you will stick to English, because it is the only languge in which you can write. So, let's stop making this personal and stick to the point.

Okay, Anonymous (when are you gonna get a name?), let me make myself clear: "White", in the U.S., refers to a group of people. This group of people is of European extraction (by the most conservative definition, and the plasticity of the term demonstrates that you can't provide a definite re-delineation of the term or group). Your argument goes thus: there is non-white admixture in some white Americans, therefore no American is white. There is some admixture in some white Americans, but this fact hardly supports your argument that "AMERICANS ARE NOT WHITE!!!" You're simply wrong. It shows us only that interracial miscegenation has occurred in the U.S. It doesn't tell us who is white or not as a result of this phenomenon, or how to use the term, as that's up to this American society (of which you aren't a part). The term will change as it pleases, not according to some white-wannabe (and that is what you are) who's angry at white people for calling themselves "white". Don't you think that that's silly? The only caste system is the one in your head that you impose on yourself with your inferiority complex. I see individuals like you all the time, and they feel that they're justified in attacking white people for being who they are because they think that it's a status symbol, when really all it is, is skin tone. Your motivation is clear, and you can't hide it from anyone reading this page, and you can't deny it to yourself. --Jugbo 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. you should use the "show preview" feature in the editing window before saving your post to the page, as you have a habit of going back to your posts and making many minor edits that could all be taken care of at once before saving. Otherwise, your changes take up space on the history page that could be used to show us significant additions. --Jugbo 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Jugbo, whatever. This is not a discussion about how white I am. The fact that you think that a real white cannot question the whiteness of Americans is interesting in itself. But if you feel very ¨white¨ that is always good if that makes you happy. I even admit that I could agree to call these Americans "strange white Americans".

I didn't mean that you can't "question the whiteness" of Americans, but rather that your claim is illogical, and that it sounds personally motivated. I want you (and Laura, et al) to know that I honestly don't have anything against non-white people. You may find that difficult to believe, and I can clearly see why as I've said some abrasive and inflammatory things here, but it's true. My two best friends are Paraguayan (mestizo) and Dravidian, and I'm very close to both of them (and, of course, I have nothing against either one). And you know what my favorite show is? - Oprah! (don't laugh), and I don't hate her for being black (or for any other reason, for that matter). I'm happy with myself and my image, and I'm proud of my European (and, possibly, Native American) ancestry, because that's who I am, and there's never any justification for hating oneself. But even though I may have some Native American ancestry (or anything else - I'm really not sure), I still consider myself "white", and others do, too, and that won't change because nothing in me will have changed (and I don't have to deny that Native American ancestry to identify as "white"). "White" is just a word, like "brown" or "black" (or whatever else), and I, personally, have never considered them to be anything more than just colloquial, superficial terms; so your comments here not only offended me (because I felt attacked for identifying as "white"), but confused me. I want to apologize for offending you, as I'm sure I have, and for denying the sincerity of your apology that you expressed earlier. And I need to clarify that when I called you "brown" that I didn't mean it as an epithet, but just as an emphasis in my argument as I speculated on your point-of-view. I also want to express agreement and commendation for your insight in your address of Laura's comments in the last paragraph of your previous post. Now, to those of you reading this who don’t really care because you weren't involved here, let me point out that even though this discussion hasn't been entirely pertinent to the article that exchanges like this are still important for understanding the subject at hand. --Jugbo 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)--Jugbo 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I am not offended. I do not have anything against Americans, if someone may infer that.I think they are a great nation, and thanks to god that they are the dominant power at the moment, and not countries like Nazi Germany, Communist Sovient Union or Fundmentalist Iran. I just wanted to point out how the term is used in the US by popular culture, and whether its usage is soundly based. I do not like how the term is used in other places either. I am from Spain, though I am again momentarily living in Miami due to my job, and we also have in Spain a lot of people that I could criticize, who look down on Latin American immigrants because they may look different or because they may not be considered white, ignoring that they also have our own blood. But this article deals a lot with the term as used in the US, so I acted accordingly. When I refered to my American friends and their view on race I did not mean how they looked at me, but on how they looked at other people, and they were obviusly sincere with me because they considered me white as well.

You two are so mushy! I’m just curious why it was so important for Felix to reveal his identity. Why couldn’t he voice his opinion without revealing where he was from? I liked him better as Anonymous, because he added spice to this site.

Felix, I know you moved here from Spain to Miami, but you have a lot to learn about what really goes on in America, so don’t admire it too much; it’s a country filled with lies and deceit. (i.e. Weapons of Mass Destruction, Vietnam War, All men are created equal etc.). Please do more research and ask more questions from people of all walks of life, not just “white” people, and you will find the truth. Believe it or not a lot of American’s are ashamed and disgusted at what America has become.

I know how Latin Americans are looked down upon when they move to Spain. One of my best friends from Honduras recently moved to Spain and she tells me how horrible the “white” Spaniards treat her. Which goes back to my original comments that identifying humans by color (“white”, “brown”, “black”, “yellow”, “red” etc.) are ridiculous Eurocentric labels put in place to make “white” more superior. What’s so funny about Spaniards is they forget their brown skin (or as some call it “swarthy”) is due to the African Moors that controlled the region for 400 – 800 years. Did you forget about that Felix?

Jugbo, don’t get so happy. The reason I agreed with Felix’s last statement from his previous post is because his last sentence, “The problem is that a lot of people in some societies continue to stick to some of those values, just sometimes hidden in a veil of political correctness,” applies to you.

Your brown Cuban, egocentric “black” American statements showed just how quickly you ripped off your political correctness veil to show your true stripes. Now, you state that you do not have anything against non-white people, because you have friends that are colored that aren’t even true "non white" Americans, and that you like Oprah – someone that’s a TV personality. To me you are the typical “white” person who thinks that because they have “non-white” friends that they understand their non-white world. You sound like Sally and Johnny on the attached sarcastic web site - take a look. [12]

Laura, Detroit -11 March 2006

Actually, Laura, Spaniards are Southern Europeans. We belong to the Mediterranean race, a subgroup of the Caucasian race, a race that spreads around the Mediterranean and the Middle East, including peoples like Spaniards, the Portuguese, Italians, Greeks, Libanese, Iranians, Berbers, Jews, Arabs, Etc. (Yes Jews and Arabs are basically of the same race, the same as mine, even though they hate each other so much, or even though some ignorant "white" Europeans like to think that Arabs, Berbers or Jews are really other races. This is just an example of how the term race is contaminated with social, political and cultural prejudice. On the other hand, the views that you mention are the result of Nordicist and Afrocentrist pseudo-scientific theories. But still, who cares. All races come from Africa. The Sub-Saharan African Nubians played a major role in the finest of Ancient civilizations, Egypt. Sub-saharan Africans are among the best sportsmen in Europe and America. Their contribution to modern music is astonishing, and in spite of the fact that I have met people who have been raised in segregated schools (yeah, that recent is all that)they are struggling to go ahead. I do not know if I have recent African ancestry, but I do know that I have ancient African ancestry, we all have. In my opinion we all should begin to reject principles and worldviews based on the classification of people by races. That is racist and immoral in itself. The interesting thing is that some people have been used to that so much, being raised seen questions like "are you white or black or whatever" since they went to school, that they think it is something absolutely normal. We, and by we I mean all, regardless of our countries of origin, should begin to attack headfront this remnant of racist American or European societies. We could learn from other civilizations. The Arabs, who are basically Caucasian, in spite of the belief of some ignorant Americans and Europeans, have had a lot of contact with Sub-Saharan Africans for centuries,the same as in the US, and many of them can look quite Sub-Saharan African, others mixed, and others White. Yet, they do not see themselves as such, they see themselves basically as Arabs. It is an aspect of Civilization in which they are much more advanced than we, Westerners, are. And in relation to the United States, which is your country, nor mine, I also have to criticize some sort of cheap anti-Americanism that one sees around the world. And believe me, I travel a lot. The US has bright and dark sides. It has been a inspiration for other countries as a democracy and it has defended its democratic principles with a lot of American blood. It has also made used of its power with not so good intentions as well, but no one is perfect. Yet, the darkest side as I see it, continues to be the way it handles its view on people and race.

Your response was a confusing one for me to respond to. For the first time on this talk page someone of the Caucasian race admitted their African ancestry. I was shocked. Normally I get clobbered with insults or I get ignored when I mention that all races, even Caucasian, really derived from the “black” African, which has been reported by scientist for many years and is plastered on the front cover of this month’s National Geographic.

My statement about the Moors was not based on an Afrocentric pseudo-scientific theory; it was based on the documented history of Spain. The Moors contributed tremendously to Spain and other European regions through the knowledge they spread between the early 700s and the late 1400s. They had brought along with them knowledge of science, medicine and mathematics, and also constructed important centers for the people such as mosques, hospitals and libraries that transformed Spain from what it was. It seems to me if there was an African/Arabic presence in Spain for such a long duration, then a blending of races is bound to happen.

I’ve researched many antiquity historians/writers and scientist that referred Mediterranean race as the “Negroid race”, since its characteristics are precisely those of the “blacks” in general: an elongated skull, dark or brown skin, these two adjectives being quite often euphemisms for ‘black’. Alexander Moret’s description of the ancient Mediterraneans and the fact that the ancient Greeks did not label the original inhabitants of North-West Africa as white that is to say, of the present Magreb_Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia -- they called the inhabitants Mauroi or ‘moors’, meaning men with ‘ a dark skin’. And Herodotus tells us that the Colchidians, a Middle East people, were as ‘Black as Egyptians.” Have I been reading the wrong information?

Here we must of course bear in mind that the inhabitants of North Africa at this period in history were not the same people who inhabit that region now! Prior to the Islamic conquests by Arabs, many regions of North Africa were inhabited by the Berber, an indigenous African people. Today, Western scholars regard the Berber as "white Caucasian", but it should be noted that the Berber language belongs to the Afroasiatic family, and the Berber's recorded presence in Africa is as old as the presence of the Bantu and other black African tribes.

I disagree with your statement that Jews and Arabs are basically of the same race. Being Jewish doesn’t (and shouldn’t) classify a person’s race, because it is a religion that many people of various nationalities follow including Ethiopians, the Judeo-Berber tribe of Jarawa, East Indians, and other tribes in Africa. The majority of Jews living in Europe, Russia, Israel and the United States practice what they call JUDAISM. Judaism is the religion of the Jews; it is also a nickname for Jewish culture.

To be honest, all I know is this “Jew” thing is very confusing, we started with the Israelites, they transformed into the Hebrews and then we got Judean descendents who became Jews and now call themselves the chosen people, how confusing.

However, I do know that not all people that claim they are “Jews” or follow the Jewish religion are Caucasian. Since you are a proponent of DNA, please review the following articles.[13] [14][15].It talks about how researchers found that Lemba men of South Africa carried a DNA signature on their Y chromosome that is believed unique to the relatively small number of Jews known as the Cohanim, who trace their ancestry to the priests of the ancient Jewish Temple and, ultimately, to Aaron, brother of Moses. What’s so unfortunate is that Lemba, Tutsi, Ethiopians, East Indians who follow the Jewish religion are not recognized as being Jewish by the “white” European Jews, because of the color of their skin.

As far as Arabs, I am baffled at how they are Caucasian, but maybe they are since they have the same Caucasian characteristics. One of them is using a religion (Islam) just like “white” Europeans used Christianity to force people to conform to their beliefs. The only difference is Arabs used Jihad to force people, from the ancient Berbers to the modern Sudanese, to surrender not just their sovereignty, but also their religion, language and identity.

While both worked hand in hand to enslave “black” Africans, the Caucasian’s stopped slavery decades ago, but they enforced a caste system to ensure that “white” people remained superior. Unfortunately descendents of Arabs still exploit “black” Africans in the form of “black” slavery in Sudan (Northeast Africa) and Mauritania (Northwest Africa). Over 2 million people have been killed in Darfur through Arab genocide. It is also documented that the “white” Arabs treat dark-skinned Arabs visiting Mecca very poorly. Although Arabs have worked and traded with Sub-Saharan Africans for centuries there are serious racist issues that prevail.

Laura, Detroit 19 March 2006

Laura, for the sake of closure (on my part, anyway), I should clarify my statement "egocentric black American perspective", to discourage any grudge you may retain, because you've complained about it twice, now (and not unjustly, either). Firstly, the adjective was used to describe perspective. I wasn't calling black Americans "egocentric", but a perspective of history and society from any exclusive point-of-view, such as a black American one as yours seemed to be to me, "egocentric" (if it's that of a group to which the individual belongs, otherwise it's just biased), because it's neither holistic nor proportionate, and thus doesn't provide us with a realistic view of the world. I should have been more careful and clear with my wording. Also, I've never claimed to "understand" anyone else's personal "world", white or non-white. I mentioned my "colored" friends (for whom American society has been home since infancy) and Oprah to support my claim that I don't hate "colored" people (because this logic does make sense). If you break down or prevent xenophobic barriers by spending time or growing up with others whom you may otherwise perceive to be fundamentally different from you because of appearance or stereotypes, then you wouldn't hate those people for racial reasons, now would you? I understand that other people are people, not primarily white people or black people or brown people or whatever. Therefore, I'm gonna have to deny your contention that I'm like "Sally and Johnny". You don't know me, my life or my world, Laura, so you can't speculate or draw accurate conclusions about my person on your own. We can reveal only partial views of ourselves in forums like this one (or ever), and I guarantee you that you can't see all of me here (and vice-versa, so I'll admit that my assumption about your POV was unfair). I don't give "colored" people special or different treatment. I don't affect my behavior to try to accommodate them in some way, nor patronize or tip-toe around eggshells for them, nor make generalized assumptions about them as if they were a different species about which I know nothing; because I, unlike "Sally and Johnny", don't see the world solely through a racial looking-glass. That's not to say that I'm color-blind (as I don't believe anyone is), but that these things don't omnipotently govern my thoughts and actions, and that I occupy my mind with racial matters whenever it's appropriate, as it is when contributing to this page. As for my "brown Cuban" remark, I'll quote myself:

"'White' is just a word, like 'brown' or 'black' (or whatever else), and I, personally, have never considered them to be anything more than just colloquial, superficial terms."

Therefore, there was no malice in the term, which was worthy of usage for my particular emphasis and for this discussion of race. I hope that this wasn't too "mushy" for you, because it's willingness to communicate by standards of civility and decency like these that's necessary for fruitful discussion (and I know that I haven't followed my own advice very well). --Jugbo 08:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Felix

By the way you can call me Felix, from Latin Felix, Felicis, "the one who has the protection of the gods", and related to Spanish feliz, or Italian felice, just meaning "happy". With a name like that you will understand that I give a damn how you call me: white, brown, black, blue or dull. But this is not a chat. We are here to propose changes to the article and to support it with evidence. Not to present opinions without a single citation. So, I propose working in the part of the article called Criticism of the Term. As you can see I do not want to impose any changes. I am raising the issue for discussion with a goal. And if you do not like my expression in English you can choose between French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese or German. But I guess you will stick to English, because it is the only languge in which you can write. So, let's stop making this personal and stick to the point.

I created a new subsection because this one is getting unwieldy. Edit away, but remember WP policy, especially WP:NPOV. It would make discussion a lot easier if you would sign your posts, preferebly by creating a user account, which is very easy to do. That way, no-one can confuse your statements with other anonymous contributions. Paul B 14:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if you also remind other people of the NPOV, because I have the impression that you have a certain leaning. So, if you have contributions to make , make them.

As I said, do not manipulate what other people say and leave it in its place. Will you erase this again?

Who is this "you" and what has been "erased" or "manipulated"? As far as I am aware nothing has been deliberately erased or manipulated on this talk page apart from a passage that was deleted by Misdra13 and immediately added back by Jugbo. Please make clear who or what you are responding to and please sign posts. Paul B 16:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. I said I was creating a new section, because the old one was too long and unwieldy. This is common procedure. You have to make the break somewhere and I made it clear that it was me who had added it. Nothing was erased at all, but we now have your paragraph twice over. Paul B 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated information

One researcher claimed that 30% of white Americans have on average about 2% Negroid ancestry, while the other 70% have no detectable trace of admixture (Mark Shriver in Sailer 2002). According to Shriver, for the US White population as a whole, the average sub-Saharan contribution is about .7%. UPDATE: Shriver now says "about 10 percent of [the European-American population] have some African ancestry" (Wade 2002) -- much lower than his previous claim of 30%. Incidentally, Shriver is now attributing his own African ancestry to "a Mexican grandmother", rather than to runaway slaves as he had implied in the Steve Sailer article.

[Important] UPDATE II: As more information has come out about DNAprint's "AncestryByDNA" test (Shriver is affiliated with DNAprint, and his findings mentioned above were made using a version of the ABD test), it has become clear that the ABD test absolutely DOES NOT accurately determine low level admixture in individuals. Thus, any statement from Shriver concerning "admixture" in American whites is meaningless. Recent research on Y-chromosomes and mtDNA detected NO black admixture in American whites (Kayser et al. 2003).

