This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why isn't the next president of the USA on this list? I would have thought he was famous enough to make it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.162.25 ( talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The list of "Notable Multi or Bi-racial people" has become unreasonable. There are more than 100 people included, and more are added every day.
What's the purpose of the list? Does it add any value to the article? Is it possible that a reader might read the article and leave wondering what a bi- or multiracial person is because the article didn't have a list of examples?
I think we should delete the list altogether. We have a picture of Halle Berry and a Eurasian baby. Let's add another picture or two, maybe of some of the notable people on the list, and delete the list.
For others' thoughts on lists such as these, read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections and Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Think of the reader. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) hi there. I think the list of notable people would make sense indeed if it contained information on where the parents come from plus a source. I looked at it the last year and it did make a lot of sense to me. I am biracial and I was surprised to find so many famous bi-racial people. I just came to this link now because I wanted to check the list out again. I remember when I read it, that it contained also information on the origins of the parents in like 50 percent of the noted persons.
One could also put out the list with the information that not all backgrounds are certain, that's why no complete sources. Just like on the link of the best selling artists.
I was planning on adding a page of this nature to Wikipedia, but when I saw that one had so recently been deleted, I moved the deleted information to a page on my own encyclopedia here. Anyone interested in contributing can leave me a message there. I don't agree with the deletion, but no point fighting it in this case...
Kitoba ( talk) 06:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Malik - who are you to decide what is 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' for what actual, real-life Multiracial people consider appropriate? Are you mixed-race? How do you qualify to make this determination? I am the founder and director of a pro-Multiracial organization called C.O.M.R.A.DE (Coloradoans of Mixed-Race Ancestry & Descent) in the Aurora-Denver Metroplex, and I am constantly seeking ways to bring Multracial issues to the forefront and celebrate Mixed-race people whereever I find them. We are seeking an official NAME to classify our racial group (the word Multiracial) which will speak power and existence to our contigency, so that children and adults of mixed-race alike don't continue to feel left out in the 'pick one race' scam. We as Multiracial people should have the same right as you or any other racial group to signify an factual, honest, racial identity for ourselves, as Multracial.
It is my responsibility to others of mixed-race as a concerned, interested, and real Multiracial person to see to it that we are not contiually rendered invisible in our society and that mixed-race are able to see others of Multiracial heritage as a source of confidence, motivatino, power, and similarity, much like blacks (or any other race) are encouraged to seek out other blacks in whatever their field of interest is (for example, if a black child wants to become a physician, parents would direct that child to seek out other black physicians as a source of motivation, i.e., "I can do it if he can do it").
Multiracial deserve the same fair treatment. Our people deserve to have the right to connect with, research, study, and gain motivation from other successful Multracial people. We are a relatively new race in America, with our people demanding recognition only as recently as 1995 (prior to the 2000 Census) and we are still fighting battles with the Office of Management and Budget to give us an official name to recognize and respect our existence. Prior to the 2000 Census, our biggest opponent was the NAACP. Can you believe these hippocrites? The supposed representatives of an oppressed people had the nerve to speak out against Multiracial people and their right to the same freedom of fair and respectful racial identification that was denied to blacks for hundreds of years.
Could you, Malik, be of that ilk? With a name like Malik Shabazz, you fashion yourself after a black separatist/black supremacist, and the black political intelligentsisa was at the forefront of suppressing Multiracial people (particualarly of partial African descent, as it is obvious and well known in our circles that blacks participate in 'racial kidnapping', or the stealing of the accomplishments of Multiracial people of partial black ancestry to claim them as their own, 'black', accomplishments).
Lycurgus, you think that honoring and respecting the accomplishments of Multiracial people is 'pure crap'? What a genius. You two are obvious anti-Multiracial and wish to erase the concept of distinct Multiracial racial identity. What is the problem? I would love to create and have ownership of this list. I would also like to create a list of 'Multiracial athletes', what was created at one point but was deleted by like minded racist individuals such as yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.193.203 ( talk) 03:08, April 20, 2008
Moved old stuff to Talk:Multiracial/Archive1 to make way for more stuff, hopefully better composed. If you make entries please use proper formatting. Two equal signs for a new section not one. Lycurgus 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Vast sections of this article seem to be based on personal opinion. Citations of sources would help to show where the ideas are coming from. Kemet 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the title from "Who is multiracial?" because the answer to that question is a list of people: he is, and she is, and they are.