[Important] UPDATE III: A DNAprint executive now claims "Five percent of European Americans exhibit some detectable level of African ancestry" (ABCNEWS.com, Dec. 28 2003). This represents a third downard revision of the proportion of white Americans claimed by DNAprint to have black ancestry. An amazing lack of consistency (30% -> 10% -> 5%) proves the pronouncements of DNAprint employees on the racial ancestry of Americans are unreliable.

Do you also have information about admixture of other races? Or you think that the only non-white admixture is African American? Do you also have information about the level of white and non/white admixture in African Americans? Do you have information about levels of non-white and white admixture in Native-Americans? The issue is much more complicated than black and white. But sure. White Americans have lived together with other races for hundreds of years, but they have not mixed. And sure enough, Fidel Castro is a brown Cuban and Mr. Bush a "white" American, in spite of the Asian features in his eyes: link

"White Americans have lived together with other races for hundreds of years, but they have not mixed." Are you serious? I'm not quite sure in this narrative where you are being sarcastic. It would nice if discussions were clear, so many agendas contradict one another. It's true that they - along with other US ethnic groups - have mixed less than elsewhere in the world, but since most "black" Americans are actually of mixed European and African ancestry, it's pretty obvious that they have mixed in fact. Paul B 07:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a funny joke. What you meant to say is that "White Americans have lived together with other races for hundreds of years, but white people of this century fail to acknowledge the fact that they have mixed, and opt instead to just ignore the mixtures, or categorize them as "non mixed variations of Caucasoids" or "caucasoids with admixture" when it suits their quest for cultural appropriation. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that a bit of humour is always refreshing. Anyway, I have brought up the issue. Now if more people want to participate adding arguments in favour or against it is up to them. I have no more to say. But I think it is a matter worth looking into. See you maybe in other article.

Felix-Felicis.

synonyms

"Various synonyms or near synonyms for white people or white race occur: Caucasian, European, Aryan, Indo-European, Westerner, Occidental, etc. However each of these terms have significantly different meanings and so cannot be made identical with eachother or, therefore, with the indeterminate concept of "Whiteness"

should be compared to:

"Various synonyms or near synonyms for retarded people occur: idiot, retard, developmentally challenged, imbecile, mentally retarded, etc. However each of these terms have significantly different meanings and so cannot be made identical with eachother or, therefore, with the indeterminate concept of "retardness."

I think shows that the last sentence in each case is a not very useful. Synonyms are not generally "made identical with each other"; each of them have a slight nuance, and which one is used depends upon context, intent, etc. But each of those listed are given as synonyms in dictionaries, and even in wikipedia itself. The sentence in question is therefore superflous and is covered in the use of the word "synonym" list. I am therefore removing it.DonSiano 16:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A pretty meaningless analogy, there, I think. The terms you are using in your second example are largely slang, though some of them once had more technical meanings; others are forms of vague institutional euphemism. In each case they are not intelligably distinct from one another, and are genuine synonyms. The other terms are not. Aryan and Indo-European are genuinely synonyms, but they are specifically different from "Caucasian", which is a category from physical anthropology. "European" refers to a land-mass. Westerner and Occidental are genuinly synonyms for eachother, but are not clearly identifiable with "European" or the other terms (and of course "non Western" countries, e.g. in North Africa, are sometimes to the West of "Western" countries). Of course it is difficult to be precise about how far we can stretch the tern "synonym", since there will always be some differences of connotation even with words with identical referants, but in these cases the concepts attached to the words are irreconcilable with eachother in many cases. It is an important aspect of this article that it explores the multiple and sometimes inconsistent use of a term such as "white". Almost every attempt to clearly delimit it has proven problematic. The sentence draws attention to that fact. The inadequacy of your analogy with vague slang terms points up the necessity for the sentence you deleted. Paul B 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is really beating a dead horse. The whole gist of the article is how the term "white" and "white race" is a fuzzy term, whose meaning differs from place to place and time to time and from one individual to another. The synonyms listed (I'll accept the list you suggest) can be found in dictionaries as synonyms. I just looked through some and can give a citation for each of them, but I think it would interfere with the flow and is a little over the top. Generally, fuzzy terms are somewhat fuzzy, and I have no quarrel with that. The synonyms are fuzzy too. What is there now is clear, and requires no extended explanation of what is meant by "synonym." The very first sentence of the article points out the fuzzyness, and so does the rest of the article, in rather exhausting detail, I might add. The sentence in question is jargony, academic, un-neccessary, and borderline ungrammatical to boot. Leave it out.

The Need for Operational Definitions

I removed the following paragraph:

In addition, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, one of the most important geneticists of the 20th century, has identified ten genetic clusters in the global population: East Asians, Europeans, Inuit or Eskimos, Southeast Asians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, South Asians and North Africans, sub-Saharan Africans, southern-African Khoisan and central-African Pygmies, and Australian Aborigines. It should be noted that the European genetic cluster occurs mainly in Europe but also in some areas of the Middle East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg

If anyone can come up with a page number reference to where Cavalli-Sforza claimed to have found ten such specific "clusters," I would agree with restoring the statement. The map has a valid source reference, but it simply shows that people vary geographicaly and depicts no clusters at all. Indeed, it graphically and clearly depicts the absence of any clustering in human geographic variation. -- Frank W Sweet 13:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case you should erase the entire article about Cavalli-Sforza, which is one in this encyclopeadia too. I think it is a relevant contribution and I am putting it back.

You utterly miss the point. Cavalli-Sforza's work is very important, and the book cited is a standard reference. I demanded a page number and removed the paragraph because the paragraph was a grotesque fabrication that reversed what the book actually says on page 19. The fact that I removed someone's lies about an important and valuable book does not mean that I disapprove of the book. Surely, this should not be too hard for you to grasp. Put the paragraph back, if you wish, but I shall remove it again. Just how long do you think you can get away with falsifying such an important book before two or three other molecular anthropologists show up here, who also keep copies on their desk as I do, and join me in stopping such a gross and apparently ideologically motivated fabrication? -- Frank W Sweet 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again while trying to improve the whole section. The intention is not to solve the problem of definition by providing one, but to talk about the difficulties and pitfalls and the need for definitions. Jer ome 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no ideological motivations. Maybe you see something in the map and I see something else. Some people might think that other people have theirs because it points out clear genetic links between the Middle East and Europe. Maybe some people do not like the idea that many Arabs belong to the same genetic cluster as the Europeans. Everyone knows how often Arabs are not included in the term White, as it is used in the US, for example, so I think that the contribution can be interesting to point out how the term is so subjective and often ill-founded. Do you think that the article about Cavalli is wrong, or that the map is wrong? maybe then it should be changed too. By the way, you think that the genetic links shown in the map between the Middle East and Europe are wrong?

As to Jer ome. The section is speaking about solving the definition, with the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life, like a light meter, etc. So, you are not being coherent.

Move to white people?

Would it be controversial to move this page from white (people) to white people? I don't know what is being accomplished by having the parentheses around (people), other than to make it harder to type. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's now White (people), so it should be moved to White people? And no, the currect title is more encyclopedic, so there's no reason to move it. white people is a redirect to this page, so you can actually use that when writing other articles. Aucaman^Talk 02:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

We should try to avoid redirects if there's a convenient way to do it. And I don't know what makes "white (people)" more encyclopedic. "White" as a noun seems to be less and less common, and Wikipedia generally favours "... people" without parentheses, e.g. Korean people, French people, Turkish people. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

North Africa, Southwest Asia and South Asia

Removed the following:

Furthermore, while many South Asians are also anthropologically caucasoid, with varying complexions —and recognized as such by the United States Supreme Court—not only are they also excluded from the popular definition of "White", but US government agencies further categorise them as "Asians", be they Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians or Indian Jews. (See also: Race in the US Census). Even outside the American context, this trend of excluding caucasoid South Asians is almost universal, as is the disregarding of a comparable lighter-complexioned phenotypical presence as discussed for North Africa and Southwest Asia.

The term "anthropologically caucasoid" has not been used in science for nearly half a century. The very notion of "caucasoid" as something apart from the odd U.S. caste system is not replicable or even defineable.

Nonsense. The notion of 'caucasoid' is not something peculiar to "the odd US caste system"; rather, the bizarre notion that race is a 'social construct' is something peculiar to the US. In fact, the further one gets from the US, the less controversial such classifications as 'caucasian'.

If the point was to highlight the inconsistencies of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which waffled back and forth over and over many times, as to whether Arabs, Pakistanis, or East Indians are "White," then I suggest it be reworded thus.

Perhaps the author could use or or even quote from Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1998) or from Ian F. Haney-Lopez, White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race (New York: New York University, 1996). -- Frank W Sweet 15:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Arabs have always been classifed as white in the US, so you are either ignorant or dishonest (probably both). I challenge you to provide ONE documented, independently verifable example of a Supreme Court ruling that declared Arabs 'non-white' - or even investigated the question of Arab whiteness. The whiteness or lack thereof of Arabs has in fact NEVER been an issue presented to the supreme court. You are a rather shameless liar.

This is in response to the above unsigned rant. Among the important cases (among the many) where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the "Whiteness" of Arabs are the following eleven cases:

• In re Najour. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 174 F. 735. Ruled in 1909 that Syrians are White. Decision based on scientific evidence.

• In re Mudarri. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 176 F. 465. Ruled in 1910 that Syrians are White. Decision based on legal precedent (Najour).

• In re Ellis. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 179 F. 1002. Ruled in 1910 that Syrians are white, despite scientific evidence that they not White. Decision based on "common knowledge."

• Ex parte Sahid. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 205 F. 812. Ruled in 1913 that Syrians are not White, and never have been. Decision based on "common knowledge."

• Ex parte Dow. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 211 F. 486. Ruled in 1914 that Syrians are not White, and cannot become White by assimilation. Decision based on "common knowledge."

• In re Dow. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 213 F. 355. Ruled in 1914 that Syrians are not White. Decision based on Congressional intent as to definition of Whiteness.

• Dow v. United States. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 226 F. 145. Ruled in 1915 that Syrians have always been White. Decision based on scientific evidence.

• United States v. Ali. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 7 F.2d 728. Ruled in 1915 that Punjabis are not White, even the Punjabi in question who was born an Arab in Arabia and simply moved to Punjab. Decision based on "common knowledge."

• In re Feroz Din. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 27 F.2d 568. Ruled in 1928 that Afghanis are not White, even the Afghani in question whose family moved to Afghanistan from Arabia. Decision based on "common knowledge."

• In re Ahmed Hassan. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 48 F.Supp. 843. Ruled in 1942 that Arabians are not White, have never been White, and can never become White. Decision based on legal precedent. (Apparently an attempt to end the debate.)

• Ex parte Mohriez. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 54 F.Supp. 941. Ruled in 1944 that Arabians are White, have always been White, and cannot legally be considered non-White. Decision based on legal precedent. (Another apparent attempt to end the debate.)

The last two rulings are particularly humorous. Please let me know the address to which I can send my invoice for 10 minutes of elementary paralegal research. For a modest additional fee, I shall be happy to email you PDF files of the entire transcripts of these cases. Please have your credit card handy. -- Frank W Sweet 13:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes - I most certainly should pay you a fee for providing this evidence that Arabs have always/ultimately been considered white in America. Thanks! The citations you provided will come in very useful in future debates. How many $ do you want? Thanks so much!

As you noticed, that last ruling seems to have endured to this day. In fact, it has been applied even when a Arab person did not want to be White. For a strange story, see the case of Mostafa Hefny, a "black" African-looking immigrant, actually from Africa, who applied for affirmative action but was rejected. Alhough he is physically "black," the court ruled that since he was from Egypt, this made him an Arab, and so he was legally White whether he liked it or not. -- Frank W Sweet 03:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Legal Cases Ruling That Arabs Are White

• In re Najour. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 174 F. 735. Ruled in 1909 that Syrians are White. Decision based on scientific evidence.

• In re Mudarri. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 176 F. 465. Ruled in 1910 that Syrians are White. Decision based on legal precedent (Najour).

• In re Ellis. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 179 F. 1002. Ruled in 1910 that Syrians are white, despite scientific evidence that they not White. Decision based on "common knowledge."

• Dow v. United States. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 226 F. 145. Ruled in 1915 that Syrians have always been White. Decision based on scientific evidence.

• Ex parte Mohriez. This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 54 F.Supp. 941. Ruled in 1944 that Arabians are White, have always been White, and cannot legally be considered non-White. Decision based on legal precedent.

Second Paragraph

I have removed the reference to Brazil in the article's second paragraph and I have restored the reference to Chile. I removed the reference to Brazil because its source is flawed. The publishers of the CIA factbook cited have never provided sources for its so-called "ethnic" breakdowns and they have never clarified whether its numbers pertain to genetic admixture or voluntary self-identity (the two differ dramatically throughout the entire hemisphere). Unless we want to turn this article into an outline on how European genetic admixture percentages vary around the world due to colonization, it seems best to stick to socio-political perception (and self-perception) and avoid DNA. In this light, I removed the Brazilian reference because Brazilian literature overwhelmingly employs a rhetoric embracing mixed self-identity and opposes the U.S. White/Black/Indian trichotomy. In the same light, I restored Chile because, again, Chilean literature overwhelmingly claims "Whiteness." Not that Chileans deny Native American admixture--most also claim Amerindian blood as well. But the Chilean attitude resembles the mainstream U.S. attitude, that having some Amerind blood does not stop you from being "White." For anyone interested in the real DNA admixture percentages in Latin America (which, again, are not the same thing as the rhetoric of socio-political self-identity), I recommend the overall survey: Monica Sans and others, "Admixture Studies in Latin America: From the 20th to the 21st Century," Human Biology, February 2000, v. 72. no. 1, pp. 155-157. See http://backintyme.com/admixture/sans02.pdf for a copy in Spanish or http://backintyme.com/admixture/sans03.pdf for the English version. -- Frank W Sweet 14:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to object to the very premise that you want to use to speak about white populations. You want to use what is known as the social argument, that is, to speak of something according to what people in a society thinks. It is no surprise. I have already seen it in other articles in this encyclopeadia. Is the social argument really taken seriously in the US to define topics? Following that principle we could end up with crazy conclusions that are not worthy of any encyclopeadia. Shall we write about the concept American, using what most people in Afganistan or Iran think that concept stands for, or what society do we want to use to speak of a concept?. Or shall we write about race using what white South-African society believes in. The aim of the Encyclopedia, since it was first conceived in 18th century France was to fight superstition and wrong social beliefs, just the opposite of perpetuating them using what these societies here or there believe a concept is.

Social arguments to write in an encyclopeadia?

I have to object to the very premise of using social arguments.

Do we want to use what is known as the social argument, that is, to speak of something according to what people in a society think?

It is no surprise to see this here. I have already seen it in other articles in the English version of this encyclopeadia.

Is the social argument really taken seriously in the US to define topics?

Following that principle we could end up with crazy conclusions that are not worthy of a encyclopeadia.

Shall we write about the concept American, using what most people in Afganistan or Iran think that concept stands for? or what society do we want to use to speak of a concept?.

Shall we write about race using what white South-African society believes in.

The aim of the Encyclopedia, since it was first conceived in 18th century France, is to fight superstition and wrong social beliefs, just the opposite of perpetuating them using what these societies here or there believe a concept is.

"White" as opposed to "Light Skinned"

For two reasons, I removed the following sentence: "Yet, this is in contradiction with genetic research, since important areas around the Baltic and Scandinavia fall outside the European genetic cluster, with a high genetic flow stemming from Asia. See Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA) and pre-colonial areas of habitation next."

First (and less importantly), the depigmentation of the natives of the region within 300 miles of the Baltic does not conflict in any way with the early infusion of asian populations detectable via Y (or mtDNA) haplotypes. There is a vast difference in timing between the events. And there is even greater difference between autosomal adaptation and maternal or paternal lineages. Specifically, haplogroup N came into Europe from Siberia around 33kya, before the last glacial maximum. [See Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003), p. 375.] The depigmentation of northern Europeans, on the other hand, happened much, much later (just 5kya). Furthermore, this depigmentation is a superficial change in 3-5 genes. It is merely a recent autosomal adaptation to the dietary switch from meat to grains. A close analogy is the adult lactose tolerance adaptation among the same peoples. Lactose tolerance also applies to recent autosomal DNA adaptations of inhabitants of the region, whatever their pre-glacial mtDNA or Y lineages. In contrast to autosomal adaptations, matrilineal and patrilineal lineages are useful for migration tracking precisely because they are adaptively neutral and go back essentially forever.

Second (and most importantly), the place for such discussion is here on the discussion page, not in the body of the article. -- Frank W Sweet 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree. The paragraph stars: The uniquely pale complexion and melanin-deficient hair common to Nordic adults is often considered the hallmark of those seen as White.

And continues: This phenomenon's cline is densest within a few hundred miles of the Baltic Sea.