If my proposed title, "What makes a person multiracial?", isn't acceptable, please explain why and let's work on a better title. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As even the term race is controversial, shouldn't mention of this be made in this article? AJKGORDON «» 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. I have decided to move a number of the links from the 'See Also' section to the 'Types of mixed-race people' section. This is because there are too many links on the 'See Also' section, which means it shouldn't even be called that. Earlier, I also changed the scrolling-style textbox for the 'See Also' section to the normal style. If you have any objections, feel free to voice it out here. Angcr ( talk) 10:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The article makes a clumsy reference to "Nazi soldiers who interbred with Scandinavian women". This is cleary a reference to the Nazi Lebensborn project for the creation of "ubermenschen". It was all about creating racially pure white people (a disgusting ideology). This kind of eugenic / white supremacist program did not involve "race-mixing" by any definition. So it probably should not be in the article.
However, in the past there were have been other governement programmes that have interfered into the private lives of multiracial people, with the aim of enforcing a "solution" to the "problem" of multiracial people (as it was perceived by racist governments at the time).
Here's a brief overview about what I remember about this topic from reading various sources:
In Austriala there were government programs in place until the 1960s which targetted Aborginal children, taking them away from their parents, which has resulted in the Stolen generation. Light-skinned Aboriginal children of partly white descent were treated differently than children with a black phenotype. Light-skinned Aboriginal children were put in seperate schools with the aim of ensuring that these children would become part of white instead of Aboriginal communities, and would gradually be "biologically absorbed" into white society. See also the article on A.O. Neville.
The Australian goverment policy was an extreme example of enforcing a social hierarchy with white people on top, and indigenous/non-white peoples at the bottom, and with individuals of multiracial, partly indigenous/non-white descent somewhere in the middle.
The Australian goverment actively tried to "disolve" the population of multiracical Aboriginals by promoting intermarriage with whites. In various other colonial/white settlers settings there have government programmes/policies which targetted multiracial people as a distinct group that goverments tried either to maintain (attempting to prevent them from merging into a white or black/indigenous populations)
Anti-miscegenation laws, already mentioned, are an obvious example of such policies. See also the artcle on the legal and social status of Coloureds in South Africa during Apartheid.
I'll come back and provide sources on these topics. JSTOR and MUSE ar great for online research into these topics, but I haven't got access to them. 195.73.22.130 ( talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The source on "biological absorption" and the Stolen Generation: Patrick Wolfe, "Land, Labour, and Difference: Elementary Structures of Race".
Compares government policies of Americanization of Native Americans in the US with policies targetting Aboriginals. Fairlane75 ( talk) 12:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the address of the source online: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/106.3/ah000866.html Patrick Wolfe: "Land, Labour, and Difference: Elementary Structures of Race"
Fairlane75 ( talk) 12:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the history of the Philippines you will see intermingling of differing ethnic groups, and it is estimated that at least 25% of the population can be classified as foreign or multiracial but theres no segment about the Philippines. It angers me ^_^ 122.55.201.128 ( talk) 17:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Aryans, a Caucasoid people once invaded the area now called India and mixed with the native Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic ethno-linguistic groups.
Also, Indonesians, especially those found in the western portion of Indonesia have Indian and Arabic introgression due in part to their proselytizing of Hinduism and Islam during the past centuries. 122.55.201.128 ( talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious if it would appropriate to mention in this article (may create an separate one adjacent to this one) about the admixture within certain long-time/dominant socially, linguistically, culturally and religiously homogeneous groups. For example, the Saami people of Europe, have genetic markers that tie them to Asiatic; and the Oromo People of Ethiopia are said have genetic markers that link them to ancient Hamitic, Semitic, Afro-Asiatic and sub-Saharan African groups. Other examples would be the explanation behind the very wide aesthetic range of Berber and Sahelian people, how nomadic lifestyles of ancient groups affected admixture, the implications about admixture based on Pre-Columbian theories, & how the plight of Jews throughout history has affect admixture within certain geographic areas. Would this fit within the scope of what is discussed in the multiracial article? Bab-a-lot ( talk) 12:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the possibility of adding this to the article, or simply developing and adjacent article relative to this one. With the new technological advances in DNA testing, more is now being revealed about how the genetic markers of regional populations can link to other ethnic groups, regions and races. With that said, a lot of this is paralleled and further implicated in the history of that particular geographical area. So, with Spain as an example, the history implies diverse admixture among the natively rooted people,as well as in the recent influx of immigrants from formerly occupied Spanish territories. However recent immigrant groups from other European countries (especially Britain, the Americas, Asia, all over continental Africa have added to this admixture. This is especially so over the past 30 years. Does anyone else see this as a pertinent item of discussion within, or relative, to the multiracial article? Bab-a-lot ( talk) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Could there be a sub-heading explaining the admixture of anciently mixed groups? It seems to me that popular science tends to disregard the mixed admixture of ancient populations in determining the race of a modern group/person, especially where phenotype and social/cultural identity is concerned. So, would it be useful to have a subsection outlining the implications, or simply acknowledging this? At the bottom of the article where the groups are listed by geographic area, should the ancient mixed groups be listed under a separate category, especially in the case where this admixture is irrelevant the modern racial identity of a modernly linked population? Bab-a-lot ( talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Could there be a section going over this as it relates to being multiracial? Could it discuss how a diverse range of genetic markers within an otherwise considered 'full blooded' population that exhibits a phenotype of one race would be interpreted in regards of being multiracial. An example might be the admixture among some of the population in Sudan, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, New Zealand and Russia.
The section about Britain says the following: "In England many multi-racial people are from the British Caribbean and if they have some African ancestry they may be said to be Afro-Caribbean. Many people are partly Welsh or partly Italian or partly of Irish Descent but it is hard to tell how many".
Welsh and Irish are not separate races to English. There's no way someone could consider themselves mixed race because they are part Welsh (and as half Welsh, half English, I should know!). Is it ok to just remove this? I am sure others agree? Or does the author mean many part black people in britain are also part Welsh (true to some extent, but 'many' is pushing it a bit and very un-encyclopedic as well... 79.69.29.167 ( talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting from the Obama photo. It's bad political timing, and there's plenty of other examples. Cretog8 ( talk) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that I would say in the entire world, but definitely in North America and possibly the western world. "At this time" is the key phrase though. My concern wasn't as much a political endorsement (although I can see why someone might say that) but rather that I don't think every article necessarily needs a famous person to represent an entire group of people. Specifically, Obama is showing up in many articles, and I don't think it's necessary to feature him in 3 different racially-based articles: African American (2 pictures), Multiracial, and Mulatto (plus his main and sub articles). Kman543210 ( talk) 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of expanding multiracial in U.S. maybe by adding historical events such as Loving V. Virginia. I was also was thinking of putting quotes of people’s thought about being multiracial most likely Famous.-- Dirk digler ( talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The figure of 5.50% mixed race people in the UK region of West Midlands for the 2001 census is not correct. The right figure is 2.14%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.18.195 ( talk) 20:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Michael Levin's opinions should be included in this article, as he could be described as a racialist. The fact the he prefers to fit multiracial people into distinct racial categories and that he, as a racialist, emphasizes the differences between racial groups is insulting to multiracial people, such as myself. Encouraging multiracial people to assimilate into the established racial groups is a step towards eliminating the subject of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.145.111 ( talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
But Levin's views are not just included, they are key to the introduction and form the very basis for the whole tenor of the article. The notion that his views are "notable" is decidedly biased. Hitler's views were also notable, but they aren't appropriate here. Levin's notions of race are firmly rooted in philosophy and his own views, but are on very shaky ground scientifically. He has an axe to grind, and a racist opinion to espouse. That does not make his views pertinent to a Wikipedia article. If this stuff is left in, it should be clearly labeled as what it is: racism masquerading as science. We've seen this before. 139.68.134.1 ( talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The second two sentences of the first paragraph of this section are very biased and limited. While government-mandated racial segregation cannot be defended, it almost certainly existed for reasons (again, not defensible ones) other than covering up the hypocrisy of white slave owners who fathered interracial children with female slaves. Also, the fact that "white communities regularly rallied around issues of alleged assaults to white women by black men," while motivated by ignorance and prejudice, was not just projection of the behavior of white men, and if it was, some citation of evidence of this should be required. -- Joel7687 ( talk) 22:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to see a section on the genetic benefits of being a multiracial person. I know very little about this, and am interested in learning. Do you think a section like that would fit here? Delsydebothom ( talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
the term is heterosis. But I think that heterosis in humans is anecdotal at best. But maybe you'll be able to find some quotable reference. -- dab (𒁳) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There should definitely be a larger section on hate/discrimination/anti multiracialism on wikipedia. Wikipedia has vast pages no things such as judaism/antisemitism/african american and little to nothing about bi-racial/multiracial topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.247.181 ( talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why isn't the next president of the USA on this list? I would have thought he was famous enough to make it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.162.25 ( talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The list of "Notable Multi or Bi-racial people" has become unreasonable. There are more than 100 people included, and more are added every day.