1. The Scandinavian and Baltic areas are presented like the center of Whiteness.

2. White has always been associated with being pure European, especially by those who want to concentrate on the paleness issue.

3. That region is precicely the region in Europe that is genetically less European, with an important Asian, non-caucasian genetic flow.

And precisely, the setion deals with the concept "white as opposed to light skinned".

So, I think it is important to point it out in the article. HCC.

What exactly is it that you disagree with? (1) Do you disagree that the European depigmentation is centered on the Baltic? (2) Do you disagree that Whiteness is traditionally associated with being European? (3) Do you disagree that our species colonized Europe from Asia (which was colonized from Africa)? I cannot answer you if I do not know what you are trying to say. Feel free to just give a number (1, 2, or 3), if this is easier. Please stop reverting until we can sort out just what you are trying to say. I am willing to help you add data about pre-LGM migrations if you think it useful, but I would like to know just why you think that pre-LGM (33kya) migrations have anything to do with the post-aricultural (5kya) depigmentation adaptation. (Also, to sign your remarks, type four tildes.) -- Frank W Sweet 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I have already explained my points above. It is about pointing out yet another inconsistency of how the term white is applied and viewed. I do not have to explain how it is associated with concepts of European purity. Needless to mention the peripheral nature of this region in what means to be European in terms of History and Civilization. I hope you understand now the reason for the addition. HCC.

The problem is not that you neglected to explain your points. The problem is that I cannot grasp what you are getting at. Are you saying that the notion of Europeans as the epitome of Whiteness is inconsistent because our species evolved outside of Europe? Is that what you are trying to say? Please, help me out here. (Also, to sign your remarks, type four tildes.) -- Frank W Sweet 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clear, anyway I will continue to try and explain. The term white, I think we all agree with this, has been used in an arbitrary way, often associating with it certain ideas. These ideas are complex (not too much I think), but one ingredient was that it was the race of Europe, and that this race was pure, different from African and Asiatic races. As I said, many people in that region are related genetically to "races", if we may continue to use that term, that are neither considered European, nor Caucaisan. Yet, some people think that they are the purest Europeans, that is, the purest whites.(I do not know what you mean by the four tildes. I think like this is right.) HCC.

So I think my point is clear. If you think it could be reworded make a suggestion. Otherwise, I will add it again. HCC.

Okay. Go for it. Now that I know what you are trying to say, I might be able to help tweak it. FYI, a tilde is this symbol ~ . Type four of them, one after the other with no spaces after your comments and it will sign and date your comments automatically. -- Frank W Sweet 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

OK.I am going to add it again. You can help with the wording if you want. For the tildes I guess I will have to register and sign in. HCC.

A Modest Proposal

I propose adding the following four paragraphs to the top of this page:

This article describes how the term "White" is applied to people. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is oriented towards social science, not towards genetics. It includes verified past as well as present usages. And it includes usages around the world, not just in the United States.

The article is descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells how people actually label themselves and others with the term "White." It does not prescribe how people "should" use the term nor does it address who is "really White." Edits that violate this goal and tell how people "should" use the term or claim that any given person or population is "really White" will be deleted. Arguments on this discussion page that the article should switch its goal to teaching the "correct" usage or to explaining who is "really White" will be ignored. Complaints on this discussion page that the article fails to teach the "correct" usage or that it fails to rule on who is "really White" will be ignored. The goal is to show how real people actually use the word, nothing more.

The article is oriented towards non-scientists, not towards genetics. Molecular anthropologists and phylogeographers routinely employ concepts (populations, clines, traits, polymorphisms, alleles, clusters), which the uninformed can misinterpret as "races." Some study the ebb and flow of population migrations into Europe over the past 35 millennia, which the uninformed may see as the origins of "White" people. And others study the European colonization, conquest, and exploitation of much of the globe during the three centuries after the Reformation, which the uninformed consider the spread of "White people." Nevertheless, phylogeography and the history of European colonization are not the focus of this article. Edits that address such peripheral issues should be limited to shedding light on the main topic. Excessive prose on such peripheral issues will be deleted. Arguments on this discussion page that the article should spend more time on peripheral issues will have to be very persuasive to avoid being ignored.

The article includes verified past as well as present usages. Over the past three centuries, since its coinage, Americans and others have dramatically changed how they applied the term "White." Some archaic usages are so unexpected that uninformed people today find them hard to believe. Hence, descriptions of past usages are based on peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Edits that add or remove historical scholarly peer-review-sourced material without citing a historical scholarly peer-reviewed source will be reverted. Complaints on this discussion page that historical scholarly peer-reviewed material in the article cannot possibly be true, without citing a refuting scholarly peer-reviewed source will be ignored.

The article includes usages around the world, not just in the United States. Although it focuses on the United States, because U.S. racialism is unique in many ways, it also describes how the term is used in other countries and cultures. For example: Text telling whether USAmericans consider Turks to be White belongs in the section on U.S. usage. Text telling whether New Zealanders consider USAmericans to be White belongs in the section on New Zealand usage. Misplaced edits will be moved. Edits that add or remove comparative-culture material without citing a peer-reviewed source will be reverted. Complaints on this discussion page that comparative-culture scholarly peer-reviewed material in the article cannot possibly be true, without citing a refuting scholarly peer-reviewed source will be ignored.

-- Frank W Sweet 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fine for you to add this to the bottom of the page, as you have done—that's where new comments go. We obviously can't put this at the top as if it were some kind of official proviso from Wikipedia, since you're using "uninformed" in such a POV way. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First, no rule says that only an "official proviso from Wikipedia" can go at the top. In fact, there is already a "controversial" note at the top of this page, and it is not an "official proviso from Wikipedia." It is something that editors added about this specific page. Second, I suggest that you misunderstand "POV". I doubt that many would characterize insistence on scholarly peer-reviewed sources rather than unsubstantiated claims "POV." -- Frank W Sweet 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by an "official proviso". No, the "controverial" tag is not some sort of official action of the Wikipedia administration, which, of course, would almost never do something like that. However, the "controversial" tag is a proviso that is left at the top of the talk page by general consensus of the editors of this talk page. That's feasible because the fact that the subject is controversial is not itself a controversial fact. However, your analysis of the situation most certainly is controversial.

Whether other editors agree remains to be seen. Thank you for your opinion. -- Frank W Sweet 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the insistence upon good sources here is not unreasonable; but, yes, the conclusions that you draw from looking at those sources is your POV. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you dispute any conclusion that I have ever written on this topic, and can back up your objection with scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, I urge you--no, I sincerely plead with you--to please, please, express your own conclusion (and sources) in the body of the article. If not, you are just wasting my time. -- Frank W Sweet 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion that I am disputing is that people who disagree with you are uninformed and should be described as such at the top of this page. Do you really require a peer-reviewed citation for that? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with Frank. He insists that this article, I do not know if others, be written following the social argument (what people think something is at a popular level). The use of the social argument to describe a topic is precisely what an encyclopeadia should not do. The use of such an argument, especially if used alone, perpetuates wrong social beliefs and superstition instead of bringing light to a topic. HCC.

I would be grateful if HCC would give just one example of a simple single statement of fact about White people that he considers "right" and not "superstition." Just one example, please. -- Frank W Sweet 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Frank, your field seems to be history, but mine is linguistics. All words refer to concepts, and concepts are defined by two main building blocks: denotation and connotation. White is a term that has a denotation: the coloquial term used by people to refer to the so-called Caucasian race. On top of that, like most words and therefore concepts, it has a lot of connotations that may expand or restrict its meaning. Those vary from culture to culture and are often shaped by popular beliefs. To try to speak of a concept in an encyclocpeadia basing the information on the semantic value of a word derived only from connotation is to support the spread of superstition. HCC.

I believe Sweet's proposal that the article titled "White (people)" be restricted to how people use the term, rather than about white (people) is quite silly. Imagine going to an encyclopedia and looking up the term "physics" and only finding out how people around the world have used the word over the past centuries, how it changes with context and is a somewhat vague concept, rather than something about physics itself! What sort of encyclopedia would that be? A pretty useless one! An article about white (people) should be about their origins, history, migrations and conquests, demographics, genetics, activities and accomplishments. The article as it now stands is a piece of PC baloney, unworthy even of improvement. DonSiano 11:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Imagine going to an encyclopedia and looking up the term "Piltdown Man" and only finding out how people used the word, rather than something about the actual creature itself! The problem is that science has abandoned the concept of "White people." This article is about a term. But the term no longer has a referrent in peer-reviewed work. If you can find any recent peer-reviewed scholarly work that applies the term to something that actually exists, please, please insert it. Any scholarly source on this would be eagerly welcomed. -- Frank W Sweet 15:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the article itself has a reference to a huge peer reviewed scientific work called the "hapmap" that refers to a sample of western and northern europeans. Maybe you should read and try to understand the section of the article on operational definitions. The scientific literature on the subject of the genetic relatedness of the different races, including the white race, as revealed by DNA sequencing has undergone something of an explosion in the last decade. My desk is piled with them. That many of these include samples of white northern europeans, who do "actually exist," goes without saying. Even the NY Times yesterday had a long article about ordinary people discovering their ancestry through DNA analysis and using the knowledge gained for various purposes. The white race doesn't exist? Ha! What you have, Mr. Sweet, is a "language disease" a la Wittgenstein. DonSiano 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Europeans and their descendants certainly exist. The many haplogroup lineages that colonized Europe 35kya still exist. And the lineages that recolonized Europe after the LGM 16kya still exist. Puerto Ricans, Jamaicans, Barbadians, Trinidadians, and Brazilians who "look Black" to most Americans but are also descendants of European stock (along with African and Native American stock as well) exist. Similarly, Western culture exists and it is found around the globe although it originated in Europe. I would be happy to help write a new article on European genetic lineages, or on European (or Western) culture, or on physical traits unique to (or prepoderantly found in) natives of Europe and their descendants. Alternatively, if most editors want to switch this article to an exposition of any or all of these topics, I would be glad to re-title the article to anything along those lines. The problem is not with the existence of Europeans, their descendants, or their culture. The problem is that everyone defines "White people" differently (some, for example do not consider European Jews to be White). I understand that you sincerely believe your definition of who is White is the only "correct" one. I do not attribute either foolishness or evil motives to yourheartfelt conviction. But a Wiki article must reflect some sort of consensus beyond that of a single individual. Look at it this way: you evidently feel that "White" is synonymous with European. Okay. But here is the thing. Virtually everyone in the Western Hemisphere is a genetic mix of European, African, and Native American. (The exception being that about 2/3 of the USAmericans who self-identify as White on the census have no detectable African admixture.) Tell you what. If you can get two other editors to agree precisely what percentage of European genetic admixture someone must have to be considered "White" for purposes of this article, I will shut up and sit down. Until then, we are stuck with describing all of the mutually contradictory ways that you and a zillion other equally sincere people use the term. -- Frank W Sweet 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this whole section is about, but one shouldn't have to ask for permission to add 4 paragraphs. The paragraphs don't seem to be sourced, so you can't add them in lest it's a violation of WP:NOR. Aucaman^Talk 11:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The four paragraphs are proposed for the top of this page, the "Talk" page, under the "controversial" note. Your belief that "Talk" page material must be sourced to avoid violation WP:NOR is incorrect. For one thing, a serious attempt to enforce the notion that only sourced material can go on "talk" pages would kill Wikipedia on the spot. Again, I appreciate your opinion of what should be allowed on talk pages, but your appeal to authorty is in error. -- Frank W Sweet 11:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What controversial note? You can add anything you want to the talk page. You don't need permission. The "talk page" is the discussion page, the page we're using right now. If you want to add those 4 paragraphs to the article then you need to provide sources. Aucaman^Talk 11:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: What 'Controversial' note? This one: {{Controversial3}}. To see it, just scroll all the way up to the top of this discussion page . -- Frank W Sweet 12:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: You can add anything you want to the talk page. You don't need permission. I know that. And you know that. But some idiot forging your signature claimed that doing so would violate WP:NOR. Scroll up three inches to read it, if you don't believe me. -- Frank W Sweet 12:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: If you want to add those 4 paragraphs to the article then you need to provide sources. How in hell did you ever get the idea that my proposal is about the article? Everything written above by every participant clearly states "This page" (the talk page). The above discussion even mentions the {{Controversial3}} template. The last sentence of every one of the paragraphs proposed includes the words "this discussion page." Please go have some morning coffee. -- Frank W Sweet 12:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to post anything under controversial note. That's just there to tell people this is a controversial article. As I said you can post anything you want in the talk page and original research doesn't apply. I thought you wanted these added to the article. Talk pages are there to discuss changes to the articles. And I don't like coffee. Good luck to you. Aucaman^Talk 12:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion that there is no need to post the four paragraphs where I propose. Was that all? As you can read above, I think that you are in error, that there is such a need, and furthermore I have explained why. -- Frank W Sweet 14:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

This article is getting long. It's probably a good idea to think about dividing it into sections that would later become their own articles. Any ideas? Aucaman^Talk 05:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious suggestion is reach consensus on the goal of the article. Is it to tell how the term "White people" is and has been used? Or is it to pean the "origins, history, migrations and conquests, demographics, genetics, activities and accomplishments" of "White people"? The article cannot begin to stabilize until this decision is made. Perhaps we could have two articles: one about the glorious history and accomplishments of White people, and another (perhaps merged with Caucasoid and Caucasian Race) on how the term is used. -- Frank W Sweet 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the term "white" has acquired so many negative connotations, especially over the 19th and 20th century, and as a result of its usage within the framework of Nordicist and White Supremacy propaganda, that it is an extremely controversial article in itself. Personally I think that people should begin to question its very validity as a word to refer to people. I wonder why people take so much effort in finding substitutes for words like toilet or "shoot" (euphemisms) and they think that the term "white" to refer to people is right. I have already made my point about connotation. The uncountable parasegmental meanings that ride on top of this concept make it quite offensive to a lot of people. To try to account for all those connotations is not worthy of an article in an encyclopeadia and besides, such an aim is impossible. HCC.

I doubt that deleting the article entirely is a workable solution. Those who want an article on the "orgins, history, migrations and conquests, demographics, genetics, activities and accomplishments of White people" will simply start it up again. And those who know that the term no longer has a real-world referrent in scholarly work will want to teach this fact. See Piltdown Man or Cardiff Giant for articles with similar dilemmas. -- Frank W Sweet 15:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't get the Piltdown man and cardiff giant reference. These are well-known hoaxes: do you mean to imply that the white race is a hoax? Then who is doing (did?) the hoaxing? The articles don't describe the "usage of the term" but give straightforward accounts of the hoaxes; who what why when are all covered. The article on the white race is qualitatively different in its concentration on the "usage of the term" rather than about the subject itself. It is not at all encyclopeadic as it stands.

As I said, they were examples of articles that face the dilemma of describing something that lacks consensus as to its very existence. Another example is Tooth Fairy, which fails to describe the "real" attributes of its subject, but only what people say. Again, the basic problem is that you are unshakably convinced that you know precisely who is White and who is not. Please understand. The problem is not that you lack conviction. The problem is that you cannot find anyone else to agree with you on that specific point. How much European genetic admixture does it take to be White? (Alternatively, how much adherence to Western cultural values does it take to be White?) Look, I may even agree with you that the article is a mess. But we cannot fix it as long as everybody wants to talk about the history, traits, features, etc. of "White people" but cannot agree as to just who is White or even what that means. You might as well try to write an article on the "real" characteristcs of phlogiston. -- Frank W Sweet 18:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your " you are unshakably convinced that you know precisely who is White and who is not." I am as uncertain of who is and who is not white as most people, maybe even you. My uncertainty is something like the uncertainty I have toward what is, and what is not, pornography. But I could still write a pretty interesting and informative article about pornography without descending into the quagmire of the search for a precise definition of it, being reduced to blathering on about "usage of the term." I don't need a "precise definition" of either pornography, nor white race, to be able to write a good article about them. Some of the most interesting things in life lack "precise definitions" and are covered quite nicely in wikipedia articles. I would not try to write an article on the "real" characteristics of phlogiston, nor about the "real" charteristics of the white race. Again, I'd have no trouble writing an article titled "phlogiston." Mr. Sweet, you actually seem to have, to me, an unrealistic expectation of precision in ordinary language that just isn't there. White people exist, and there is some general consensus about who they are in the real world. At least in mine.DonSiano 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay I am convinced. You can write an "interesting and informative article" about White people without descending, blathering, or quagmires. I admit that I was wrong. I sincerely urge you to write the article. Please. I cheer you on. I eagerly await to see whether your article includes Puerto Ricans (90% of whom check off "White" on the census), Argentinians (who are all 100% White by their government's policy despite having a mean African admixture of 5%), the 74,000,000 Americans who check off "White" despite unknowingly having recent ancestors who passed through the U.S. color line, or the people of India. Please. Go for it! This I gotta see. -- Frank W Sweet 21:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And HCC, what the heck is parasegmental? It is not in any of the 900 (onelook) dictionaries I've consulted. I understand you find the whole idea of a white race "quite offensive to a lot of people" but so is pornography. And wikipedia has a quite decent article on it--and not just on the "usage of the term," either. And it even manages several illustrations, which is more than one can say for this pathetic excuse for an article.DonSiano 18:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

These are your examples? Cardiff Giant, Piltdown Man, and the tooth fairy are examples in which a consensus does exist: they are not real.

That said, addressing the question of how the term "white" is used should be a major subject of this article. Moreover, I'm not sure off the top of my head how much else there is to say about it. We shall see. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To say about what? You are not sure how much else there is to say about what? About the usage of "White"? Sheesh! I hope that there isn't anything more to say. We have beaten it into the ground! My goal is NOT to add more verbiage about usage. My goal to stop Eurocentrist rants over who is (or is not) White and to encourage citation of sources. I also want to discourage anyone who thinks that they alone can tell who is White, by personal inspection, as if human beings were something inert like pornography. People are not inert. We are individuals. We all have a mixture of ancestries. And, like it or not, each of us has the God-given right to ethnically self-identity however we damned well please. Anyone who would deny that right because they think that they alone can sniff out a person's true "race" is suffering from terminal arrogance bordering on lunacy. -- Frank W Sweet 22:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant, I'm not sure how much else there is to say about white people, beyond discussing how the term is and has been used. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I look again, the article is pretty well formatted. The section Historic use of the term in the United States could be put in a seperate article and summarized back in here, but everything looks good to me right now. Aucaman^Talk 23:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I still believe that in order to stabilize the article, we must nail down whether its goal is: (1) To tell how the term "White people" is and has been used. Or (2) to describe the origins, history, migrations and conquests, demographics, genetics, activities and accomplishments of White people (and decide who gets to choose just who these people are). If we fail to define its basic mission, the article will continue to attract Eurocentrist rants and edit wars. -- Frank W Sweet 23:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we do both? Aucaman^Talk 01:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The short answer why not to mix both in the same article is because the article would thus balloon out of control. Try to give equal (NPOV) weight to every population on earth that that claims to be "White" by their own definition of Whiteness and you wind up with something as bloated as the Race article. -- Frank W Sweet 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The long answer is that any effort to describe White people as objectively delineable rather than a term without referent opens the door to unresolvable debates as to whether Arabs or Berbers or Egyptians are White (despite their own claims), whether Italians, Greeks, and Turks are White (no matter what they claim), whether Puerto Ricans, Argentineans, Chileans are White (ignoring their own beliefs), whether Pakistanis, Indians, and Bangladeshis are White (regardless of their own opinions). Every American thinks it obvious just who is White and who is not, and simply cannot grasp why others are so stubborn as to have their own unshakeable but differing beliefs. It is like debating whether Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist--the issue arouses passionate belief but there is no way to resolve it or even to reach compromise. -- Frank W Sweet 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is interest in an exposition of European populations or of Western culture (and if no other Wiki article already addresses it satisfactorily), then such a topic should have its own article. But I would call it "Native populations of Europe" or "European Culture" or "Western Values" or some such thing, because these can potentially be delineated objectively, not "White people" because this cannot. -- Frank W Sweet 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many diverse people around the world see themselves as "White", too many others have contempt for the term, and yet all have equal claim to credibility. The notion that there is a global consensus as to who is White is unspeakably ignorant. Since one of my two fields of expertise is molecular anthropology, I can speak with some authority as to how much European genetic admixture a population has. But no one can speak with authority as to how "White" a population is, since the term's denotation lacks consensus. -- Frank W Sweet 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I (a mere biophysicist) don't understand this. "White" and "a person of European ancestry", at least according to the dictionaries I've consulted, are synonyms (see Encarta, for example. How can you claim that the "the term's denotation lacks consensus?" Spend some time with dictionaries, on this question and you'll see what I mean. Really, I think debating the definition of "White" (when recourse to dictionaries is all that is required) is something of a "fools errand" and makes me a little giddy. Flat earth society, anyone?DonSiano 13:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good grief! I already agreed that you should write the article. Do it. Please. Either contribute something to the article or stop whining about it. -- Frank W Sweet 13:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, take a look at the history of the article. I have contributed a bit and intend to contribute more, but it won't be about definitions and "usage of the term." I don't call my discussion of this "whining," but rather something more like clearing the air. I agree with you, after all, that it would be worthwhile to define the goal of the article. As it stands now, it should be renamed "White people (usage of the term)." I'd be happy with that as a resolution: titles of articles should reflect their content somehow... DonSiano 14:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Either start writing or stop wasting our time. -- Frank W Sweet 15:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In short, an article on the origins, history, migrations and conquests, demographics, genetics, activities and accomplishments of Europeans or their culture is doable; a similar article on "White people" is a fool's errand. -- Frank W Sweet 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you are coming around to the view that it is worthwhile to get beyond the sterile and futile debate about the "precise definition" of white people and the exclusive focus on the "usage of the term" to wanting to include something about the subject of the article itself. Much of this should be brief, with links to other longer articles, I suppose, given the length of the article already.DonSiano 13:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have repeated, over and over (as for example on 17:55, 13 April 2006), that:

I would be happy to help write a new article on European genetic lineages, or on European (or Western) culture, or on physical traits unique to (or prepoderantly found in) natives of Europe and their descendants. Alternatively, if most editors want to switch this article to an exposition of any or all of these topics, I would be glad to re-title the article to anything along those lines. The problem is not with the existence of Europeans, their descendants, or their culture. The problem is that everyone defines "White people" differently (some, for example do not consider European Jews to be White).

Good lord! What is your problem? Why don't you go ahead and start writing? I look forward to a biophysicist's explanation of whether Puerto Ricans (average 50-50 Afro-European admixture) are truly White, as they claim, or if they are mistaken. Please. Stop whining and start writing. -- Frank W Sweet 13:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the article is more US-centric than anything else. Then, for Siano, I do not think that a lot of people find the existence of a white race offensive. I think they find offensive how the term white is often used, because it has been used so often with so many connotations, that now it is impossible to use it with a neutral meaning, just to refer to a group of people; in other words, the term has been burnt out.

In any case, I can see that there are a lot of perspectives here. I have already expressed my opinion about presenting an article based on subjective perceptions of what a topic is supposed to be. I would do it otherwise, but since the article is already there and I guess it is not going to be redone, at least I think it is important to introduce some objective comments about the topic as well. To claim that the article should only deal about the concept in question without any objective comments that can be based on geography, history, culture, genetics etc. would be too much. HCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.59.206 (talk • contribs)

As to the anonimous person who says he could write an objective article about the white people, I encourage him/her to do it. In spite of Frank Sweet's attempts to try to turn the term white into something impossible to define, or something just established by US society or any other society, no one can deny that it is associated with the people of Europe. To try to turn the article into something about there history etc, would be too long and I think that it is not the point either. The genographic project by National Geographic is very useful to shed light on the people who are considered white, the people of Europe and other areas. As to the situation of mixed populations, I do not see a problem. There is no probem is asserting that a population can be of European and other ancestries. Only a racist can imply that. As I said, the term wite in itself is very controversial, but I do not imply that there are not populations that are called white. They are in Europe and other areas, but the place of origin is the Area around Europe. That perspective would be much more objective and the article more worthy of this place.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

The link to the genographic project is above. By the way, I have already seen some people trying to downpaly the importance of this project, probably because it discovers things that they do not like. I call that science. What is in the article now is not the result of science. It should be noted that up to now no individual, group or univertisy has come even close to the magnitude of the work done in this project and no other scientific work comes closer into the nature of human populatons, in Europe or elsewhere. HCC.

HCC wrote: As to the... person who says he could write an objective article about the white people, I encourage him/her to do it. I second the motion (actually, this would be fourth or fifth... I have lost count). -- Frank W Sweet 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to reach consensus

I am very confused as to why some people find it so hard to accept that the definition of white and the history of the "white race" are two different things. Is this because they feel that the "White people" article is the only portion of Wikipedia where their heritage is represented? Why are they so obsessed with claiming the white label as their own and not letting anyone else have it, even refusing to believe that some people they don't see as white see themselves as white and are seen by others as white? DonSiano claims that we can write about the white race without knowing who they are. I guess this is theoretically possible, but we'd also have to write in detail about all the peoples who are or have been called white, because if we don't, a member of one of these groups will come in here pissed as hell calling us racists for excluding them from our definition of the "white race". Proposed solution: DonSiano et al should be encouraged to be proud of their culture and heritage, and to contribute to articles directly and unambiguously related to their culture and heritage. In DonSiano's case, this would seem to be European history and culture, though for all I know he might have other influences in his background that he considers significant. For others, it may vary. Since almost all definitions of "white" include, but are not necessarily limited to Europeans (as this article states), we can link to those articles from this page. The article should continue to clearly state that Europeans are considered white by pretty much everybody, even those who also consider others to be white. But I think keeping the definition page separate from a page about ethnic groups would help clear things up. Is this acceptable? If not, please explain why. Thank you. ThePedanticPrick 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro -- If we can figure out how to keep those who want to "contribute to articles directly and unambiguously related to their culture and heritage" out of here, it would certainly stop the constant flaming. I agree to your suggestion. -- Frank W Sweet 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Con -- On the other hand, I have no problem with anyone adding sourced material (or linking to it, either way) about European peoples and their culture. But it must be about European peoples and their Culture not about some exclusive "White race." For example, DonSiano wrote the opening sentence of the "Prehistory" paragraph as, "The prehistory of the White race can be traced by...", despite his knowing full well that NO reputable journal would accept such an opening. NONE. On the other hand, written as, "The prehistory of the European peoples can be traced by..." is perfectly acceptable. More to the point, it makes no difference to me where in Wikipedia such a blatantly racialist statement was written. I would personally hunt it down and kill it no matter where it lurked. -- Frank W Sweet 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I would hunt it down and kill it is not because "a member of one of these groups will come in here pissed as hell calling us racists for excluding them from our definition of the 'white race'." It is because reifying White racial exclusivity turns Wiki into a racialist laughing-stock among the billions of people who consider themselves "White" because of Western culture (Latin Americans), because of European appearance (North Africans and Middle Easterners), or because they were the original Indo-Europeans (Indians and Pakistanis), or because U.S. anthropologists (Carleton Coon) said they were "Caucasoids" (Somalis and Ethiopians). It is counterproductive to rub U.S. racialist idealogy in everybody's face in a venue that is meant to be educational. It is not mere "political correctness" to accept that other non-Europeans (and other former colonies) have as much claim to European heritage as USAmericans do. -- Frank W Sweet 17:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all that Frank says here. Still I think the article could analyse the people who call themselves white, from a genetic point of view, because I think that that is extremely objective, and we have information available now that was not available some time ago. Then it could also speak of populations with white admixtures, without having to tell them in the face that the Americans or any others say that they are not white. Anyone is free to identify with any ethnic or racial group. But some objective insight into the topic is always sound, especially here. Besides, the objective analysis of the Europeans will reveal that their ancestry is much richer than previously thought, and will both help clarify the issue from a racial point of view, while at the same time will present evidence before a lot of racist folk who think in some kind of purity of the white race, but not because it is politically correct to do so, but simply because it is just like that. To begin with, here you have the haplogroup map of Europe in page 2: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

As it can be seen the genetic lineages are a lot in Europe. The R1b is the most common, also the oldest in the continent, and we could say the most distinctly European, because it shows its highest concentration in Europe; yet, it is the majority Haplogroup in only five countries and in this order: Ireland, Spain, Portugal, The United Kingdom and France (with the highest concentration in the Spanish Basque Country). The other haplogroups are all very interesting. HCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.228.81 (talk • contribs)

Analyzing the indigenous inhabitants of Europe from a genetic point of view is an excellent idea, which I support wholeheartedly. But analyzing people who call themselves white is not such a good idea. As I have stated (and footnoted) with tedious regularity, 90% of Puerto Ricans consider themselves White although we average 50-50 Afro-European admixture. They definitely call themselves White but they are half African. To analyze them, we would have to write about the eastward-moving Bantu agricultural expansion, (which was analogous to, driven by the same forces, and had the same impact including the creation of hunter-gatherer enclaves, as the Indo-European expansion westwards into Europe). Does anyone really want to do that in this article? Saying that we want to study the phylogegraphy of people who call themselves white reopens the very can of worms that I am trying to close. Saying that we want to study the phylogegraphy of the indigenous inhabitants of Europe is clean, succinct, to the point, and keeps that particular can of worms closed. -- Frank W Sweet 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the wording should be rather as you say, but this would be a fundamental contribution to the article, because we all know the relatioship between the terms European and White. Then this contribution should be very clean. We should not confuse genetic terms with linguistic terms or any others. For example Indo-European refers to a language family that extends from India to Europe, and there are different theories about its origins. It is not possible to link it with certainty with any of the various genetic lineages found in Europe. In any case, linguistics is not the subject of the article. HCC.

Well, I am not going to write anything based on linguistics since I am ignorant in the field. My field is DNA (and U.S. history, of course), so I am more comfortable writing about the flow of haplogroups. But I would not object if someone else could shed light on the early Europeans using linguistics in this article. After all, look at Cavalli-Sforza. (Come to think of it, we have the same problem in Africa. "Bantu" is a group of language families, not a cohesive tribe or nation.) -- Frank W Sweet 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ferdinand de Sausurre, a prominent linguist of the 19th century and father to European linguistic structuralism, pointed out in his fundamental work Cours de Lingusitic General, that language and race should not me confused. By now that is already clear enough. Something else would be to write about the languages spoken by the peoples lumped together under the term white, but that could be a separate section.

As to the main point now, many more interesting conclusions can be drawn here. The following is fundamental taking into account the term that we are trying to analyse ¨white¨.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the following:

1. People who belong in the same genetic lineage show different degrees of skin pigmentation according to latitude.

2. People who belong in different genetic lineages can show similar degrees of skin pigmentation according to latitude.

Conclusion:

1. Skin pigmentation has been used to lump people together into the same ¨race¨ , as if they had the same genetic lineage.

2. Skin pigmentation has been used to lump people into different races, as if they had different genetic lineages.

3. Skin pigmentation is a superficial adaptation to the environment, especially to sun exposure, which does not imply ¨same genetic lineage¨.

I do not want to write about this genetic section myself. I am just giving ideas. HCC.

Some comments about the genetic section.

I know I haven't been very good at keeping up with everything that's going on in this article and discussion page, but just a thought: Would a small section discussing European genetic admixture, with links to more in-depth articles, be appropriate? That way, the article answers a few questions related to "white people": Who is called/has been called white? What is the genetic makeup of these people(s) like, at a glance? The second question is useful because it leads into a scientific debunking of the concept of narrowly defined races. ThePedanticPrick 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that I would have done it otherwise, but I must also commend the one who made the effort to write it. But I have to make a few objections. There is a point in which I am specially interested: I have read some literature as to the presence of subsaharan genetic markers in Portugal, as a result of slave trade and their colonial presence in Africa, but not in Spain, Italy or Greece. Then, it is especially interesting in relation to Greece, since Greece was never a colonial power. Could the author cite the sources for that?. It would be interesting to have them. Then, another thing is the Indo-European question. That theory tries tho link them to the people who carry the R1a haplogroup. The main flaw is that the population in which that genetic marker is most prevalent, the Altaians, do not speak an Indo-European language. Then there is the question of the Basques. The Basques show the highest concentration of the R1b haplougroup,whih is of course Pre-Indoeuropean, but they are not a small pocket because of that. That genetic marker is the most common in Europe, especially Western Europe. We should not confuse language and genetics. HCC.

DonSiano started if with a paragraph on the IE expansion, including linguistics. I added the earlier and later material. Per your suggestion, I just added a footnote pointing the reader to a large indexed collection of serious, reputable, peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic. The collection is arranged by region. Please feel free to browse around in there. A few are just abstracts (due to copyright) but most are full-text PDFs. The collection is part of a discussion group that my company (Backintyme Publishing) hosts on the internet. If you are interested in phylogeography or molecular anthropology, I would encourage you to lurk and browse through the debates and discussions about the articles. The place to start is at Molecular Anthropology and Genetics. -- Frank W Sweet 04:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you might find it interesting because the two questions that you asked above were recently discussed. Regarding Sicily and Greece, it is interesting that they alone have sex-symmetrical sub-Saharan intrusion. The other countries have measurable mtDNA markers but no Y markers. Our discussion focused on the suggestion that sex-symmetrical admixture relects mass migrations (for the same reasons that Y-preponderant intrusion reveals military conquest and mtDNA-preponderant intrusion reveals slave importation). If so, then the sub-Saharan intrusions in Sicily and Greece may well reflect the much earlier re-colonization of Europe after the LGM, and not reflect the slave trade at all. I hasten to point out that this suggestion was made by the members of my discussion group, not by the authors of articles, who still believe that it relates to the 1500-1800 slave trade. -- Frank W Sweet 04:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Basques, their unique pre-IE marker is not the R1b, which, as you say is ubiquitous in Europe. It is the prevalence of the "cde" haplotype of the "Rho" or "rhesus" blood group gene. It may seem like cheating to rely on an autosomal marker rather than mtDNA or Y, but the IE expansion into Europe was very sex-asymmetrical (just like their expansion into Dravidian India). Again this was discussed at length at Molecular Anthropology and Genetics. Please feel free to join us there, if you wish. -- Frank W Sweet 04:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the section is OK and the article is better now. HCC.

I don't. I still fail to see what the prehistory of Europe has to do with the post-Reformation notion, "White people." But I am clearly outvoted on this, so I shall try to make the best of it. -- Frank W Sweet 13:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, just as I said, the notion was and is often linked to concepts of purity, in the sense of a race very different from other races in Asia or Africa. That information is useful, because a lot of people really continue to think more or less like that, and an insight into the very nature of the origins and genetic make-up of the Europeans is useful. I would also have it otherwise. I would not have introduced the linguistic aspect, and would not have described the Basques like that, but I guess people have different perspectives. HCC.

I am sorry to come across as a bitter, cynical old man. But we have now introduced a whole new cast of characters: (1) neandertals, (2) the pre-LGM folks who came in north of the Black Sea, (3) the pre-LGM folks who came in south of the Black Sea, (4) the populations who came from the four corners of the world to reclaim prime real estate when the ice melted, (5) the mongols, huns, scythians and uncounted other waves from Asia that washed over Europe in historical times, and (6) the millions of Europeans today who have traces of "black" subsaharan DNA from the slave trade. All were immigrants. Mark my words. I hereby predict that the new section will start an interminable series of unsourced rants that one of those six groups or another was not "really White." If I am bitter and cynical it is because Wikipeida has made me so. -- Frank W Sweet

You may be right. I would have used the two sources that I have introduced because they are global and reputable, and also because they are not based on historical or linguistic theories. The genetic markers that they cover are very much alive and kicking in everyone of us. But I would have made a very concise and objective analysis and just invite people to browse those sources themselves. But still, people like you and I know these things, but I assure you that a lot of people are absolutely ignorant of those facts, and have a lot of wrong and mythical ideas about the white and European peoples in their heads. It is precisely the aim of an Encyclopeadia to bring the maximum light into the topics covered. HCC.

Chileans

FWIW, I happen to agree with 60.226.67.122 that Chileans are almost as obsessive about their Whiteness as Puerto Ricans are, and with a great deal more genetic justification. The problem is that Ethiopians, Somalis, the mixed Boer-Khoisan communities of SW Africa, as well as the people of Pakistan, India, and Bangla Desh also have their own reasons to claim Whiteness. I wish that I could suggest some litmus test that could tell just who has the right to claim the mantle of White heritage, but I regret that I do not. -- Frank W Sweet

This is what I meant by my statement about race being a meme. Everyone is focused on being white when in reality the term is only a concept created to divide the human race into various categories. see (memetic engineering)Everyone in the world is a Negro according to Stanley Poole- author of The Moors in Spain because Africa is where the human race originated. Although climate changes the physical features.--Gnosis 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

unnecessary Irish-hate speech

Devon21 removed a quotation from the 1860 American encyclopedia, saying that it is "unnecessary Irish-hate speech not relevant to 'White'." I suggest that the quotation is necessary to show the virulence of anti-Irish feeling of the time. (After all, the Know-Nothings were at their peak then.) It is relevant to the topic of this article because, along with the accounts of Germans, Italians, Jews, and others, it shows that being from Europe did not necessarily make you immediately accepted as White in America back then. The point of this section is to demonstrate that the cognitive research findings of Kurzban, Tooby, and Cosmides are correct. People are not seen as "other" because they look different. They are perceived as looking different because they are seen as "other." -- Frank W Sweet 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your source is non-reliable. Please stop pushing POV and finding dubious sources to back up your ideology. Thanks.Devon21 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe

The information on sub-Saharan African admixture in Europe is inaccurate. Only Portugal has up to 8% L mtDNA (Holland and Belgium may also, but no definitive data is available [16]). Italy and Spain have <3% and Greece has none at all, making those countries no different from Britain, France, Germany and others in this respect. Here's a source listing the L sequences found in various European populations: Pereira et al. (2005)

The information on sub-Saharan Y-DNA on this discussion page is also wrong. No Y-chromosome proposed to be of black slave or other Negroid derivation has ever been detected in Sicily or Greece. -- Small Victory

---

The link cited above goes to a notoriously ideological web page, whose mission is to deny African admixture in modern Europeans. For one thing, it fraudulently claims that several of the following studies have been retracted. The following, in contrast, are scholarly, peer-reviewed sources:

For Sicily, see: The following use mtDNA, Y, and autosomal markers to illuminate hemoglobin:

• S.G. Sandler et al., "Blood group phenotypes and the origin of sickle cell hemoglobin in Sicilians," Acta Haematologica 1978;60(6):350-7.
• G. Schiliro et al., "Presence of hemoglobinopathies in Sicily: a historic perspective," American Journal of Medical Genetics, 1997 Mar 17;69(2):200-6.
• G. Schiliro et al., "Clinical, hematological, and molecular features in Sicilians with sickle cell disease," Hemoglobin, 1992;16(6):469-80.
• E.F.R. Roth et al., "Sickle cell disease in Sicily," Journal of Medical Genetics, 1980 Feb;17(1):34-8.
• A. Ragusa, et al., "Beta S gene in Sicily is in linkage disequilibrium with the Benin haplotype: implications for gene flow," American Journal of Hematology 1988 Feb;27(2):139-41.
• G.R. Serjeant, "The geography of sickle cell disease: opportunities for understanding its diversity," Annals of Saudi Medicine, 27 November 1993.
• M. Travi et al., "Molecular characterization of hemoglobin C in Sicily," American Journal of Hematology, 1992 Jan;39(1):5-8.
• F. Cataldo, et al., "Evidence of Negro origin of HbC in Sicily," Haematologica, 1987 Jan-Feb;72(1):95-6.

The following use mtDNA, Y, and autosomal markers to trace ancestry.

• R.E. Bernstein, "'African' genetic markers in Sicilians," Acta Haematologica 1980;63(3):174-5.
• P. Sammarco et al., "Evidence of the African origin of sickle cell hemoglobin in western Sicily," Hemoglobin, 1988;12(2):193-6.
• A. Ragusa, et al., "Presence of an African beta-globin gene cluster haplotype in normal chromosomes in Sicily," American Journal of Hematology 1992 Aug;40(4):313-5.
• O. Semino et al., "Mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms in Italy. III. Population data from Sicily: a possible quantitation of maternal African ancestry," Annals of Human Genetics, 1989 May;53 ( Pt 2):193-202.
• C.M. Calo et al., "Genetic analysis of a Sicilian population using 15 short tandem repeats," Human Biology, Apr 2003.
• M.E. Ghiani et al., "New data on the genetic structure of the population of Sicily: analysis of the Alia population (Palermo, Italy)," American Journal of Human Biology, 2002 May-Jun;14(3):289-99.

The following specifically look at Y:

• Z.H. Rosser et al., "Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language," American Journal of Human Genetics, 67:1526-1543, 2000.
• M.E. Ghiani et al., "Y-chromosome 10 locus short tandem repeat haplotypes in a population sample from Sicily Italy," Legal Medicine, 2004 Apr;6(2):89-96.
• G. Lucotte et al., "Y-chromosome haplotypes in Corsica," Comptes Rendus Biologies, 2002 Mar;325(3):191-6.

For Greece:

• A. Arnaiz-Villena et al., "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks," Tissue Antigens, 2001 Feb;57(2):118-27.
• M. Boussiou et al.' "The origin of the sickle mutation in Greece; evidence from beta S globin gene cluster polymorphisms," Hemoglobin. 1991;15(6):459-67.
• F. Di Giacomo et al., "Clinal patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects," Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 2003 Sep;28(3):387-95.

Again, I urge anyone interested in this topic to read the articles for themselves at http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?t=1071. -- Frank W Sweet 16:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

TRANSLATION: You have no sources pointing to L mtDNA in Greece or Negroid Y-DNA in Greece and Sicily, so you desperately compiled a list of old blood group and off-topic studies in a transparent attempt to cover your lies.

And btw, not a single one of those studies uses autosomal DNA. Time to go back to Population Genetics 101. Here's where autosomal analyses place Greeks, Italians and Iberians in relation to Africans: [17] [18] [19] [20]

HLA polymorphismams are autosomal! Alu variations are autosomal! Even the isolated principal-component diagrams that you link to in the above sentence, are autosomal! Do you even know what "autosomal" means? Here is a direct quotation from the Arnaiz-Villena article that used HLA (autosomal on chromosome #5):

Greeks are genetically related to sub-Saharans.
Much to our surprise, the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan, and West Africa (Burkino-Fasso). Although some Greek DRB1 alleles are not completely specific of the Greek/sub-Saharan sharing, the list of alleles is self-explanatory. The conclusion is that part of the Greek genetic pool may be sub-Saharan and that the admixture has occurred at an uncertain but ancient time.
The origin of the West African Black ethnic groups (Fulani, Mossi, and Rimaibe sampled in Burkina-Fasso) is probably Ethiopian. The Fulani are semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers and one of the few people in the area to use cows' milk and its by-products to feed themselves and to trade; their facial parameters show a Caucasian admixture. The Rimaibe Blacks had been slaves belonging to the Fulani and have frequently mixed with them. The Nuba people are now widespread all over Sudan, but are descendants of the ancient Nubians that ruled Egypt between 8th-7th centuries B.C. and later established their kingdom at Meroe, North Khartoum. Two kinds of Nubians were described in ancient times: Reds and Blacks, probably reflecting the degree of Caucasian admixture. Both the Oromo and Amharic peoples live in the Ethiopian mountains. They obviously have in common a genetic background with the west-African groups mentioned above. Linguistic, social, traditional, and historical evidence supports an east-to-west migration of peoples through the Sahel (southern Sahara strip), although this is still debated.
Thus, it is hypothesized that there could have been a migration from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient Greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background. The admixture must have occurred in the Aegean Islands and Athens area at least. The reason why this admixture is not seen in Crete is unclear but may be related to the influential and strong Minoan empire which hindered foreigners' establishment. Also, the time when admixture occurred could be after the overthrow of some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties (Nubian or from other periods) or after undetermined natural catastrophes (i.e.: dryness). Indeed, ancient Greeks believed that their religion and culture came from Egypt. -- Frank W Sweet 13:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Y: again, many recent studies have reported on such sub-Saharan Y chromosome haplotypes as E-M35* in Sicily and Greece. Two recent ones are F. Cruciani et al., "Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa," Am J Hum Genet. May 2004; 74(5): 1014–1022; and O. Semino et al., "Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area," Am J Hum Genet. May 2004; 74(5): 1023–1034. What would it take to convince you that these people are not making it up? -- Frank W Sweet 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't change the paragraph on sub-Saharan admixture to reflect reality, I will. ---- Small Victory

And someone will revert it, of course. You cannot remove material citing scholarly peer-reviewed scientific sources without citing refuting scholarly peer-reviewed sources, just because you have an idealogical dislike for their findings. Links to an idealogical website are simply not credible. Such insistence on ignoring real sources would be in violation of WP:NOR. -- Frank W Sweet 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the sources I referenced are autosomal studies (learn how to read), but the ones you listed are not. They're single-locus analyses, and therefore of very little value (especially the one using the HLA-DRB1 locus [21]).

E-M35* is a subclade of E3b, which is not "sub-Saharan." It's East African and prehistoric. No research has ever linked it to black slaves or other Negroid peoples. And anyway, Cruciani and Semino detected it only in Sicilians, and at a rate of just 1.6% (3/191). The Y-DNA marker that's Negroid-affiliated is E(xE3b), which has never been detected in either Sicily or Greece.

The paragraph on sub-Saharan admixture falsely claims that all southern Europeans have 4-8% L mtDNA. Those figures apply only to Portugal. Italy and Spain have <3% and Greece has zero. Furthermore, many northern Europeans have similar levels of L. The data needs to be corrected...and it will be. ---- Small Victory

Of course there is sub-Saharan admixture in Europe. There is sub-Saharan, above-Saharan, Asian etc. And of course, there is nothing wrong with that. We are richer because of that. Just browse well the Haplogroups of Europe. HCC.

Trans-Saharan slave trade into Europe

Where does the figure of 8 million slaves imported to Europe come from? That sounds very high.--JWB 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

See the main article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe where it is footnoted as: Pier M. Larson, "Reconsidering Trauma, Identity, and the African Diaspora: Enslavement and Historical Memory in Nineteenth-Century Highland Madagascar," William and Mary Quarterly 56, no. 2 (1999): 335-62. Larson, in turn, got it from the hugely detailed Appendix in Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997). Thomas, in turn, has a chapter-long bibliographical essay explaining all the sources that he used. Since 1997, Thomas is the best source for slave trade statistics. -- Frank W Sweet 04:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at Hugh Thomas's book via amazon.com's Search Inside feature. Appendix 3 estimates slaves delivered to Europe (including Portugal, Madeira, Azores, Canary Islands, etc.) at 200,000.--JWB 04:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are right. Eight million is too high and Larson could not have gotten the number from Thomas. Check out footnote 3 on page 336 of The Larson Article. Apparently, the 8 million is the total transported north across the Sahara to the Mediterranean coast. But most of these apparently stayed in North Africa and were not sold on the north (European) coast. In fact, another source mentioned in the footnote puts the total trans-Saharan volume at only four million. -- Frank W Sweet 12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The footnote points to [22] but Amazon does not provide Search Inside for this book, so I can't easily trace it back further.

8 or even 4 million still sounds like a high figure, comparable to the whole population of the Maghreb in premodern times. If 4-8 million slaves left any significant number of descendants, the present Maghreb population would likely have more sub-Saharan genetic heritage.

On the other hand, if the trans-Saharan trade is assumed to have gone on for 1 or 2 millenia, the average yearly figure could be as little as 2000 slaves. It is likely that someone started with a yearly estimate such as this and extrapolated, something which can quickly lead to error, as I've seen with estimates of "the number of humans who have ever lived".

Many slaves were used to work the salt mines in the middle of the Sahara itself and would not have left any descendants farther north, if at all.

In any case, the passage "the eight million taken to Europe" in Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe is quite misleading and needs to be change.

Actually, during most of the Islamic period, the predominant direction of the slave trade across the Mediterreanean was south, not north.--JWB 22:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

FrankWSweet's insistence on pushing Irish-hate

FrankWSweet should not have placed his own work as a "source", on a Wikipedia article that he edits frequently. Furthermore, FrankW insists on pushing exceptions to make his case, and uses dubious ideological/anti-White sources.

None of the material that you removed came from my own work, but that of others. All of it was cited quotations from scholarly, peer-reviewed work. If you can cite scholarly peer-reviewed work that contradicts or refutes anything in the article, please post it. Otherwise, your repeated removal of material simply because you do not like it is in blatant violation of WP:NOR and is now approaching vandalism. -- Frank W Sweet 09:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Celts are White and they are Northern European. Can we stop with the Ignatiev-like hatred and revisionist history? Devon21 04:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Celts are not northern European unless you think Spain is in northern Europe, since Asturias and Galicia are intensely Celtic and were the place from whence ancestors of the Irish and Scots came. See Galicia (Spain)#History. There is no hatred in revealing what happened in the past. There are only cited, referenced facts. Oddly, none of the sources in the paragraph that you keep trashing cite either Sweet or Ignative. -- Frank W Sweet 09:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Celtic people are White. They look more White than "middle easterners". Sweet you are being dishonest. Why? Why do insist on pushing Berbers are White, yet the Irish are not? Care to explain? 12.125.172.242 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that anyone is (or is not) White, neither Berbers, Irish, nor anyone else. I simply insist on adherence to WP:V. Your refusal to abide by WP:V has become outright vandalism. -- Frank W Sweet 22:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

FrankWSweet, nobody has vandalized anything. You must abide by "No Originial Research" and "NPOV". Your biased views make the article highly POV.Devon21 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My citing scholarly peer-reviewed sources cannot possibly be considered original research. -- Frank W Sweet 03:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is inserting non-encyclopedic sources filled with hate speech into this article. Please stop bigotry, and placing absurd, mean-spirited exceptions to make a point or produce a "rule". Wikipedia is not a place to make a point. This is non-encyclopedic: "savage, groveling and bestial, lazy and wild, simian [ape-like" To include such vitriol one must conclude that you are vandalizing. Kindly stop such bigotry and hatred. Irish people were among the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Why don't you include that? Why did the Founding Fathers let lazy wild savage beasts sign such a document? Please stop inserting POV to prove your personal POV. This is an encyclopedia article, not a place for your personal and clearly idiosyncratic original research. For you to claim that as recently as 1976, that Irish weren't White shows your clear bigotry and inability to be neutral or within reason. Thank You. Devon21 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said such things about the Irish. The American encyclopedia of 1860 said them. I was not around at that time. I never claimed that the Irish were not White in 1976 or any other time. An Englisham said it. I was not even there. I am just quoting. -- Frank W Sweet 03:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article use exceptions to make a case for a general rule?

For instance, the following quote footnoted from Maria Laurino's pop culture book "Were You Always Italian": Eleven Italian-Americans who tried to pass as members of the White group were lynched in 1891 New Orleans and five more were lynched for the same reason outside the Madison Parish, Louisiana, courthouse in 1899.[9] This may have occurred, however for millions of Italians classified White On Arrival (another book, not refrenced, of course, by the ideologues who have POV'ed this article) NO such event ever remotely presented itself. So, are we to believe that an isolated incident to 11 people should become the fact for millions of others? Maria Laurino's book, referenced above, is a "pop culture" book and if one were to research it, it and she were criticized by many Italian-Americans as being inaccurate and biased. Let's balance off the lynching story with the millions of other examples where Italians intermarried with other European-Americans. The VAST majority of the descendents of Italian immigrants married other Europeans. The vast majority. This could not have occurred if the Italians were considered non-White as Mr. FrankWSweet will have us all believe. I might tag this article POV if it doesn't get more balanced and use more mainstream sources and facts.Devon21 01:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The New Orleans lynchings had nothing to do with punishing Italians for 'acting white'. This was a vigiliante mob angered at the local Mafia. DOubtless anti-immigrant sentiment fanned the flames here, but to suggest this was abiout punishing Italians for tryuing to pass as white is absurd.

As it happens I was recently watching an deeply dishonest TV movie about this incident, entitled Vendetta, starring Christopher Walken as a nasty W.A.S.P. villain railroading innocent Italians. The fact is that they were arrested for murdering a police chief, David Hennessey, who was investigating alleged organised crime. They were acquitted against the evidence by a jury that had very probably been bribed. Yes there was ethnic prejudice involved, but it is a compete distortion of the facts to say that they were lynched because the attempted to "pass as members of the White group." There is a reasonable short account of the incident here.[23] Paul B 00:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to write something per WP:V that contests or refutes what I wrote. Please do so. If you feel that I am not telling the whole story, then go ahead and tell your side of it. -- Frank W Sweet 04:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to verify and attempt to balance/NPOV your examples. You are the person inserting biased and non-mainstream events as the general rule. All of your examples are anti-White, needlessly negative, and the exception not the rule. Bigotry will not be tolerated. Kindly balance your statement about Italians being hanged as non-White, that is one isolated example, and your efforts try to make it the norm, when it wasn't anywhere near that. Why are you doing this? Devon21 07:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Maria Laurino is in no way an authoritative source. The Louisiana lynchings had to do with controlling the docks and mafia hysteria, not the "race" of Italians. ---- Small Victory

I have never said that anyone is (or is not) White. I simply report what the sources say. about the attitudes of Americans in the distant past. I encourage you to write something per WP:V that contests or refutes what I wrote. Please do so. If you feel that I am not telling the whole story, then go ahead and tell your side of it. -- Frank W Sweet 11:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

FrankWSweet's insertion of bias

Frank, you inserted the following:

According to Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, "Many Italians arriving in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (when the largest numbers of Italian immigrants came to the U.S.) were not even considered white, but were labeled "dark" or "dark/white."

......while including nothing to balance off that point. Can you provide a page number? How would this reconile with the ENTIRE BOOK, written by Thomas Guglielmo titled "White on Arrival, Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890-1945" Why do continually only include data or sources that are one-sided? data and sources that back up what is obviously a bigoted prejudical viewpoint on the history?

You have to start being fair and honest with the reader, and to be NPOV you have to balanced, not biased. Italians were White on arrival. You can find your excpetions, and hostility to newcomers to be sure, but to make the reader believe otherwise is historical revision. I have never seen a person so hell-bent on pushing the idea that Germans, Irish, Italians, and other Europeans "aren't White". It simply boggles the mind. Frank, you are biased and selective in your research, you must face it.Devon21 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that anyone is (or is not) White. I simply report what the sources say. about the attitudes of Americans in the distant past. I encourage you to write something per WP:V that contests or refutes what I wrote. Please do so. If you feel that I am not telling the whole story, then go ahead and tell your side of it. -- Frank W Sweet 04:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Frank, you cherry pick your sources, the majority of which are not representative of the experience or history of the vast majority of people. You have not shown evidence of being NPOV, on the contrary, you have shown bias, and bigotry. Explain why you cannot and will not introduce overwhelming facts where Germans, Irish, and Italians were viewed as White? You have only chosen to focus on exceptions to this norm and history, and have twisted this article into an anti-White piece of bias. Do not continue to insert that utterly ridiculous isolated hate-passage regarding Irish from 1860. That vandalism will be reverted on sight.Devon21 06:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that anyone is (or is not) White. I simply report what the sources say. about the attitudes of Americans in the distant past. I encourage you to write something per WP:V that contests or refutes what I wrote. Please do so. If you feel that I am not telling the whole story, then go ahead and tell your side of it. -- Frank W Sweet 11:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Frank W. Sweet's continual insertion of nonsensical bigotry

As recently as thirty years ago, some people sincerely believed that they could spot an Irishman trying to pass for White.

Frank, I'm sorry but this is not worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. Are you actually trying to push the belief that in 1976, Irish-Americans were not considered White? It boggles the mind. Why are you doing this?? Wikipedia is not a place for original research or fringe academia. What legitimate source do you have for this? Again, pushing a (fringe) exception as the rule. Perhaps you could help edit Whiteness studies, that is where you seem to be focused, and it is a more acceptable place for controversial theories and statements.Devon21 07:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that anyone is (or is not) White. I simply report what the sources say. about the attitudes of Americans in the distant past. I encourage you to write something per WP:V that contests or refutes what I wrote. Please do so. If you feel that I am not telling the whole story, then go ahead and tell your side of it. -- Frank W Sweet 11:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Americans and their problems with race.

The previous discussion show the obsession of Americans with race and whiteness. Being an European, I must confess that I am pretty amazed. I already knew about this but this discussion is really amazing me even more. The problem is that American society seems to present itself as the God that decides who is white or not, with an obvious connotation about what it means to be white. America has a racist history, not so different from countries like South Africa, that invalidates all information that could be contributed on this subject from the point of view of American society. I think that anyone would find unacceptable to introduce the views on whiteness of South African society, or of Nazi Germany, yet people here seem to think that introducing the views of the Americans on race is all right. Well, for people who see it from outside this is quite pathetic. HCC.

Look who is talking. Eurabia online.

It is depressing, isn't it. This is why I said that so many Wikipedia articles on population variation and classificaion are a racialist laughing-stock outside the United States. Wikipedia articles try to explain why some cultures (Americans and to a lesser extent Brits) see some people as White or not. But rather than even trying to grasp this oddity of perception, many USAmericans are obsessively fixated on who "really is White" (or not). They simply cannot help themselves. Leon Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford: Stanford University, 1957) would say that it is because USAmericans know deep down that they are all mixed, because the U.S. has been such a melting pot. So they try hopelessly to convince themselves that they are "racially" pure. Sad. -- Frank W Sweet 14:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the article should be presented in an objetive way, but I also find interesting to present the distorted way in which the concept has been used, and continues to be used, rather as a social marker than as racial reality. It is interesting to mention in the article that all population groups are actually mixed, and are becoming increasingly mixed. For example, 10 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom is classified as non-white, and their rate of intermarriages with other groups is increasingly significant. Last but not least, it should be mentioned how these views on the concept on race itself are being challenged by 21st century science and how these racial classifications of people are often a barrier to integration of societies and a perpetuation of caste systems. The US government and their census should be the first to see these things and stop the incentives that they give so that people concentrate on their differences, rather than on their similarities, since the tender age of school kids, who have to decide what race they belong to. All these issues should be covered, if we want to speak of the US. HCC.

You should contribute more to the article, especially in the area of genetic admixture. Your viewpoint as a Brit can shed a different light on the topic. You may not realize just how virulent the U.S. color line is. You have to live in the 'States for several years to get the full flavor. For example, in the UK, Black(BWI) out-marriage with Whites runs 20-40 percent. (See Suzanne Model and Gene Fisher, "Unions Between Blacks and Whites: England and the U.S. Compared," Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25 (no. 5, September 2002), 728-54. ) This is ten times the U.S. rate! Just think about the implications of this to the acceptance or rejection mixed youngsters trying to find a place for themselves in society. -- Frank W Sweet 22:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, you fellows need to get out more. The three years I lived in Hamburg, and the 6 mo I lived in Vienna, were among the most racially polarized times of my life. Go try to tell a Turk in Germany or Austria that Americans are the ones obsessed with race. Or the people who were in the recent riots in Paris. Or anyone in among the Basques. Please try to keep the discussion here serious - impossible though that may be. Or at least offer more than anecdotes. Or on second thought, don't. This page is a self-perpetuating monstrosity of hatred, and while entertaining, it grows old. Morgaledth 02:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Frank W. Sweet's agenda continues

He keeps inserting a reference to research alleging Greek-Ethiopian affinities based on the HLA DRB1 locus. Here's a response to that approach and its findings published by three top geneticists:

DROPPED GENETICS PAPER LACKED SCIENTIFIC MERIT

Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.

We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

-- Risch, Piazza and Cavalli-Sforza, Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002)

No. The above letter from Cavalli-Sforza was about an entirely different paper, as anyone who clicks on the above link will find out. The above criticism was about a paper that said Palesntinians and Israelis are genetically related. Such a thing cannot be spoken of in today's world. For details, see th news report here [24]. But this has nothing to do with sub-Saharan DNA in Greece. -- Frank W Sweet 20:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of "lacked scientific merit" don't you understand? The two papers are by the same author, use the same marker, apply the same method, and include the same data. Cavalli-Sforza et al. even state specifically that "The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans." Arnaiz-Villena's flawed research has been retracted and doesn't belong in this or any other article. ---- Small Victory

No. The article cited has never been retracted, not even challenged. As have none of the many other articles cited above reporting sub-Saharan intromission into Greece. -- Frank W Sweet 12:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He also insists on mentioning Italy twice in the paragraph on black slave admixture, which makes no sense at all. And he's so clueless that some of the sources he quotes there are actually talking about North African admixture (which is also already mentioned, in the previous paragraph) or even ancient DNA that left Africa in prehistory and entered Europe from West Asia during the Neolithic.

This obsessed maniac ruins every article he touches. He needs to be stopped. ---- Small Victory

No. In the quotations from the papers in the footnote, I have higlighted the terms black slaves, sub-Saharan, and east Africa. -- Frank W Sweet 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of "already mentioned" don't you understand? The way I wrote the paragraph, it states that "sub-Saharan African lineages are present there at low rates as well, mainly in western European countries like Spain, Britain, France, Italy and Germany." Including another, extremely long paragraph that notes the exact same thing is ridiculous, especially when parts of it refer to haplogroup E3b, which is a prehistoric OOA lineage and has nothing to do with black slaves or other Negroids.

And P.S. Ghiani et al. 2004 is indeed talking about North African admixture. If you had bothered to read beyond the Abstract, you'd know that. ---- Small Victory

No. You have repeatedly claimed that there is no evidence of sub-Saharan intromission in the central and easterm Mediterranean--in Italy, Sicily, Greece, etc. There is overwhelming evidence of this. You have exceeded the Wikpedia 3-revert limit in deleting a single sentence that is backed up by scholarly, peer-reviewed information. You have forced me to keep adding more and more verifiable sources to the sentence in accordance with WP:V. Hence, that one sentence supporting sub-Saharan intromission into Europe via the Mediterranean is now a paragraph long and growing longer by the minute. Keep removing it with the excuse that it is inaccurate and you force me to keep adding more and more supporting citations from scholarly peer-reviewed sources. And the quotations from those sources will just get longer and longer. Obviously, I will never persuade you of the obvious fact that four million Africans were imported to southern Europe between 1500-1800, and that they had kids, and that those kids assimilated (nobody ever exported 8-12 million back to Africa, and they were not sterilized). But I can teach these simple and obvious facts to Wikipedia users, despite all of your efforts to deny them. You have also exceeded the Wikpedia 3-revert limit in deleting another single sentence later on in the text. It is the sentence, "Indigenous Europeans are and always have been a rich genetic mixture of immigrants from Asia and Africa." The reason that your repeated removal of this harmless sentence has not caused it to grow into a paragraph of quotations from scholarly sources is that you never used the excuse that it was factually incorrect. Apparently, it merely violates your political idealogy. -- Frank W Sweet 11:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of "lacked scientific merit," "already mentioned" and "E3b is not black-slave or Negroid" don't you understand?

The phrase I keep deleting is inaccurate and POV. Black slaves, Huns, etc. are not "immigrants," nor does their small-scale intrusion into the gene pool merit calling Europeans a "mixture of Asians and Africans." Furthermore, describing the alleged mixture as "rich" is the opposite of describing it as "dirty" or "disgusting." Your personal feelings about it don't belong there. ---- Small Victory

If that is your only problem, then replace "immigrants" with "invaders, immigrants, and slaves" and remove the adjective "rich." Also, feel free to add a statement that although E3b* is a Y-chromosome (patrilineal) haplotype and is of undoubtedly of sub-Saharan east African origin, there is no way yet to tell for certain whether its intromission into the eastern Mediterranean dates from the slave trade or from the post-LGM recolonization of Europe. But do it quickly, because I am collecting more quotations from scholarly peer-reviewed sources even now. -- Frank W Sweet 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

More proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. No research has ever linked E3b to black slaves or any other Negroid peoples. In fact, the subclade of E3b that predominates in southeastern Europe (E-M78α) originated in the Balkans about 7.8 ky.[25] It is a Balkan-specific lineage that's in no way, shape or form "east African" or "sub-Saharan," let alone a signature of black slave admixture from the 16th-19th centuries.

No. You are confusing E3b1* (M78) which apparently arose in the Balkans, with its ancestral E3b* (M35) which is clearly of east African origin and is also found in Greece. You might want to learn the Y nomenclature. For details, see |A Nomenclature System for the Tree of Human Y-Chromosomal Binary Haplogroups. -- Frank W Sweet 10:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal forum to vent frustration at being exposed by making sections unmanageably long and citing all sorts of incorrect and irrelevant research. The aesthetics and integrity of the article are paramount, and you have single-handedly ruined both of those things in this article.

Arnaiz-Villena's discredited research on Greeks has to go. References to non-black, prehistoric E3b have to go. Your obsessive focus on Italy and Spain (which I already mention) has to go. And your misleading little phrase that's an unnecessary reiteration of the immediately preceding paragraphs also has to go. My version is objective, factually accurate, properly supported, comprehensive and concise. Yours is a desperate, rambling, ideological, inaccurate and vengeful mess. ---- Small Victory

No. The article reporting the team's findings on Greece has never been challenged, just the Palestinian/Israeli article. -- Frank W Sweet 10:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I may add a suggestion in this controversy, I would do it in the following way: The admixture in Europe of different lineages is a fact, and that is important, of course there have also been influences from sub-Saharan Africa more recently, that is also important. But it is not good for the article to try to spend more space to one aspect than to another. People may think that it is not neutral. For example, the Asian influence has been much greater in Eastern and Northern Europe and the same space is not devoted to that fact. Sub-Saharan presence is also widespread now in countries like the United Kingdon and very recent, etc. So, a summary style contribution would be much better covering all the aspects in a balanced way. Otherwise we may hurt this part of the article, and some people may think that it is the result of some type of ethnocentric tilt. Then, I think that the adjective "rich" is valid and perfect, because it reflects the genetic makeup of Europeans and of most peoples. HCC.

I think that this part should be left like this, maybe including some other country:

The Sub-Saharan Africans

Finally, approximately four million black Africans were imported into Europe during the three centuries of the slave trade (1500-1800). As a result, sub-Saharan African lineages are present there at low rates as well, mainly in western European countries like Spain, Britain, France, Italy and Germany.[4] The highest amount on record is 9% L mtDNA in southern Portugal,[5] while it has been suggested that the Netherlands and Belgium may also have elevated amounts.

I would go along with the above if Sicily and Greece were added. There are just too many studies showing this to ignore. -- Frank W Sweet 09:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also in favour of deleting the rest. The reason is that it is over-focus and over-elaboration on one portion of the subject-matter. Following the same principle we should do the same with many other aspects and regions, and that is obviously beyong the scope of this article. HCC.

I disagree. HCC's sentence, "For the global genetic make-up of the Europeans and other peoples, see also: [2] and [3]" adds a useful source. And the sentence, "In short, indigenous Europeans are and always have been a rich genetic mixture of immigrants from Asia and Africa" (with or without the adjective) ends the section nicely. -- Frank W Sweet 09:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this: "Finally, approximately four million black Africans were imported into Europe during the three centuries of the slave trade (1500-1800). As a result, sub-Saharan African lineages are present there at low rates as well, mainly in western European countries like Spain, Britain, France, Italy and Germany[4] but also in Sicily and Greece[5]. The highest amount on record is 9% L mtDNA in southern Portugal,[6] while it has been suggested that the Netherlands and Belgium may also have elevated amounts. For the global genetic make-up of the Europeans and other peoples, see also: [2] and [3]. In short, indigenous Europeans are and always have been a genetic mixture of colonists, invaders, immigrants, and slaves from Asia and Africa." -- Frank W Sweet 09:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

FWS writes: "No. You are confusing E3b1* (M78) which apparently arose in the Balkans, with its ancestral E3b* (M35) which is clearly of east African origin and is also found in Greece."

• Wrong again. Do you even read what you quote? The paragraph you keep reinserting against everyone's wishes is talking about E-M78α being present in the Balkans at frequencies of 20-32%, not about E-M35. Neither Cruciani nor Semino detected E-M35 in Greece, and they found it in Sicily at a rate of just 1.6% (3/191). Look at the damn tables in the studies, you blind fool. And still, there's no evidence that E-M35 was spread by black slaves or is even Negroid, as it's extremely old, and both Ethiopians and Somalis show high levels of Caucasoid ancestry.

No. I do not know what you mean by either "Caucasoid" or "Negroid." Whether you like it or not, the fact is that E-M35 (E3b*) was reported in Greece and no one doubts that it originated in sub-Saharan east Africa. If you are saying that the DNA cannot show that the people who carried the haploype were "slaves" rather than "involuntary laborers" or even "conquering invaders," I agree. I already said that I would not oppose yor stating something to this effect. But there is no historical record of Greece ever being conquered by people from sub-Sahran east Africa. On the other hand, there is ample historical record of four million sub-Saharan slaves being assimilated into Europe. I am confident that most readers can figure it out which is more the plausible between gene flow from assimilated sub-Saharan slaves, and an invasion from sub-Saharan east Africa that has vanished from the historical record. -- Frank W Sweet 14:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

FWS writes: "No. The article reporting the team's findings on Greece has never been challenged, just the Palestinian/Israeli article."

• As I explained to you before, the two articles are by the same author, use the same marker, apply the same methodology, and include the same data. Cavalli-Sforza et al. do indeed challenge the findings on Greece, stating explicitly that "The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans." What's being discredited is Arnaiz-Villena's entire approach with the HLA DRB1 locus and the inaccurate results it yields.

I understand. You have made your feelings clear. You use criticizm of one article on Palestinians and Israelis to attack an entirely different article that has never even been challenged. -- Frank W Sweet 14:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

FWS writes: "I would go along with the above if Sicily and Greece were added."

• Greece was not involved in the Atlantic slave trade and has no L mtDNA or E(xE3b) Y-DNA, both of which are widely regarded as signatures of Negroid admixture. As far as Sicily goes, it's already covered under Italy, just like Corsica is covered under France, Scotland is covered under Britain, and so on. Your strange obsession with Sicily and Greece is disturbing and must be purged from this article, as HCC has wisely suggested.

How did the Atlantic slave trade come up? We are not talking about the Atlantic slave trade. We are talking about the tran-Mediterranean slave trade. -- Frank W Sweet 14:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• And for the last time, the "African component" mentioned by Ghiani et al. 2004 is North African. Read the goddamn study, you idiot! ---- Small Victory

Overall, results indicate Sicily is closest genetically to the mainland Italian population but also with evidence of a significant African component in the male gene pool. I would doubt that this is from mainly slaves. In addition the term Caucasoid does not necessarily refer to "White as Negroid does not refer to only Black as there are numerous sources that prove this has nothing to do with the race meme.

I'm not really understanding what's in dispute here gentlemen. Where is this information about Caucasoids showing a high level in Ethiopians? Also, Small Victory please refrain from personal attacts as well. We should be civilized here gentlemen.--Gnosis 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Caucasoid" and "Negroid," I honestly do not know what Small Victory means by these terms. Regarding whether the sub-Saharan genetic intromission into the lands of Europe's Mediterranean coastline was due to imported sub-Saharan slaves, I have already agreed to alternative explanations being stated in the article. The sub-Saharan markers in Greece may have come from the four million sub-Saharan slaves who were genetically assimilated into Europe. Or they may have come from sub-Saharan slaves imported by Greeks, Romans, or Pheonicians in classical times. Or thet may have come from the descendants of sub-Saharan slaves brought by the Turks. Or they may have come from a conquering army of invading sub-Saharan east Africans who left their mark on Greek DNA. I am confident that the readers are bright enough to realize that there is ample historical evidence for the first three hypotheses and none for the fourth. -- Frank W Sweet 15:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Small Victory is the only person with an agenda...and a huge one!

The violent, hostile attack upon Mr. Sweet by Small Victory should not be tolerated. If it occurs again or with me, I will find a way to lodge a complaint...and I won't stop until I do! This shows the childishness of Small Victory and the idealogical investment he has with the (non-existent) "white" purity of Italians/Sicilians and Greeks. Forgive me, but who in the hell does he think he is? Does he think he has the exclusive right to write the histories of Greeks and Italians? I think some drastic action is in order to curtail the powers of Small Victory here at Wiki. I will not put up with any bull from him...AT ALL! Does he think we'll be frightened off by his violent remarks? I assure you, I am the wrong person to try that tactic with. I urge any moderators here to look into this matter at once. I am very, very familiar with this character. Small Victory a.k.a. Racial Myths a.k.a. Racial Reality is a well-known white supremacist who specialises in proclaiming the "whiteness" of southern Europeans. Anyone who knows him from his old message board knows very well that he attempts to discredit (without, of course, any basis in fact) any study that doesn't fit his agenda.

There are many markers of sub-Saharan origin in all Mediterranean populations. Not a single one of the studies showing this has been challenged or retracted save one on Jews and Palestineans (that happens to cross-reference some Greek/Ethiopian relatedness data). And this one was retracted purely for political reasons, as anyone who bothers to read all the available articles and information on it can tell. The Arnaiz-Villena study specifically on Greeks and the others that cross-reference the information have not been challenged in any way. If there had been a true scientific challenge to the use of HLA alleles or specifically the DRB1 locus, all of the studies of Arnaiz-Villena and others using these markers would have been withdrawn. They haven't...except the one on Jews and Palestineans. The supposed scientific challenge of the Jews/Palestineans study is a series of straw-man arguments, taking Arnaiz-Villena's comments out of context. One of the scientists involved in the supposed scientific challenge practically admitted in an e-mail to a political motivation for writing it...because it dares to bring up a touchy issue. Arnaiz-Villena used wording that some people found politically objectionable...and that is the sole reason the one study was withdrawn...after, mind you, it had passed peer review and been published! Very tacky withdrawal, indeed. Furthermore, if the scientists really did have a scientific beef with the article, what makes their opinions override those of Arnaiz-Villena, et al., who obviously find no fault with it? Other scientists wrote in to support Arnaiz-Villena after the article had been pulled, saying the magazine was heavy-handed (and suggesting scientific evidence was being suppressed in the name of politics).

These scientists do not at all even begin to attempt to dispute Arnaiz-Villena's finding of sub-Saharan-specific alleles in Greeks. Intentionally vague mention is made of the closeness of Greeks and Ethiopians being "disputed," (in the cross-referenced data {tree} in the Jews/Palestineans study) but not specifically the finding of sub-Saharan-specific alleles. Such hard evidence is irrefutable, and they know better than to try to dispute it. The claim that the DRB1 locus is under selection is irrelevant, because no quantification was attempted. Selection can't create markers from a foreign population; only admixture can. Marc Jobling's words have also been taken out of context. He never disputed (and can't dispute) Arnaiz-Villena's finding of sub-Saharan-specific alleles in Greeks; only the supposed lack of objectivity when creating a single population clustering chart. Jobling states that since the population origins (of the alleles in question) were known, it may have skewed the objectivity of this single chart. But he is admitting that the origins of those alleles were known (to be sub-Saharan in origin)! He isn't attempting to dispute it. This is all a sad attempt to Small Victory to discredit valid studies. This is fraudulent activity, and I will personally take action by e-mailing his words to the authors of the studies. A similar fraudulent claim was made by him alleging that a study by Semino, et al. (1989) finding a 4.4% sub-Saharan contribution to the Sicilian genepool had been "refuted" by a passage from Vona, et al. (2001). The Vona study never attempted to refute the Semino study, and more importantly, there is no way it can. The definite findings of 4 L sequences out of 91 diverse Sicilians is factual and is not open to question. Similarly, the finding by Arnaiz-Villena of HLA alleles that are specific to Ethiopians and other sub-Saharans is not open to question. How anyone can argue this is beyond me or anyone with a brain.

The ancestral Y marker E-M78 originated in eastern Africa. If the sub-cluster of this marker that was found in Greeks and other Europeans originated in the Balkans, this doesn't change the fact that its ancestor, E-M78 itself, originated in eastern Africa. And its ancestor, E-M35, originated in eastern Africa. And its ancestor, E3b, originated in eastern Africa. This shows a direct, albeit ancient, connection that Greece has with sub-Saharan Africa. The idea that these markers originating in eastern Africans are "Caucasoid" (a discarded "racial" term) is ridiculous. If they were specific to populations displaying a European-type appearance, they would be present in their highest frequencies in such populations. But they are not. Furthermore, J.L. Angel reported long ago findings of ancient sub-Saharan-type skulls in Greece.

But not only do we have this ancient sub-Saharan contribution to the Greek genepool, we also have the several sub-Saharan-specific HLA alleles found by Arnaiz-Villena. These are not found in any quantities in other European populations, so their introgression into Europe cannot be from the ancient days of E-M78's arrival there. In addition to this, there is haplogroup A in a sample of 27 Greeks from Mitilini. There is the Chromosome 7 marker (showing Greeks are the only Europeans sharing cystic fibrosis mutations with sub-Saharans). There is the eastern African M1. And finally, there is the Benin strain of HbS. This particular strain of HbS originated in sub-Saharan Africa and could only have entered Greece through admixture / gene flow. (It is also present in Sicily.) Still want to claim Greeks are purely "white," whatever that means? I'm sure Small Victory will, as all facts are routinely ignored by him (and met with hostile remarks) and always will be.

The ancestral form of Y-haplogroup E-M35, which is E-M35*, is not found in any quantity outside of eastern and southern Africans. Therefore, its presence in Europeans (such as Sicilians at a rate of 5.5%, reported in Semino, 2004) is an indication of sub-Saharan genetic introgression. There is no other explanation. E-M35* did not arrive with E-M78 in ancient times, otherwise it would have a similar distribution. Furthermore, mtDNA shows L sequenes in Sicily (in almost every study, with one sample, as stated above, finding them at a rate of 4.4%). In southern mainland Italy, they have been found at a rate of 8%. And there are sub-Saharan blood proteins. Several of these have been found in Sicily. These did not appear by magic.

Another claim made by Small Victory is that blood group markers are useless, and he uses a single quote to "prove" this. Blood group markers are certainly perfectly valid for determining that admixture occurred. Their lack of popularity nowadays is due to the fact that since the decoding of the human genome, DNA can be looked at directly, so there is no need to rely on proteins. This doesn't mean that older studies using these proteins are invalid. A protein specific to a population cannot have entered another population other than by admixture. A single quote doesn't erase decades of research. And blood protein studies are still being conducted to determine population relatedness.

I urge anyone studying this to do their own research and not to rely on the terribly skewed and idealogically motivated comments of Small Victory either here or on his "Racial Reality" website. And, for heaven's sake, don't rely strictly on Wiki!

Thank you. It is hard to ignore personal villification, but it is usually the flamer who looks bad in the long run. -- Frank W Sweet 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Frank Sweet. As a Southern Italian and Mediterranean, I think it is indeed possible that I have distant "non-white" ancestry. Regardless of what I think, there is no proof that Southern Europeans have no "non-white" ancestry, and I feel sorry for closed-minded Mediterraneans that feel they must argue fiercely to prove they are white. - Unsigned

• I agree with F.Sweets's new version for the part that we are discussing here:

"Finally, approximately four million black Africans were imported into Europe during the three centuries of the slave trade (1500-1800). As a result, sub-Saharan African lineages are present there at low rates as well, mainly in western European countries like Spain, Britain, France, Italy and Germany[4] but also in Sicily and Greece[5]. The highest amount on record is 9% L mtDNA in southern Portugal,[6] while it has been suggested that the Netherlands and Belgium may also have elevated amounts. For the global genetic make-up of the Europeans and other peoples, see also: [2] and [3]. In short, indigenous Europeans are and always have been a genetic mixture of colonists, invaders, immigrants, and slaves from Asia and Africa." -- Frank W Sweet 09:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the information is good, sufficient and better balanced. It should replace what we have now in that part, and I think that most people here would agree. HCC.

Reaching consensus.

I agree with F.Sweets's new version for the part that we are discussing here:

Finally, approximately four million black Africans were imported into Europe during the three centuries of the slave trade (1500-1800). As a result, sub-Saharan African lineages are present there at low rates as well, mainly in western European countries like Spain, Britain, France, Italy and Germany[4] but also in Sicily and Greece[5]. The highest amount on record is 9% L mtDNA in southern Portugal,[6] while it has been suggested that the Netherlands and Belgium may also have elevated amounts. For the global genetic make-up of the Europeans and other peoples, see also: [2] and [3]. In short, indigenous Europeans are and always have been a genetic mixture of colonists, invaders, immigrants, and slaves from Asia and Africa. -- Frank W Sweet 09:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the information is good, sufficient and better balanced. It should replace what we have now, and I think that most people here would agree. HCC.

Absolutely not. We can't give in to the tyranny, deceit and personal obsessions of a single editor. That would go against everything that Wikipedia stands for. I've already explained what's wrong with FWS's additions, but I'll reiterate it here and try to make myself clearer:

1) There's no point in mentioning Sicily separately from Italy. It's part of that country and has no more or less black admixture than any other region. Mention of Greece is also unnecessary because it wasn't involved in the slave trade and it lacks the signature markers L and E(xE3b). The way I wrote the paragraph leaves open the possibility that countries other than those listed may have black admixture. We could mention Norway, Finland and Austria specifically, as L and E(xE3b) have been detected in all three of those countries, but it makes the most sense to limit ourselves to the countries that had colonies in sub-Saharan Africa and/or traded in west African slaves, and therefore have the highest amounts of admixture today, which is exactly what I did.

This has already been answered above. -- Frank W Sweet 10:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2) FWS's ridiculously long footnote on Sicily and Greece is a travesty of aesthetics and integrity. He uses a marker (E-M78α) that originated in Europe 8000 years ago as "evidence" of black admixture in historical times (he's lying about the other marker, E-M35*, which was not detected in the Balkans -- see tables [26] and [27]). He also misidentifies a study screening for North African admixture as demonstrating sub-Saharan African admixture (here's the neighbor joining tree from the study -- where are the sub-Saharan Africans?). And worst of all, he refuses to accept that the data based on the HLA DRB1 locus has been explicitly discredited by three top researchers in the field of population genetics on scientific -- not political -- grounds. This information simply cannot remain in the article, as it runs from misleading to flat out erroneous. ---- Small Victory

This has already been answered above. -- Frank W Sweet 10:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To HCC: In for a penny, in for a pound. If you (HCC) want to get actively involved in this, then you must carry some of the burden. I shall change the text per your consensus paragraph on two conditions. First, your immediate task is to delete the {{TotallyDisputed-section}} template that "Small Victory" a.k.a. "Racial Myths" a.k.a. "Racial Reality" inserted. Second, your ongoing task will be to help revert future destructive deletions by "Small Victory" a.k.a. "Racial Myths" a.k.a. "Racial Reality" the next time that he feels the urge to defend Greek "racial" purity. Do you agree? -- Frank W Sweet 10:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think you're going to get away with turning this article into your personal vendetta against Sicilians and Greeks, you're sadly mistaken. Sicily is already included via Italy, and Greece is inferred (as are all European countries) in both the Asian and African paragraphs, because that's the way I deliberately worded them.

This has already been answered above. Also, I have no "vendetta against Sicilians and Greeks." Much to the contrary, I think that it is wonderful that they embody such diversity. Indeed, all of the Greeks and Sicilians of my acquaintance are proud of it. -- Frank W Sweet 13:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should we include so many sources about those two places when we included only one for each of the other places? The answer is that we shouldn't, unless we (read: you) have a twisted agenda to advance -- an agenda that's been recognized by other Wikipedians on this Talk Page as well as on the Caucasoid Talk Page.

This has already been answered above. Also, As anyone can see by clicking on the above link and scrolling to the bottom, that page is now stabilized despite the efforts of the idealogues. -- Frank W Sweet 13:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

HCC is not blind. He can see for himself the lies you've told, the way you've falsified evidence, and the irrational emphasis you've placed on two small regions of Europe. ---- Small Victory

This has already been answered above. -- Frank W Sweet 13:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss all the details that you are mentioning here. You seem to know them well but do not agree on them, which looks quite complex. I am not against the addition of all those references to the section about sub-Saharan Africans per se, but it is only logical that if we do it with one region and with one influence we should go on and do the same with all the other regions of Europe and with all the other influences, and I think that would create an enormous section.HCC.

The issue is not the number of references. The issue is that "Small Victory" a.k.a. "Racial Myths" a.k.a. "Racial Reality" will not accept that Greeks have any sub-Saharan admixture. Nothing will persuade him of this, and he will not allow it to be stated in the article, no matter how many references are cited. Ask him yourself. -- Frank W Sweet 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is another matter which is being discussed here, but in that case those references which want to prove a point would be better placed in the discussion page, not in the body of the article. I have already said that I have nothing against including the Greeks and possibly other countries, but that is another point.

So we have two points here.

1. Shall we include the Greeks or other countries? It is under discussion, and I agree.

2. Shall we leave those references in the article?. No, it is not consistent with how the rest of the section is presented.

Then , since it is true that the Greek issue does not make sense with modern times slave trade, maybe it sould me mentioned that the origins are different. HCC.

Regarding that last point, I am not sure how one would word it. Very few of the current nations of Europe imported large numbers of sub-Saharan slaves. But this section is about genetic history, not political history, and genes leak across borders. To take a trivial example, Greece was occupied by the Ottomans for nearly four centuries (1456-1821) and the Ottomans had many, many sub-Saharan slaves. To claim that these slaves were not "really" slaves because they were enslaved by Ottomans makes little sense. And to say that the land was not yet modern Greece, so sub-Saharan gene flow into the occupied population does not count is even sillier. -- Frank W Sweet 14:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be something like this:

For several reasons it is also found in other countries like Greece, etc..

Or just.

It is also found in other countries like Greece, etc.

HCC.

Works for me. But my request for your participation is unchanged. In for a penny, in for a pound. -- Frank W Sweet 15:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I will try to do my best. Anyway, as to Small Victories' position, it is true that these issues have been used and are being used sometimes by Nordicists and others in a distorted way to suit their political agendas, therefore I think we must go about this issue with precaution. We must present the information, but not let people think that it is biased because of the way we present it. HCC.

You're absolutely right about that. The biggest promoter after FWS of the discredited Arnaiz-Villena data is a white supremacist who desperately needs it to support his thesis that civilizations fall due to race mixing. [http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hla.htm] ---- Small Victory

Possible sock puppet.

I have changed the part in question, introducing a comment about Greece and other countries I hope this will be at least an OK version. HCC

It seems that we have new participants here name Stepehn and Franklin etc. They have reverted it. Could they please express their reasons? We are trying to find an OK version here. HCC.

I wonder if "Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James" is not just the latest alias for "Small Victory" a.k.a. "Racial Myths" a.k.a. "Racial Reality." It happens; see Internet sock puppet. -- Frank W Sweet 16:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not edited this article under any aliases. ---- Small Victory

Well, I guess if someone reverts something without discussing it, it may be considered vandalism. If is is about the Greek issue, I really think it is not such a big deal to include Greece. I think we me be overreacting here.

In any case, I will wait for comments. Then, I will make the change again. HCC

No country that lacks both L mtDNA and E(xE3b) Y-DNA should be mentioned specifically, because those are the only definitive signatures of black slave admixture. I deliberately refrained from doing that in my rewrite, while wording it carefully to leave open the possibility of black admixture existing anywhere in Europe (even Greece). Like I said, I also refrained from mentioning Finland, Norway and Austria (which actually possess those two markers) simply because they weren't important players in the slave trade. ---- Small Victory

This has already been answered above. Also, the Ottomans (who occupied Greece from 1456 to 1821) were very important players in the trans-Mediterranean slave trade. -- Frank W Sweet 12:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: Vic, you need to try a little harder to refute Frank's sources. I'm no genetic expert, but I have a brain, and Frank has clearly won this argument (so far). If you continue with your reverts and personal attacks, I will seek disciplinary action against you. I know Wikipedia doesn't require its contributors to be 18 or older, but I don't think that prohibits me from asking you to please, act like an adult. Thanks. ThePedanticPrick 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think FWS has won the argument, you need to pay closer attention. You know, just because he says that a point has "already been answered above" doesn't make it so. Let's try to be a little more critical here. And please stop removing the 'TotallyDisputed-section' template. A dispute is a dispute, no matter how few people are involved. This one should have been over a long time ago (see next discussion), but as long as it's ongoing, the template stays. ---- Small Victory

Breakdown of FWS's lies about Sicily and Greece

This is the paragraph he's trying to insert into the article, which HCC agrees is excessive and repetitive at the very least, but ThePedanticPrick has decided to accept at face value. Unfortunately, every single point is or contains a blatant falsehood. Let's break it down.

Lie # 1

<<<< Recent studies (since 2000) have also found detectable sub-Saharan admixture in the middle and eastern Mediterranean, including in Italy, Sicily, and Greece. According to C.M. Calo et al., the sub-Saharan markers in Sicily and Greece, are "dating back to the introduction of black slaves." >>>>

THE TRUTH: That study is ONLY about Sicily, not Greece. [28] Moreover, it doesn't quantify the admixture, precisely because that can't be accurately done using blood groups like HbS and cDe. So it's in fact less informative than the source already referenced in the article, which finds one L mtDNA marker in a sample of 106 Sicilians (0.9% admixture).

No. HbS is not suitable for quantitative analysis merely because it is adaptive. But no one doubts that it originated near the Bight of Benin. To claim otherwise contradicts every textbook written on the subject. No one said anything about cDe. -- Frank W Sweet 13:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never disputed the origin of HbS. I simply stated that it can't be used to quantify admixture, and you agree. As for cDe (which you would know is mentioned in Calo's study if you'd bothered to read it), Theodosius Dobzhansky determined that it's not unambiguous evidence of black ancestry. Click on the "blood groups" link above and scroll down for a direct quote from Dobzhansky's book. ---- Small Victory

Dobzhansky? You cite Dobzhansky? Good God, are you in your 80s? Why not cite Coon, or Morton, or better yet Kant or Blumenbach? -- Frank W Sweet 12:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that you're done disparaging old people, maybe you can address the facts about the distribution of cDe. Or maybe you can't. ---- Small Victory

Lies # 2 and # 3

<<<< According to M.E. Ghiani et al., male sub-Saharan markers in Sicily and Italy show "evidence of a significant African component in the male gene pool." >>>>

THE TRUTH: That study is talking about male NORTH African markers. Here's the table containing all of the sampled populations with whom Sicily's haplotype frequency distribution is compared. As you can plainly see, no sub-Saharan African samples are included in the analysis. Also, the North African markers are found only in Sicily, not in any of the mainland Italian samples.

QUOTE: "Sicily and North West Africa share five of the seven-locus haplotypes.... The shared five haplotypes represent 5% of the total Sicilian haplotypes."

No. "Northwest Africa" includes sub-Saharan northwest Africa (eg.: Burkina Faso). -- Frank W Sweet 13:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Where does the study say anything about Burkina Faso or "sub-Saharan northwest Africa"? ANSWER: It doesn't -- you're just a liar. In fact, Ghiani is using a NW African sample from Bosch 2000, which includes only Arab-Berbers from Morocco and Algeria. Ever consider actually reading studies before referencing them? Just a thought. ---- Small Victory

Where does it say that the sub-Saharan component of the Berbers is not around 28%, which is the accepted consensus? -- Frank W Sweet 12:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say anything about a sub-Saharan component of any kind anywhere? Of course, it doesn't. And neither does the Bosch study that the sample comes from. You're still a liar. ---- Small Victory

Lie # 4

<<<< According to F. Cruciani et al., the sub-Saharan markers "originated in eastern Africa" and are now found in Balkans (with frequencies of 20%–32%), and its frequencies decline toward western (7.0% in continental Italy, 7.4% in Sicily, 1.1% in Sardinia, 4.3% in Corsica, 3.0% in France, and 2.2% in Iberia) and northeastern (2.6%) Europe. In the Near East, this cluster is essentially limited to Turkey (3.4%). The relatively high frequency of DYS413 24/23 haplogroup E chromosomes in Greece (A.N., unpublished data) suggests that cluster α of the E-M78 haplogroup is common in the Aegean area, too." >>>>

THE TRUTH: That particular marker (E-M78α) originated in, and spread out from, the Balkan peninsula in Europe ~8,000 years ago. Here's the table (part 1, part 2) showing its distribution, which is essentially restricted to Europe and Anatolia. The marker is not present anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa, and therefore could not possibly have been spread by black slaves or any other black people, much less in recent history given the date estimate of its dispersal.

QUOTE: "...the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78α within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East."

No. Cruciani et al. said that the sub-Saharan markers "originated in eastern Africa." How much more plainly can anyone put it? No serious researcher doubts that E-M35 came from sub-Saharan east Africa. Indeed, it is still very common there. It is true that E-M78 later mutated from E-M35. But recent (unmutated) E-M35 has been found in Greece, and all sources agree that this must have come in recently from sub-Saharan east Africa, precisely because it is the unmutated form still common in sub-Saharan east Africa. -- Frank W Sweet 13:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The percentages you included

Confusion

I find it wierd that under the list of ethnic whites (Irish American, Eastern European), it shows the status of them in the past being considered non-white. but what about today. That is what we should be focusing on, we dont live in the early 19th and 20th centuries.

Also the statement saying that Italians were segregated from white children in school should be removed becasue it is unfounded. Not even Jewish children were seperated from white children in schools. Until there is a reference to this, it should be removed.

Message to Gramaic

Please do not mass revert changes made without discussion or thought as to the individual edits.Yukirat 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for you and everyone else. Major changes (and removals) being done to an article must be discussed in the talk page first. --Gramaic | Talk 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's totally obvious, after this many reverts, that Gramaic is a POV pusher, trying to "white-wash" Arabs and North Africans or other Levantines. The US census notwithstanding, the majority of Whites do not consider Berbers, North African or Arabs to be White. We know our own people. Gramaic, plese stop pushing your personal anti-White, pro-Middle Eastern bias.64.107.2.190 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not engage in ad hominem attacks and debates. If you have something useful to contribute, then do it. Do not make ridiculous accusations and personal attacks. Lose your racist attitude, because Wikipedia is not a place to preach white supremacy and other forms of extremism. BTW, the talk pages here in Wikipedia are meant for discussions regarding the informations that is written in the article, not for ranting at other editors. So please, stop the childish remarks, and act like an adult. --Gramaic | Talk 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yom did another mass revert without discussion.Yukirat 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Another mass revert? That's the only major reversion I've made on this article. The only other reversion was the removal of a very POV paragraph recently added by Zaph. You're right, though, in that I should have stated my reasoning here (which you too are guilty of, btw). My reasoning for the reversion is that sourced information was removed without description (I do conced, though, that in one case I accidentally doubled information that was already included, and needed a citation). Yukirat asked me not to go into detail on my talk page, but I think it's better to do so. The reversion of information regarding Saracens in Spain was because it's better to be specific. Spain was ruled by Muslims during the middle ages and had Arab settlers there as a result. Maybe a better wording would be "where Saracens and Moors ruled and settled for many centuries." The "concentrated" versus "may be found" is a style thing, as well as the fact that the newer "may be found" changes the information conveyed, which may or may not be correct (so I kept the earlier version). With regards to Southern Italians, again I was sticking to the earlier information, which was uncited, but so were the recent changes. I believe the older version with a {{fact}} added at the end. The re-inclusion of information on Irish Americans and Chinese Americans by me was because they were cited, and there was no reason not to include them as they were pertinent to the article. The Irish marrying fact is less obvious, but it shows that, despite being accepted as white, there need not be more integration within the "white community" than outside of it. With regard to my use of "vary greatly," versus "vary," it was more a style thing, but if the former is inaccurate, then I'll acquiesce. I see no reason not to include relevant sourced information, so Yukirat, I'm reinserting the information you reverted. If you wish to remove it, please state a reason on the talk page (which I should have done earlier, I apologize) before doing so. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the anon's edits make sense in removal of POV items, as explained in the anon's edit summaries. Irish did not promote illteracy, Italians were not "lynched" as a rule, and Chinese are Asian, not "White". Moors and Saracens were expelled from Spain and Italy. The last standing mosque in Italy was converted to a church in 1300. I think the POV material (dubiously sourced) should go. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of fact. Much of this issue goes back to FrankWSweet pushing excpetions rather than the rule or fact. See much of the debate above. Please do no reinsert dubious material, much of which is controversial anyway. Let's stick to facts. Thanks. PS "another mass revert" meant that you were the second individual to mass revert without dealing with the anon's individual edits line by line. No mass reverts, please.Yukirat 20:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how are my edits anti-White? You accuse me in your edit summary without even addressing it here, which I don't appreciate. I can see how the first sentence about the Irish can be seen as saying that they promoted illiteracy, though that is not what is represented, so I propose the following rewrite:

Irish immigrants were often discriminated against due to their majority Catholic religion and a higher illteracy rate than other whites.

I don't see how the second part about the Irish shouldn't be included, though; you don't address this. Still, I'll offer the following rewrite to disambiguate its importance:

Despite their acceptance as whites, Irish-Americans were still relatively unintegrated with other white Americans: as recently as 1920, Irish-American exogamy was 20 percent--less than half the outmarriage rate of today's Puerto Ricans.

Upon closer inspection of the Chinese section, I see that it, too, suffers from bad wording, despite its sourced information (i.e. it implies that Chinese are white today, though that is not necessarily true). How about the following rework?

Though today Chinese-Americans are usually classified as Asian, they were at a time accepted as White in Jim Crow Mississippi. Chinese-American children were allowed to attend Whites-only schools and universities, rather than to attend segregated Black schools, and some of their parents became members of the infamous Mississippi "White Citizens' Councils" who enforced Black segregation.

With regards to the word "popular" next to contention wrt Arabs, I didn't mean to include that, it was just part of the earlier version that I reverted to. I don't understand why you changed my wording in fixing the bad grammar of starting a sentence with "and," as well as your change to the Saami / Slavic vs. Saami or Slavic part (why take out the link, and what's wrong with using "or" instead of a slash?). I won't insert the proposed changes yet, however, as I don't want this to turn into an edit war. Two more things. Why do you keep inserting that RF Asummary template when it does nothing and is simply a red link? Secondly, what do you mean by Anon edits? Was the information I'm reinserting added by an anonymous user, and, if so, why should they not be incorporated if they are sourced? — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it, rather than the mass revert. Imho, anyone who has problems with the anon's edits, and mass reverts without looking at the individual edits, must be anti-White POV. Can you explain why you did what you did? Come on. Because Chinese weren't in black schools in some isolated "Jim Crow Mississippi" case does not make Chinese "White". Please, let's not focus on exceptions in an encyclopedia article. Chinese were never, and still are not considered "White". Please. The anon's edits are OK. Just because an edit can be "sourced" means nothing. The "source" and context and content are what are important. I think the "sources" are not encyclopedic, they represent the exception, rather than the rule. Should a Wikipedia article be based on excpetions? No, an encylopedia isn't for that. Can you believe what Wikipedia has to say in this very article for: "Eastern European and Slavic Americans"? It's ridiculous and totally anti-White. I didn't mean to edit: RF Asummary template or Saami. Yukirat 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Why must I be anti-White because I mass reverted? I obviously addressed the individual parts above (which, btw, you told me not to do, so it's a bit confusing) before reverting. I just did explain why I was reverting and offered the above explanations and compromises, which you have not addressed. Also, if you read what I said above, I did not say that they are white. They are not considered white, but they were in one instance considered white, and it's certainly an interesting and relevant piece of information. Sourcing is important, though; see WP:Verifiability! A POV source is fine (though the cited source isn't), so long as the information is verifiable and the source Reliable, which this is. Why is a book about the life of Chinese Americans in the source not "encyclopedic [sic]"? The book is obviously not "encyclopedic," since it's not an encyclopedia, but why is its information unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia (I presume this is what you meant?)? I accept that the events regarding the Chinese in this case are without a doubt an exception, but they're notable exceptions, in that they would not at all be expected, and should be noted in the article, but for what they are: exceptions. The Eastern European and Slavic Americans section definitely needs work, and is not very accurate in its present state, but I do imagine that the current quotation would have a place in a "final" version of the sub-section, as it notes that they were once not regarded as white (note: noting that a people were once not regarded as white does not imply an anti-White Bias; it's simply noting suprising exceptions of the past and making no comment on their status today). I'll change the Saami and RF Asummary thing. Please address my reworks above, though. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If one looks at the edit history: on 07:51, 20 June 2006 75.2.85.37 made a series of edits. Then along came Gramaic who mass reverted all of it without discussion, explanation, or looking at any of the individual edits: 09:01, 20 June 2006 Gramaic (revert to last version by Galati). After I reverted Gramiac's mass revert, then another mass revert was done: 05:23, 21 June 2006 Yom (rv removal of information). This mass revert was also done without discussion or looking at the individual edits. That's all. 75.0.157.45 20:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)