What's the purpose of the list? Does it add any value to the article? Is it possible that a reader might read the article and leave wondering what a bi- or multiracial person is because the article didn't have a list of examples?
I think we should delete the list altogether. We have a picture of Halle Berry and a Eurasian baby. Let's add another picture or two, maybe of some of the notable people on the list, and delete the list.
For others' thoughts on lists such as these, read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections and Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Think of the reader. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) hi there. I think the list of notable people would make sense indeed if it contained information on where the parents come from plus a source. I looked at it the last year and it did make a lot of sense to me. I am biracial and I was surprised to find so many famous bi-racial people. I just came to this link now because I wanted to check the list out again. I remember when I read it, that it contained also information on the origins of the parents in like 50 percent of the noted persons.
One could also put out the list with the information that not all backgrounds are certain, that's why no complete sources. Just like on the link of the best selling artists.
I was planning on adding a page of this nature to Wikipedia, but when I saw that one had so recently been deleted, I moved the deleted information to a page on my own encyclopedia here. Anyone interested in contributing can leave me a message there. I don't agree with the deletion, but no point fighting it in this case...
Kitoba ( talk) 06:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Malik - who are you to decide what is 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' for what actual, real-life Multiracial people consider appropriate? Are you mixed-race? How do you qualify to make this determination? I am the founder and director of a pro-Multiracial organization called C.O.M.R.A.DE (Coloradoans of Mixed-Race Ancestry & Descent) in the Aurora-Denver Metroplex, and I am constantly seeking ways to bring Multracial issues to the forefront and celebrate Mixed-race people whereever I find them. We are seeking an official NAME to classify our racial group (the word Multiracial) which will speak power and existence to our contigency, so that children and adults of mixed-race alike don't continue to feel left out in the 'pick one race' scam. We as Multiracial people should have the same right as you or any other racial group to signify an factual, honest, racial identity for ourselves, as Multracial.
It is my responsibility to others of mixed-race as a concerned, interested, and real Multiracial person to see to it that we are not contiually rendered invisible in our society and that mixed-race are able to see others of Multiracial heritage as a source of confidence, motivatino, power, and similarity, much like blacks (or any other race) are encouraged to seek out other blacks in whatever their field of interest is (for example, if a black child wants to become a physician, parents would direct that child to seek out other black physicians as a source of motivation, i.e., "I can do it if he can do it").
Multiracial deserve the same fair treatment. Our people deserve to have the right to connect with, research, study, and gain motivation from other successful Multracial people. We are a relatively new race in America, with our people demanding recognition only as recently as 1995 (prior to the 2000 Census) and we are still fighting battles with the Office of Management and Budget to give us an official name to recognize and respect our existence. Prior to the 2000 Census, our biggest opponent was the NAACP. Can you believe these hippocrites? The supposed representatives of an oppressed people had the nerve to speak out against Multiracial people and their right to the same freedom of fair and respectful racial identification that was denied to blacks for hundreds of years.
Could you, Malik, be of that ilk? With a name like Malik Shabazz, you fashion yourself after a black separatist/black supremacist, and the black political intelligentsisa was at the forefront of suppressing Multiracial people (particualarly of partial African descent, as it is obvious and well known in our circles that blacks participate in 'racial kidnapping', or the stealing of the accomplishments of Multiracial people of partial black ancestry to claim them as their own, 'black', accomplishments).
Lycurgus, you think that honoring and respecting the accomplishments of Multiracial people is 'pure crap'? What a genius. You two are obvious anti-Multiracial and wish to erase the concept of distinct Multiracial racial identity. What is the problem? I would love to create and have ownership of this list. I would also like to create a list of 'Multiracial athletes', what was created at one point but was deleted by like minded racist individuals such as yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.193.203 ( talk) 03:08, April 20, 2008
Moved old stuff to Talk:Multiracial/Archive1 to make way for more stuff, hopefully better composed. If you make entries please use proper formatting. Two equal signs for a new section not one. Lycurgus 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Vast sections of this article seem to be based on personal opinion. Citations of sources would help to show where the ideas are coming from. Kemet 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the title from "Who is multiracial?" because the answer to that question is a list of people: he is, and she is, and they are.
If my proposed title, "What makes a person multiracial?", isn't acceptable, please explain why and let's work on a better title. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As even the term race is controversial, shouldn't mention of this be made in this article? AJKGORDON «» 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. I have decided to move a number of the links from the 'See Also' section to the 'Types of mixed-race people' section. This is because there are too many links on the 'See Also' section, which means it shouldn't even be called that. Earlier, I also changed the scrolling-style textbox for the 'See Also' section to the normal style. If you have any objections, feel free to voice it out here. Angcr ( talk) 10:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The article makes a clumsy reference to "Nazi soldiers who interbred with Scandinavian women". This is cleary a reference to the Nazi Lebensborn project for the creation of "ubermenschen". It was all about creating racially pure white people (a disgusting ideology). This kind of eugenic / white supremacist program did not involve "race-mixing" by any definition. So it probably should not be in the article.
However, in the past there were have been other governement programmes that have interfered into the private lives of multiracial people, with the aim of enforcing a "solution" to the "problem" of multiracial people (as it was perceived by racist governments at the time).
Here's a brief overview about what I remember about this topic from reading various sources:
In Austriala there were government programs in place until the 1960s which targetted Aborginal children, taking them away from their parents, which has resulted in the Stolen generation. Light-skinned Aboriginal children of partly white descent were treated differently than children with a black phenotype. Light-skinned Aboriginal children were put in seperate schools with the aim of ensuring that these children would become part of white instead of Aboriginal communities, and would gradually be "biologically absorbed" into white society. See also the article on A.O. Neville.
The Australian goverment policy was an extreme example of enforcing a social hierarchy with white people on top, and indigenous/non-white peoples at the bottom, and with individuals of multiracial, partly indigenous/non-white descent somewhere in the middle.
The Australian goverment actively tried to "disolve" the population of multiracical Aboriginals by promoting intermarriage with whites. In various other colonial/white settlers settings there have government programmes/policies which targetted multiracial people as a distinct group that goverments tried either to maintain (attempting to prevent them from merging into a white or black/indigenous populations)
Anti-miscegenation laws, already mentioned, are an obvious example of such policies. See also the artcle on the legal and social status of Coloureds in South Africa during Apartheid.
I'll come back and provide sources on these topics. JSTOR and MUSE ar great for online research into these topics, but I haven't got access to them. 195.73.22.130 ( talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The source on "biological absorption" and the Stolen Generation: Patrick Wolfe, "Land, Labour, and Difference: Elementary Structures of Race".
Compares government policies of Americanization of Native Americans in the US with policies targetting Aboriginals. Fairlane75 ( talk) 12:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the address of the source online: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/106.3/ah000866.html Patrick Wolfe: "Land, Labour, and Difference: Elementary Structures of Race"
Fairlane75 ( talk) 12:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the history of the Philippines you will see intermingling of differing ethnic groups, and it is estimated that at least 25% of the population can be classified as foreign or multiracial but theres no segment about the Philippines. It angers me ^_^ 122.55.201.128 ( talk) 17:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Aryans, a Caucasoid people once invaded the area now called India and mixed with the native Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic ethno-linguistic groups.
Also, Indonesians, especially those found in the western portion of Indonesia have Indian and Arabic introgression due in part to their proselytizing of Hinduism and Islam during the past centuries. 122.55.201.128 ( talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious if it would appropriate to mention in this article (may create an separate one adjacent to this one) about the admixture within certain long-time/dominant socially, linguistically, culturally and religiously homogeneous groups. For example, the Saami people of Europe, have genetic markers that tie them to Asiatic; and the Oromo People of Ethiopia are said have genetic markers that link them to ancient Hamitic, Semitic, Afro-Asiatic and sub-Saharan African groups. Other examples would be the explanation behind the very wide aesthetic range of Berber and Sahelian people, how nomadic lifestyles of ancient groups affected admixture, the implications about admixture based on Pre-Columbian theories, & how the plight of Jews throughout history has affect admixture within certain geographic areas. Would this fit within the scope of what is discussed in the multiracial article? Bab-a-lot ( talk) 12:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the possibility of adding this to the article, or simply developing and adjacent article relative to this one. With the new technological advances in DNA testing, more is now being revealed about how the genetic markers of regional populations can link to other ethnic groups, regions and races. With that said, a lot of this is paralleled and further implicated in the history of that particular geographical area. So, with Spain as an example, the history implies diverse admixture among the natively rooted people,as well as in the recent influx of immigrants from formerly occupied Spanish territories. However recent immigrant groups from other European countries (especially Britain, the Americas, Asia, all over continental Africa have added to this admixture. This is especially so over the past 30 years. Does anyone else see this as a pertinent item of discussion within, or relative, to the multiracial article? Bab-a-lot ( talk) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Could there be a sub-heading explaining the admixture of anciently mixed groups? It seems to me that popular science tends to disregard the mixed admixture of ancient populations in determining the race of a modern group/person, especially where phenotype and social/cultural identity is concerned. So, would it be useful to have a subsection outlining the implications, or simply acknowledging this? At the bottom of the article where the groups are listed by geographic area, should the ancient mixed groups be listed under a separate category, especially in the case where this admixture is irrelevant the modern racial identity of a modernly linked population? Bab-a-lot ( talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Could there be a section going over this as it relates to being multiracial? Could it discuss how a diverse range of genetic markers within an otherwise considered 'full blooded' population that exhibits a phenotype of one race would be interpreted in regards of being multiracial. An example might be the admixture among some of the population in Sudan, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, New Zealand and Russia.
The section about Britain says the following: "In England many multi-racial people are from the British Caribbean and if they have some African ancestry they may be said to be Afro-Caribbean. Many people are partly Welsh or partly Italian or partly of Irish Descent but it is hard to tell how many".
Welsh and Irish are not separate races to English. There's no way someone could consider themselves mixed race because they are part Welsh (and as half Welsh, half English, I should know!). Is it ok to just remove this? I am sure others agree? Or does the author mean many part black people in britain are also part Welsh (true to some extent, but 'many' is pushing it a bit and very un-encyclopedic as well... 79.69.29.167 ( talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting from the Obama photo. It's bad political timing, and there's plenty of other examples. Cretog8 ( talk) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that I would say in the entire world, but definitely in North America and possibly the western world. "At this time" is the key phrase though. My concern wasn't as much a political endorsement (although I can see why someone might say that) but rather that I don't think every article necessarily needs a famous person to represent an entire group of people. Specifically, Obama is showing up in many articles, and I don't think it's necessary to feature him in 3 different racially-based articles: African American (2 pictures), Multiracial, and Mulatto (plus his main and sub articles). Kman543210 ( talk) 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of expanding multiracial in U.S. maybe by adding historical events such as Loving V. Virginia. I was also was thinking of putting quotes of people’s thought about being multiracial most likely Famous.-- Dirk digler ( talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The figure of 5.50% mixed race people in the UK region of West Midlands for the 2001 census is not correct. The right figure is 2.14%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.18.195 ( talk) 20:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Michael Levin's opinions should be included in this article, as he could be described as a racialist. The fact the he prefers to fit multiracial people into distinct racial categories and that he, as a racialist, emphasizes the differences between racial groups is insulting to multiracial people, such as myself. Encouraging multiracial people to assimilate into the established racial groups is a step towards eliminating the subject of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.145.111 ( talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
But Levin's views are not just included, they are key to the introduction and form the very basis for the whole tenor of the article. The notion that his views are "notable" is decidedly biased. Hitler's views were also notable, but they aren't appropriate here. Levin's notions of race are firmly rooted in philosophy and his own views, but are on very shaky ground scientifically. He has an axe to grind, and a racist opinion to espouse. That does not make his views pertinent to a Wikipedia article. If this stuff is left in, it should be clearly labeled as what it is: racism masquerading as science. We've seen this before. 139.68.134.1 ( talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The second two sentences of the first paragraph of this section are very biased and limited. While government-mandated racial segregation cannot be defended, it almost certainly existed for reasons (again, not defensible ones) other than covering up the hypocrisy of white slave owners who fathered interracial children with female slaves. Also, the fact that "white communities regularly rallied around issues of alleged assaults to white women by black men," while motivated by ignorance and prejudice, was not just projection of the behavior of white men, and if it was, some citation of evidence of this should be required. -- Joel7687 ( talk) 22:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to see a section on the genetic benefits of being a multiracial person. I know very little about this, and am interested in learning. Do you think a section like that would fit here? Delsydebothom ( talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
the term is heterosis. But I think that heterosis in humans is anecdotal at best. But maybe you'll be able to find some quotable reference. -- dab (𒁳) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There should definitely be a larger section on hate/discrimination/anti multiracialism on wikipedia. Wikipedia has vast pages no things such as judaism/antisemitism/african american and little to nothing about bi-racial/multiracial topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.247.181 ( talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |