User talk:Zaphnathpaaneah

Wikipedia Policy

This user is a Wikipedian.

This user finds edit/revert wars disruptive.

This user has a ton of edits.

Please read first

Some Wikipedians (whose positions are irrelevant to me) have resorted to pre-emptively trying (and failing) to intimidate me myself by accusing me of "vandalism". Vandalism is defined in Wikipedia as "is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of other wholly irrelevant content."

I do not try to promote myself personally, and I do not like personal attacks. This is mostly because personal discussions distract from the topic and allow dishonest contributors to attack the messenger in order to disrupt the message. I can admit I am a hypocrite, but I am always wanting to be a better person (read more about this philosophy below).

I am very passionate, and may come across as cynical or lacking a sense of humor, but my humorous side shows in the midst of a very controversal debate. I try to diffuse any tension that may turn into a personal attack. I also love to use commas to connect my ideas, which causes some confusion.

I actually use the discussion pages of some of the controversal Wikipedia pages as experiments in many of my theories on social issues like racism. I find the discussion page contributions more revealing than the actual content pages themselves.

I do not engage in this activity (nor any other kind of deliberate disruptive activity). I will however, go through a lot of trouble to ban or censure any Wikipedian who threatens to report me for vandalism. I do not vandalize articles and accusations of vandalism are taken very seriously from me.

Other Wikipedians attempt to pre-emptively remove content I have posted, then engage in an edit war where they do not directly respond to my comments for maintaining the content. Thus, the "three times rule" is technically broken by myself first (even though I made the last good faith contribution WITH an explanation). I do not respect that kind of engagement, and I will also report any user who attempts to manipulate the rules to control how content is posted on controversal topics.

Yet others accuse me of a NPOV contribution (this is mostly on the Black People article), and this is due in part to my lack of credible research citations. I am aware of this and am currently shoring up this. On the other hand, I have recognized blatent bias from these very same people, in effect causing a NPOV dispute that I have successfully resolved by pointing out inconsistencies in other related articles. if you accuse me of NPOV on any racial, religious, or historical context, you better make sure to check the content of other parallel or subject related articles as well as your own contribution history. If I see a lack of consistency on your part, or if your NPOV accusation (or comments) do not consistently or logically flow into other related articles, I will point that out. For example, it would not be wise to accuse me of POV for uppercasing "Black" in the Black People article, when "White" was uppercased in the White people article, and you the accuser never mentioned it, despite being a contributor to both articles.

The U.S. Census says that

Social issues

This user is very critical of White priviledge.

White or caucasian refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe. Black or African American refers to people having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

The white group is clearly defined as original (Indo European) inhabitents. The black group is not given that respect. I assume that the word "original" has too much integrity or dignity or legitimacy to be used with black people. This offense is a root cause of the racial issues you see below. YES the census. Just like YES the Electoral College (another racialized institution) is one of the root causes of the voting debacle in the 2000 election. An institution created to give slave-owners more voting power than northerners enabled a man to win the presidency with a minority vote.

This attitude, this lack of respect shows in how some articles on Wikipedia are maintained. I see contributors who are very intelligent, very experienced, and very interested in maintaing a familiar point of view in articles involving black people and history. Then, I come along and blatently disrupt this biased POV and insert credible information on the subject (maintaing consistency). One response is to either redefine the subject out of context, (ex. calling black identity a mere Eurocentric invention in order to unilaterally determine it's scope, and to refute through omission any relation between black Africans and Black Asians.). Another response is to fake exasperation and personal offense to comments I make. (I.e. accuse me of being anti-your-group because I posted content that does not describe your group in favorable light). The lack of respect for black people shows in Wikipedia, although there is a noticeable attempt to change that attitude.

For example, Katrina photographs showed captions of black people "looting" and white people captioned as something other than looting (scavenging, using, gathering, what hav you). The photographer said that the black subject he photographed was "looting" because he technically entered the flooded store to obtain the groceries whereas the white subject photographed technically obtained the groceries which had floated outside the store's location. Fine. My question is this, why did the photographer, knowing the racial climate of the country and this situation, choose to show (among all of the possible subjects) the black person who went into the store? Even worse, why did he not choose (to photograph or publish) among the many examples of black people who also obtained groceries which had technically floated outside the store first? That attitude which is revealed in the lack of him and our media of even addressing this disparity, is the kind of attitude I campaign against. I am not interested in justifying someone's ability to reaffirm racial stereotypes, I am interested in exposing why someone will go through the trouble of reaffiriming stereotypes. In doing so, we focus the attention not on the stereotype, but on those who perpetuate them.

And to prove that I am not "anti-white" I am also taking the time and effort to campaign against "hip-hop being the core of black identity" attitude that is becoming prevalent. Saggy Jeans (from gay prisoners), Thug-life (from East Indian idol-worshipping psychopaths), Gangsta-life (from the Italian Mafia), and other non-black contributions to black culture are not contributions I respect or take seriously. Black people should not adopt another group's crazyness, and certainly they should not be repackaged as "Black". I will be saying a LOT more about this as time passes --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Black People

I am a firm believer that black people have been double-bluffed in America, and that black people throughout the world are made to hate themselves and each other. I am more interested in seeing Black people truely overcome the racist pyramid scheme that was developed by Europeans. The biggest problem is, like most pyramid schemes, sometimes the most difficult thing to do is to convince the suckers that they are being duped. By the way, this pyramid scheme I see in Christianity. In fact, I see a lot of similarities between the experiences of Black people and of true Christians.

Black people are becoming more interested in each other, but the materialism of the west has enticed too many Black people to the point that many want to simply go along with the scheme; live on the fringes of psychological independance and reject the values that made our ancestors survive despite slavery and oppression. Today, Hip-hop culture glamorizes the distorted values imposed on us by white people, and now too much of the hip-hop culture on TV is simply a reincarnation of shuckin' and jivin' minstrelsy, and a pacification of strong values in favor of quick money and glory and individualism. Of course there are hip-hop artists that thankfully expel that notion, like Mos Def, Kwane West, and Nas. Not to say any of them are perfectly committed to the well being of Black people, but they do not overly ignore us.

On the flip side, there is no doubt in my mind that the commercialization of hip-hop, like Christianity, has contributed to it's misrepresentation of Black people and contributed to reinforting psychological stereotypes. Black stupidity, indifference, laziness, violence, drug use and cheuvanism is now championed as a positive way to be by so many black celebrities. The overly repetitive imagery on T.V., with redundant lyrics, and carefully flashed imagery, certainly contributes to the poor development of many children (often raised with one parent who statistically cannot possibly single handedly succeed without support from their own community). Although ultimately the lack of values in American culture as a whole (that refers to the overly capatialistic mentality of white america) are responsible, the fact is, white Americans in power, especially Republicans will not sacrifice their commitment to $$$ for the sake of truely building cultural values. This is why the Republican platform focuses squarely on "light switch" topics: Abortion. Gay marriage, and Creationism. In their intentional lack of common sense, they spend more effort gaining power by focusing on issues that can only be resolved postively by more commitment to the cultural values we share. Abortion would surely be a non-issue if children were not raised with sex and violence in the media. Absentee fathers would certainly be present in their children's lives if the fathers had more opportunities growing up besides choosing to avoid gangs and drugs getting beat up and killed for refusing to participate. Yet our conservative "wrong-wing" society expects 12 year olds to have some overly zealous cultural integrity after their parents, and grandparents were raised without education and without opportunities to pass along. (it happens within an individual, but statistically it's unrealistic) And among even those who succeed, there is still the prejudice in giving opportunities, breaks, and chances to participate in a meaningful way in our society, instead of being in a dead-end administrative or powerless position. Hip-hop glorification with the sports empathsis, admittedly teaches black youth to bypass this silly white man's game, as it is silly. Yet, the missing link is the lack of unity within the black community. And that is our responsibility. (I could go on, and dispel more myths, but this page only can go so far).

I believe that that unity will have to come from the diverse black people around the world, because the overly selfish culture in America has basically "won". I see no hope in Black kids overcoming the stereotypes that are constantly bombareded in the inner city, on T.V. and by white prejudice. If the best we can hope for is sports, music, and some kind of anti-social attitudnal approach to life, then it's really hopeless. However, thanks to the internet, and a lot of other new mediums, black people are becoming more interested in how they themselves view the world, not how they are told to view it. If a black person from the U.S.A. can go and talk to a Dalit person in India, and they can talk to a Afro-Brazilian, and all three can look at each other and see an important relationship then that is a good thing. Jewish people have this understanding, a Jewish person in China can meet a Jewish person in Morocco and they will relate to each other as Jewish, and having some kind of bond that is relevant. The same can be said of Black people from India, to the Philippines, and from Brazil to the U.S. (I have seen it with my own eyes, so I know it's not a myth). I believe that many people are afraid or at least perplexed by this perspective I have and through their nature, they resent it, and find it to be threatening to the "proper order" of things in the world. They see a serious world wide black awareness as some kind of artifical hijacking of other cultures. I think these people are reprehensible and delusional. They still want to compartementalize blackness into a "bantu" and "West African" box as to more easily control it. If an East Indian or Filipino were to call themselves Black, and be embraced as such by Africans, AfricanAmericans, these people (who usually do not have a clue what being black is about), would think it was some kind of cultural catastrophe. My best advice to them is that they need to step back, close their mouths, and listen for a change. They argue that we should not seperate and instead be "all one human group". Ok, im all fine with that, but since these (usually lighter skinned people) are still idolized and emulated all over the place. Since these "utopian" philosophers are never taught to reject their characteristically light phenotype and 'darken' up culturally in order to succeed in life, this idealism is hollow. Right now in Asia, the darker skinned Asians are culturally influenced to imitate the Japanese and Chinese. Skin lightening cream and hair straighteners are still multibillion dollar industries. People are overly obsessed with skin color and looking more white. So it's beyond irritating when someone says that I, myself, am obsessed with skin color. I do not know who told these idealists that color prejudice by and large ended in the 1960s, but they need to wake up. Darker skinned people still are bound to much of the ignorance taught to them by colonial powers. I rather strengthen the bond between the darker skinned people in order to ultimately make this world as the idealists say they want. But that world will also be a world where white Europeans won't give a shit if they become "racially extinct" or not. It will also be a world where immigration will not be color-bound in the states or Europe. It will also be a world where being "latino" or "arab" or "asian" does not mean "lightskinned with straight hair". Finally, it is a world where there the white parent (or the non-black parent) doesn't bat an eye or give a second thought if their daughter wants to marry a black person. Once the undercaste of the world are allowed to walk in the shadows of the brahmans and vice versa, then we will have no reason to exercise this bond so tightly.

Black People Article

Currently this article, that I worked on, is being totally redone by people who do not seem to have a black perspective (I consider them to be blackophobes, considering they have a fear of people being viewed as black; you can also call them afrophobes as they view blackness strictly as an African phenomonon). Basically their position is that the only "real" black people out there are West Africans and Western Hemisphere Black Americans and Caribbeans (and some sprinkling of Black Africans in Europe and India). They categorically renounce the notion of labeling black those asians of dark complexion, knappy hair, broad noses, who are of neolithic asian origin (not African within 30Kya. (and who share with Black Africans similar experiences with Europeans and Asians). I think that is absurd, since 1. They are labeled as Black in the same way that Africans were labeled as black. 2. They share the same color-based prejudice that black Africans experience. 3. They look like black people, and are culturally distinct from "white" or "upper caste" Indians. However I am refraining from counter-editing for a week for three reasons.

1. to avoid being accused of instigating an editing war.
2. to get the strength of these positions (so they do not just add more counter excuses).
3. to summarily refute their notions, instead of line by line itemizations.
4. to gather references from asians who are black who can make sure these blackophobes

The strength of their arguments are as follows.

1. Calling anyone black (or white) is a Eurocentric reaction, and not rooted in objectivity.
2. Asians that resemble black people should not be called black because of genetic differences from Africans.
3. The Asians chosen (Aeta Filipinos, Dravidians, Veddoid peoples, Melanesians, Rana Tharu...) are only "nomially" resembling of "pure" black Africans. They do not exhibit "enough" or strictly identical traits to the most Classical Negro phenotype.
4. They never viewed themselves as Black.
5. blackness is based on literal skin color and those who are lighter than the 10% darkest of the African population should not be included.

MY responses to these (each number corresponds)

1. Calling anyone anything is Eurocentric, and that is irrelevant, because the meaning and scope of blackness has left the control of Europeans. It's ironic that Europeans (or non black people) in Wikipedia want to maintain that control by delineating a "conservative" viewpoint on who is or is not black. I consider this to be a semantic ploy; a pre-emptive feint of offense. Therefore I will be counter editing later.
2. Blackness is not based on genetics, it never was. This "reason" contradicts their first excuse. In addition, I as well as many black Asians view the genetic diversity of black people colaterally with the overall human genetic diversity. Since one cannot limit the legitimacy of Jewry, or Latino roots to such narrow genetic markers. Secondly, genetic indicators like mtDNA, haplotype and other "non-external visual phenotype" indicators are not reliable guides for any group except establishing "purity" levels for Caucasoid debate (i.e. a Eurocentric can use mtDNA or whatever DNA trend to determine how "polluted" with Sub-saharan DNA are the ancient Greeks for example.). Sure we can try to force a Sub-saharan DNA structure into the entire human black discourse, but it's useless and irrelevant for many reasons. 1. Invariably you can trace all humans to Africa and a black ancestor, it makes no sense to establish arbitrary cut off points for the sake of boxing blackness into Equatorial Africa.
3. This is another form of the Classical Negro. This is another Eurocentric form of ignorance, and it's just a way to divide and weaken the solidarity of black people. It's also a form of caste. Since blackness really IS still viewed negatively, especially by non-westerners in discourse with white westerners, it's benefits the established order to (i) maintain a low threshold of dark skin color to be called black (ii) in order to seperate the dark and knappy haired (yet not jet black) asians from feeling a sense of union with the (jet black africans and asians) despite the fact that Italic textthey share very similar unique experiences.
4. This is a lie. Aeta for example were known as "black" people by the Sinoid asians they protected from the early Chinese dynasties that persecuted the refugees. Also, Veddoid scriptures refer to the undercastes as black. Thirdly, anyone, black, white, Afrocentric, Eurocentric, non-centric, neutral, etc can tell the difference from "dark" and "light". The term "black" does not literally correspond to anyone, however, in RELATIVE contrast, darker skinned Asians have the capacity, just like the lighter skinned Europeans, to differentiate their skin color on the visual queue "they are white, we are black". ONCE the European established an order with stigma on black skin, well everyone (asians, africans, latinos) did everything they could to distance themsleves from the 'black' label. I personally have met latinos whose skins are jet black and they say "I am not black". Very well. The deal is this. If you can convince antebellum and republican minded whites to renounce being "white" in the same manner, then we will follow suit.
5. This continues from the last point. Black nowadays no longer means "only those who are literally dark skinned". Black means in various ways, "recent descendants of those who are darkskinned". IN the order of importance: It is up to the individual, then the individual's close group, then the individuals culture, then the individuals nation, then (outsiders who do not share that individual's family ties, group affiliation, cultural origin, or national identity have the least say.)

So what this comes down to for some is "Afrocentrism" vs "Eurocentrism". Although I think it's halfwittedly clever that some in Wikipedia want to present Afrocentrism as nothing more than a subsidiary of Eurocentrism. (Notice again how the white point of view is the dominant.)

Interesting fact, if you didn't know is that the groups that are most tightly bound DNA wise are American Indians and Jews. That is to say, an anglo saxon white man usually has more in common genetically with a black man than an indian or jew has with either.--Urthogie 17:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Racial Dynamics and Psychology

Why do I identify racialized white people (not all white people) as a major obstacle towards a better world? Because racism still exists, it still has a profound effect on our society. The KIND of racism that prevails is still the White-European-Lightskinned type. It is the kind of racism that allows a light/white person to speak first and last in a conversation. It's the kind of racism that allows them to act unilaterally in situations that affect others without the same respect and resistance that would occur if a non-white were to try to act unilaterally in situations that affect a white person. It is what causes people to "defer" to a white person for the "final word" on a subject. This is how and why American policy is so heavy handed. This is why contractors in Iraq can shoot civilians and not be punished (and why jihadists prefer to kidnap and brazenly kill them on camera). This is why Sudan is going through it's catastrophe. This is why Christianity is represented as a "white man's religion" (and why so many black people disavow it). Letting white people just "have control" of a subject is the worst thing you can do. You let the strength of the words of the discussion be the factor, and nothing more.

This is not an attack on white people or the white "race". This is an attack on a mindset, a comfort zone, a de facto standard which was established either naturally or artifically over the past thousand years. The mindset is "whiter is more reliable and competent". It's not about hatred, it's about honsetly making things equal between individuals and groups. I have read articles by white people who genuinely refer to a higher standard of respect for others. I want to make this clear, this is not about hating white people. This is about waking a lot of white people up to understand that they are not so important that they should be hated. What they see as hatred is actually annoyance because they tend to insert themselves in as the main event or topic or end result of a situation, THEN make themselves get more attention by calling the annoyance "hatred". Imagine a group of people are having a discussion, and one person who is not really clear on the conversation, wasn't invited, and is not related to the topic, imagine they come in, and not only interrupt (although politely nowadays), but decide unilaterally what the conversation SHOULD be about, what the conclusions are, based on their OWN trusted "evidence". They also decide to define the terms based on their own beliefs of what the terms mean and sould mean. That annoys the other people. When the others respond with irritation, the outsider reacts as if he or she is being singled out for persection! Oh and by the way, this outsider swears they are being rational and logical the whole time!

I believe that racialized debate with many whites comes down to that basic problem. If you can catch the subtle attempts for a white person to maintain their sense of dominance/control while simultaneously appear to be neutral and progressive minded, then you have the edge and can debunk whatever mythology they teach. Once you see the pattern, you can easily skip the nonesense, get to the root of the discussion and if they HAVE NO REAL EVIDENCE, end the conversation unilaterally. Otherwise you find yourself giving them power by trying to "follow" their logic, no matter how absurd it goes.

So here is a list of the lame tired tactics that our racialized white people use to make sure that no black person walks away from a conversation with a clear accurate perspective on things. From the white person's perspective, they are doing their duty to stop some craziness from getting out of control. Usually they blame Afrocentric ideology and they want to stop it in it's tracks. These tactics are insidious, but are very effective. I have seen some black people with some of the best ideas and information get worn down by hours (or pages) of wasting time (in longstanding, unresolveable academic dispute). These tactics that racialized whites use in debate:

1. Immediately take an opposing position and expect the entire burden of proof to be on your shoulders.
2. always use a chronology that leads to a white founder or ideology.
3. The nouns or premises are strictly defined within their own comforable ideas of "truth".
4. only refer to white references as valid, or if a black refernce is used, it only mirrors an earlier established whtie viewpoint. No original thinking black POV is respected.
5. pre-emptively use words that black people would use, and pre-emptively accuse others of "reverse racism" or race baiting or attacking white people.
6. Irrefutable evidence is required to prove racist motivations by whites, while a much lower standard (a "pattern" of two or three loosely related examples) is necessary to convict by public opinion a black person of "reverse racism"
7. The Zodiac refute - Usually after making a point that is resoundly refuted, they want to get personal by asking your background, and once you tell them (no matter WHAT your background is) they say "oh THAT explains why you are against white people"! Like when someone asks your sign, no matter what you say, they will respond with "I knew it, thats why you act that way!"
8. Says race doesn't matter as a reason to not consider someone to be black, but makes no affirmation to renounce their own whiteness.
9. Gets exasperated and overly moralistic. Attempts to close the discourse by accusing the other of being a racist white hater whose sole goal is to spread misinformation to defame and smear the entire white race.
10. "... but they were just" - In discussions on history, often they will point out that any seemingly positive innovative black presence in the world was in fact nothing more than some slaves or hired soldiers whose intellect was never used in the matter. Even if there is some innovation created or developed by a black person or group in history... they didn't really do anything, it was already there and they just blindly copied it.
11. Use individual acts of ignorance, or crime, or violence by a black against a white as evidence of a "racist action" regardless of the actual motive. While failing to maintain the same "guilt" for white criminals or ignorants against blacks.
12. Whites that get passed over for a job by a black person was passed over most likely because of affirmative action... while a black passed over by a white was legitimately passed over, and unless irrefutable evidence is shown,
13. Turn conversations that have nothing to do with affirmative action into affirmative action conversations.
14. Fail to apply vigilant standards of quality in one area that they represent while requiring only the most strict standards of quality in areas that black people represent.
15. Generally leads into a no-reason response. WHY do black people perform poorly on IQ tests compared to whites? Why are they in jail in higher proportions? No-reason, but they will continue to bring these "facts" up as if it means something fundamental.
16. Will try to act like they didn't contradict themselves, and try to unilaterally close the discussion once they have been busted, OR will simply repeat themselves as if they were not busted at all!

What you will see MISSING in these discussions.

1. "Oh I didn't know that"
2. "No, I never talked to them before"
3. "Oh now I see what you mean, I had always thought it was this way"
4. "So this isn't really about attacking me or my race, you really just don't agree with this idea because of the big gaping holes in it"
5. "Oh I see, since my earlier premises are wrong, it's not making sense for me to continue pushing this conclusion off as fact"
6. "Yes, I should have checked the consistency of my own resources before criticizing yours."
7. "I am not white." (from an Indo-European or Anglo-American who has a philosophy that race doesn't matter.)

Some notable examples of this are The debate about me using the capital "B" in black in the Black People talk page. Even though the White People article had the SAME problem, and the SAME person was present in BOTH articles. This individual, who I will not name, critisized me for using the capital B in black, and they were critisized themselves (or at least PRESENT to the criticism) only two weeks beforehand.

The debate about using Coon as a reference to classify Ethiopians as Caucasoids. In the same reference by Coon, he indicated that Ethiopian skulls show negroid tendecies, and Coon had relied on HAIR... not skin... to classify them as Caucasoid. Yet the person I debated, actually repeated his complaint EIGHT times before addressing this. He had accused me of vandalism and of irresponsibly deleting his work.

Currently debating those who paradoxically believe that "black" means "of African DNA only" and "there is no such thing as race". What does DNA have to do with it then? Black people are the most diverse group of people in the world. DNA will never ever ever be a reason to say that a Thailander who has dark skin, knappy hair, and a flat nose should not be considered black!

Blackness is debatable from two sides. One, you can't stereotype blackness as a "classical negro" but on the other hand you can't just say that anyone with the slightest hint of "african features" is automatically black. So there has to be some reasonable way to look at it. Some think DNA is a reasonable way, but DNA markers that deal with internal systems, (blood type, protiens, allergies, etc) does not reflect external phenotype, nor do they provide good insight as to how neolithic to bronze age settlement patterns distributed the "races". I believe that the relationship between darker skinned and lighter skinned people as well as cultural characteristics (knappy haired asians and africans tend to manage their hair in similar fashion, while knappy haired scottish and irish people do not). There is also a social stratification factor. Does the darker skinned asian group identify as black or not? Often they do, but the Eurocentric will hedge the question to "do you consider yourself black like an African or not?" Usually and not surprisingly the Asian will say no, because (i) they have been given an unfavorable interpretion of Africans by Europeans. (ii) they have been socialized during british and french and dutch rule to view blackness in general unfavorably.

Black

Means

1. of Equatorial origin.
2. of a dark skinned culture, heritage, family (I don't believe this is compulsory)
3. of original inhabitents of Africa, Southeast Asia and India.
4. dark skinned, knappy hair
5. NOT INDO EUROPEAN
6. Hamitic, may also be semetic.
7. Kushite, Nilotic, Aethopian, Equatorial,

Does not mean

1. Only From Africa
2. Only Dark skinned (this deals with more recent "mixed populations")
3. Of mtDNA blah blah blah, with genetic haplotype whatever.
4. West African classical negroid.

Notes I have regarding these "debatable black people"

Firstly, we have to understand how the human race is currently and popularily sectioned in this black-not-black context. The first two, I will agree are simply not black.

1. Indo Europeans - Swedes, Germans, Russians, most slavic people, many middle easterners, some east indians
2. Sinoids - inland northern chinese; japanese, koreans, mongoloians, some varieties of south-east asians.

The next two are simply black.

1. Equatorial Africans
2. Equatorial Australians

Groups of people questionably black (this is being debated on the black people article). Old World groups

1. Dravidians
2. Sudra
3. Dalits
4. Melanesians
5. Aeta
6. Rana Tharu
7. Various south east Asians
8. Northeast Africans with thin noses and who are classified as having caucasoid skulls.

Groups of people questionably not black Greeks Sicilians Palestinians Mediterranean coast Africans Afghani Iranians

The oldest reference OUT there about the Rana Tharu comes from an arab historian Al-Beruni who desribed the Tharu as very black in color with flat noses like the Turks' who lived in Tilwat. Even though the historian is "not black" and "not Tharu", the historian is "not considered white" and not a part of any "Eurocentric" movement. His observation does not bring with it any of the racial undertones or ulterior motives that characterized the post-Columbus era. I also assume that the Tharu are intelligent enough to see their own skin and say "oh yes we have dark skin". Pictures of them resemble Black Americans mixed with Native American ancestry.

The Dalits and others in the East India subcontinent. Many are the undercastes of hinduism and have been considered black as far back as you can go...and they are more and more identifying openly as Black with pride. Baby Naznin AKA Black Diamond (of Bengladesh), Paul Manasala, and others from East India are simply black! Just like Black Americans, or Black Africans, they don't go into all the pinny anny stuff that many racialized whites want to go into in order to reshuffle them further away from being "black". There is no "I am black but... not really" in their perspective. Many take offense to the notion when someone tries to identify them as "black, but not as black as the African". Blackness is not something they distance from, they embrace, and they are no less legitimately black than any African. Dalits view their identity as black, dealing with racism and persecution from brahmans because of their BLACK IDENTITY. People who disagree with this need to read up.

Aeta are black. The word Aeta "means" Black.

Akhenaten

Hi there, and welcome. Please provide a source for your recent addition on Akhenaten being black. (Otherwise, it looks like original research.) Rd232 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

When has one asked for a source to prove that Julius Caeser was white? Or that Confucius was Chinese in appearance? What you ask is not out of objectivity is it? Please explain your position. Do not remove my edit until then please thanks. -Zaphnathpaaneah

Neither of those people's appearance is a matter of longstanding, unresolved, academic dispute. If it was that obvious, the dispute would not exist. (See also PaulBarlow's comment on Talk:Akhenaten.) Ergo you need to provide evidence that your interpretation is not original, and if you don't your para will be removed. Don't get mad, that's how Wikipedia works. Rd232 22:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I am not upset, but I am annoyed at the contradictory logic you present. It is without a doubt that people think that his face does look different than what they would expect (otherwise there would be no speculation of Marfan's syndrome). The dispute centers around the assumption that Egyptians must not be Black so an alternative is considered. Those who claim Marfan's syndrome are dubious in that they do not even mention the possibility of Blackness in their presentations. They do not consider the possibilities objectively and intentionally omit a very logical possibility. But fine, even though I suspect that YOU are aware of this interpretation of mine being previously mentioned in academia and other research presentations, I will take the responsibility and post it in the article.

Wikipedia's official policy on original research states that in some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events or Akhenaten's face).

Eureka! On finding one another :)

Hey, blood! :D I appreciate the fact that you took the time to hunt me up, read my page and leave such kind remarks on my talk page. I'm humbled. I've been thinking black contributors to Wikipedia should start an informal group to alert one another to racism and anti-black bias on the site, and to articles and issues of general mutual interest. I've been planning to return to Black people for some time now, but right now I'm in the middle of one hellified busy period. Will drop by, though, probably sometime after the middle of the month, after things slow down a bit and see what's what. In the meantime, you might want to drop by cultural appropriation if/when you have a moment -- if you're so inclined. It's been listed on the articles for improvement list or some such thing, and I have a feeling the knee-jerk defensiveness of certain white folks (which has already emerged) will try to turn the piece into a criticism of the term, rather than an explication of it. It's a stupid, exceedingly tiresome aspect of far too many whites when it comes to subject matter related to black folks. They feel they must comment on/criticize everything -- as if their opinion on what we choose to call ourselves, on how we speak, etc., etc., has any merit/weight whatsoever in the broad scheme of things. I guess that's one more thing to chalk up under the seemingly endless category of "white arrogance/sense of entitlement," 'eh? :p See you around the site -- and please keep in touch. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 21:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Stopped by Black people briefly, and (bowing low) I am impressed. I'm too pressed for time right now to read it, but simply skimming the subheads, it appears you've done a thorough job. (Gee, an article on black folks and no lengthy discussion or chart featuring "nigger" and the whole litany of pejoratives attached by a-holes of other ethnicities to the race. I had to pinch myself and check my web browser window to make sure I was still on Wikipedia. :p) Will definitely return soon and spend a few minutes with what appears to be a thorough, well-informed and thoughtful piece. Thanks for the considerable time and effort you've obviously devoted to it. I'm glad you're here. Peace 2 u. :D deeceevoice 05:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

*updates AfroWikipedian database*

This is great. That makes, what...four of us now (or six if you count the non-active ones--ain't it a shame)? --FuriousFreddy 21:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Fred, I don't know how to end my comments with what others do (the name and time)... I have to manually type all of this: Zaphnathpaaneah 12:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What's up Fred & Zaph! I started working on the Black People & Nigger articles back in August. Had conflicts of course, won the "N*" one (added a Gil Scott Heron ref.), and lost my password while researching "Black People".

I gotta say up front that our job here is gonna be hard, but I think of it as a fight we have no way to lose. We're here to re-educate white people about us, and you know they believe they know everything. Sooo, we just have to listen to Moms: "Black people always have to be twice as good to get half as far in the world". Lace 'em up y'all, we got a nightmare to end.

No matter what the admins do, they cannot shut us up. In fact, rules like providing sources and neutral pov actually help us because it bulletproofs our work. Once we get the Black People (BP) article cleaned up and locked down, we can look back and be proud of OUR work: defining Black People so that the world can't fall back on those Hollywood stereotypes and "Bell Curve" bullshit!

Zaph, brother, I respect your view of the Wikites, but you gotta remember that the energy you spend shouting them down could be used more directly. As you can see, in BP when Ben Finn tried to be too bold, I smacked him down. Not Wikipedia, but him. Even if there is a conspiracy, deal with them dog on dog and you will always win because it's a hobby for them and a calling for us.

Hey, how about we all get together here (if you don't mind, Z) and work on the articles together? I'm hoping that we can shorten the time and effort we need to address complaints, source what we write and just support each other. Or, we can do it thru email or however you want. You can reach me at: Juan@Noyles.com

PS: Zaph, there's a way to add that signature block: look in the articles on editing... I forget how it's done right now. Besides, I'm wondering why my sigs have all turned red! Probably something to do with me not being able to log on.

Plus, let's check out J. A. Rogers' work.

Excellent work on Black (people)

I've been reading and adding Wiki links to the Black (people) article and I've been really impressed with your work. Very thorough and informative. In fact, if you ever get a chance to adds references and pictures to the article, I think it might have a shot at becoming a Wikipedia: Featured article. Also, welcome to Wikipedia.--Alabamaboy 00:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that the term is inappropriate--as I'm sure you know, this is an old debate with valid arguements on both sides. I guess I'd see what the consensus on the issue turns out to be. As for the name tag, you can either hit the second button from the right above the box where you write your comments (the button looks like someone signed their name there) or you can type four tildes (they look like this ~, usually on the upper left of a kepboard) all in a row. If you ever need anything, or possible support on an issue, just drop me a line.--Alabamaboy 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

--Zaphnathpaaneah 17:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC) it works?!

Hey Wikipedia moderators can unilaterally alter articles and insert text without it showing in history. Two times articles I have created/edited have been modified.

The first time it was to say that I "MINORLY" edited the white article. The second time was to insert early on that Black people are not numerous in the Sahara desert. I find it fascinating that White people can be so obsessed with race that they have to resort to such underhandedness in here, and then of course they will accuse Black people of being dishonest or obsessed with race. Typical bait and switch. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism and Black people.

I have been very involved with editing articles relating to Black people, the Curse of Cain and Canaan and Black People. Why?

Simple.

There is no moral excuse for racism of the depth that I have found in the Mormon religion.

I do understand that the average everyday Mormon is not racist in that manner, and I do not focus my comments on any individual. Nor would I want to.

My attention is on the founder, Joseph Smith Jr. and how his fantasies and fairy tales had captivated hundreds of naive white people whose egoes were massaged by his writings. I do understand that back in the 19th century Whites were much more ignorant and more likely to believe anyone telling them that God made them just a little bit better than eveyrone else. But what stirs the issue more than anything is that in the present day. Mormon followers (black and white) still try to somehow explain how God actually DID condone those racist activities in Mormonism. As if God really did curse Cain with Black skin, and really did create the Black race of today as a scapegoat of the sins of Cain or Canaan or whoever. After all "SOMETHING" has to explain how Black people were slaves, and greed and corruption just isn't good enough.

What bothers me is the idea that some Black person is being convinced of all this, through their own vulnerability and low self esteem. It doesn't matter if in 1978 all of that mess was "updated". It should have been exposed as a farce because that's what it was. Had the Mormon leaders in 1978 had said "we have a revelation that all of the Negro doctrine we have taught was actually false" then I would not be in here.

Wikipedia:African diaspora notice board

I just started this, and I'd like you to join. Happy editing! --FuriousFreddy 19:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Niz's earlier comments

Ok so you are saying first God was wrong, in the old testament, and then with Jesus he was right? If thats not contradictory, I dont know what is. You take these verses out of context, but I don't blame you because I may do the same thing at some points. I have found it equally inconcievable to go to christianity, as some zealous christians approached me and tried to "spread the word". By the time they said you have to pray to a human being, and your sins are forgiven by just believeing that a man was the unmentionable, I was on a different frequency. War is permitted in Islam , it is true. At least WE in Islam don't preach "turn the other cheek" like everybody else the the world. One thing you have to give us on that note is that we are straightforward. NOBODY in ANY country practices this philosophy. If people did, yes the world would be a better place, and righly guided Muslim would never start a war with people like this. This day however , will never come, and people will want to destroy believers until the end of time, I think. Theres only one person in modern history who tried an effective non-violence campaign and that was Gandhi. I was saddened to learn that he was deeply racist against black people.

What would God be wrong about in the Old Testament that you would imply I am inadvertently saying? The thing you don't get is this. I do not take those verses out of context, because they are only a few of the HUNDREDS of verses like them. If he had said that at just one or two points in the Quran, then I could say "ok, maybe in THIS instance, or THOSE instances" but it's across the board. If I am taking them out of context, so are millions of other Muslims. Your issue with God being a man is that you misunderstand (i think intentionally out of spite) the nature of Jesus' humanity and divinity. It is not that Jesus is a mere man that takes the "role" of being God, and we are ignorant and pray to a man masquerading on some level AS God. Jesus, in his nature, is both man and God. His Divinity is not reliant on his humanity. You are on a different frequency, because in Islam, you are taught that god is far from humanity, not really connected to us in any meaningful way. In Christianity, God is revealed to have actually experienced what it is like to BE human (not just appear human, or to merely masquerade as an illusion). God knows what it is like to be human because God KNOWS what it is like to be human. God can do whatever he feels like doing except divest himself of his diety and lie.

As far as turning the other cheek goes. You also do not understand the purpose of that. On two levels. Firstly, the atrocities of ignorant people, when committed in front of witnesses, encourages social change for the better.Jesus saying "turn the other cheek" is in response to those who hold power, who try to abuse it "on moral grounds". This worked very well in the U.S. when the fake asses claiming to be Christians were fighting against defenseless black people. The other level is that it does take quite a bit of faith and integrity to follow this philosophy, but guess what, God's faith is not about it being easy enough. You speaking about Islam and Ghandi in this regard it baffles me. Because you admit If people did follow the philosophy of turn the other cheek, yes the world would be a better place. In fact, what you dont realize is that "turn the other cheek" would have kept many of the Christian groups from schizming and by the time Islam came around you had so much warring about the fine points of jesus' salvation (which does show zeal on the part of the Christian fellwoship, but misguided). Turn the other cheek is in fact what Christians do anyway, when following the faith. I have never heard of a devoted follower of Christ threatening a Muslim, or threatening to kill their daughter because her conversion to Islam brought shame on their Christian family. It's just not a working part of the Christian faith. Now in Islam, I am forbidden, under penalty of death to marry a Muslim girl. At the very least she is to be excommunicated from her family.

Jesus never condemned slavery, in fact I believe that he mentioned to "treat your slaves well". I am definitely not a supporter of slavery, but it was present in the ancient world, there's no doubt of that. War is permitted in the bible, just like the Qu'ran. I believe there is a passage in Leviticus that states "thou shalt no stand idly by your brothers blood". Don't tell me that this means get him a doctor, I'm not that stupid. -Niz

Jesus did not come to free slaves. What you need to understand was that Jesus' ministry was meant to ultimately free us spiritually, and in the process we would not WANT to have slaves. Which is better, continually fighting a system to free slaves, or changing the mentality of those in the system so they no longer want slaves? Look at this in a broader context. Which is better? Killing the enemy and they burning in hell, or the enemy becoming a friend (a follower of God, or the Truth however it is) and renouncing their previous evil? So going back to the Bible

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

He sure didnt coem here so that people would insult his God by praying to him instead.

That's what we are discussing. I find the illusion on the cross even more rediculous.

When did I say the qur'an came before the bible, I say that the bible is hopelessly manipulated to serve certain interests.

The QURAN says that the Quran came before the bible.

God, is not a creaure with genitals(astaghfirallah), and a sexual desire!! By calling God the father of Jesus, you imply the unmentionable. God has power over all things, he can make a woman pregnant without having a father. It does not make him a deity. Christ NEVER CLAIMED to be a deity.

Nope. See thats where the disconnect is. Who says or implies genitals, sexual desire, or any of that, by conceiving Jesus. Jesus has the nature of that which conceived him. That's the bottom line. You say "Christ never claimed to be a diety", but there is only one diety. God. Christ claimed to be "I AM" and in his actions and his conversations with the Father, left me with the impression that he is on a level with God, and far from being a man, or even an angel. I do not understand the relationship between Jesus and the Father, but I know it is not sexual, or physical, or sensual or any of that silliness you bring up.

I know that Jesus wasn't a long blonde-locked white man, which many people still think. In fact when I was living back home in Palestine, tourists from America and Europe were still expecting to see nordic-looking people walking around Jesus's hometown, Nazareth. I don't attack Jesus, I attack the idea that he was an albino deity. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the "dark-skinned" prejudice. Which brings me back to my earlier point. There is no purpose for us to argue about religion on the "black-people" talk page. If you want to argue with me about religion, my email address is <terellwatkins@yahoo.com> -Niz

Well you were offended because I brought up dark skinned prejudice in the Middle East. That led you to think I was attacking Arabs, and thus Islam, and I responded. Niz I really think you should see how Mormonism was invented and how it spread also. It has almost all of the elements in Islam except the religious similarities. To me it doesn't matter how compelling one side of one of our points is in comparision to another (was it an illusion, or was he ressurrected for example). If you try to build a religion on the back of another (Islam on Christianity) you can't just go and renounce the former religion based on here-say, and illusion, and unwitnessed testimony. God knows that we have to have some foundation on our faith, or we will fall for anything. The reason there are witnesses in things like marriages, contracts, court trials, etc... is based on this fundamental issue. A testimony, God's word, invariably comes with witnesses, (whether they be witnesses to the event, the testimony, or the results). Even Jonah, without anyone witnessing his testimony, he did not renounce the earlier prophets. He continued, and at that time there were many other prophets in that place, Nineveh. He wasn't isloated, and telling his version of what happened with Moses, or Abraham. Jonah told what happened to Jonah. Muhammad telling what happened to Muhammad would be more compelling than Muhammad telling me that all the other prophets were talking about he himself and that somehow everyone erased the evidence, except a few vague verses to a "messenger" and "prophet" (who could be anybody). If I recall, Muhammad died from poisioning from one of his Jewish female slaves. That is not how the ending of the prophet or messenger was supposed to go down. I do not want to put my trust in my spiritual salvation in that kind of person. I do not find his example worthy of emulation. He does not set a good example in my opinion. And that is really the bottom line. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The racism in the Middle East has nothing to do with me defending Islam. The only time I started even talking about Islam is when you said that black people were "selling-out" by becoming Muslims. Whether I misunderstood what you were trying to say or not is irrelevant, but you mentioned Islam in a negative light first.

"If I recall, Muhammad died from poisioning from one of his Jewish female slaves."

I'm sorry, but it appears you have been misinformed, as this is not true.

I PERSONALLY feel just as skeptical about christianity, and I'm not trying to turn you into a Muslim. I just wanted to categorically deny that Islam is a racist religion. No matter what so-called Muslims and so-called Christians have done in the name of racism over the ages, racism is not condoned or practiced in any of the holy texts. The Qur'an claims that the Qur'an (meaning recital or message of God) was around before it was corrupted into the bible. "La Illaha Il la Allah", means there is no God but God. Not a son-god, and a father-god, and a sister-god. One God only, no earthly divisions or pieces. -Niz

My response to your comments are based on your own regarding your belief in some kind of "anti-Arab" prejudice. Well Niz, what i want you to do is, through your skepticism is to respond to those issues I raise. Christianity was established over 600 years before Islam. YOu cannot respond "I am also skeptical" because Christian scriptures were not written with anti-Islamic undertones, nor as a "revision" of the Quran. If you are trying to turn me into a muslim, that does not bother me. To me Islam has the same strength as Mormonism, or any other "post Biblical" new religion that draws from Christianity or Judaism. The Quran claims this, the quran claims that, but the foundation of the Quran is what is being questioned. If you cannot discuss the foundation of the Quran, how can you POSSIBLY use it as a foundation of Christianity??? For example, in the Quran, and Bible, and Torah, God refers to himself as "We" and "let us". Secondly, there is no "division" in the Trinitarian understanding of God. There are no "pieces" (and pieces are a physical constraint, God is not bound by physicality, so that last part you state makes no sense.) And everything that I know about Muhammad's death indicates he had died in his mid sixties from poisioning. IS this a myth? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Offensive Behavior

Following the instructions at Wikipedia Dispute_resolution, I am letting you know that I was deeply offended by your publicly attributing a "racial" membership to me without my permission or without knowing anything about me. In accordance with the Dispute_resolution instructions, I am assuming that you did this "in good faith" and did not realize just how offensive it was. I expect that you will not do this again. -- FrankWSweet 03:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew I would be cited for something or other sooner or later. In fact Frank, I have no idea what you are talking about. It sounds like you were offended that I called you white, or something to that effect. I went ahead and filed a complaint on your behalf against myself. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

On 09:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)you wrote: "It sounds like you were offended that I called you white..." Precisely. I am glad that you understand. I am offended that you called me "white." Now that you understand the offensiveness of your action, I expect that you will not again publicly call me "white" (nor any other racial epithet). FrankWSweet 12:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all I didn't call you white. I didn't CALL you anything. Your complaint led me to believe that was how you took my comment. In any event, that is not an epithet, nor an offensive action on my part. There is no issue for you to raise. If you take offense to it, that's you, and not my responsibility, especially since I didn't call you white. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool religion stuff

Your religion-related stuff on your user page is really quite interesting... Kudos. -Edward Wakelin (Can't remember PW, am not at home where I've gotten it written down) PS: Fun fact: My parents keep making comments to the effect that me and my brother should take up with non-white girls (We're white). Beats the hell out of when my mom kept asking me if I thought I was gay, heh heh. PPS: The "black people" or whatever article is down, it seems... Is there a good article on "blackness" on Wikipedia currently?

Hey, Zaph

Just stopping by to pay my respects before I leave this place. Keep up the good work for as long as you decide to stay. I am in no way soliciting your support, but I want to direct you to User:deeceevoice and [[1]] -- only because I think you'll find it interesting reading. Sum wild shyt goin' on up in here. :p Peace 2 u, my brutha. deeceevoice 11:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

interesting user page

I like your user page but it raises one question: If black people organize and nationalize themselves, won't that lead to white people organizing and nationalizing themselves? and wont that lead to conflict between races, the same type that malcolm x denounced in his trip back from africa?

--Urthogie 23:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to sound sarcastic, but what planet are you on? WHite people are already entrenched, not just nationalized. The NATIONAL SOCIALIST Movement of Germany was perhaps the end result of a colonial mentality gone to its logical extreme. Look at the craziness in Australia now. Look at the events in Latin America. A black leader (and Hugo Chavez is black, don't kid yourself) is finding himself facing the nationalized American enterprise. The white race (if you choose to call it a race) is already nationalized, and in so much as you may believe, this group considers it a bygone conclusion that they should be. How can the USA renounce the use of Nuclear Arms in other countries yet refuse to elminiate its own stockpiles? How can the US seek to discourage pollution from the third world yet not commit its own interst to the Kyoto accords? And how can the US denounce Hugo Chavez as a dictator when America has had a legacy of training terrorists and gurella psychos in the infamous School of the Americas??? THIS IS A NATIONALISTIC MENTALITY THAT LEADS TO CONFLICTS THAT WE CURRENTLY ENDURE. Malcolm X was all about ending the conflict, and he even encouraged white INDIVIDUALS to join his new movement, however, those white individuals were not the same as the "white race". The white race is a social order that operates on unilateral action that affects others disproportionately. Capitalism is not Democracy, and when American leaders encourage the freedom to exploit others in order to have rich American corporate CEOs gain profit, well we have a serious ideological problem. So to reiterate, white people are already organized, and nationalized. They already expect a certain amount of deferment and set asides of "I get my share first". Quick question, who is really solely to blame for Mexicans coming to the US and "taking all our jobs"? If you didn't immediately say the decision makers of the corporations that give them the jobs, then you can see why I would think you are out of touch. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't identify myself centrally as white-- I find white nationalists and black afrocentists/nationalists identifying me as centrally white. My whiteness is not my main political concern, and I think if you understood most white people you'd know that we're quite divided among ourselves. We dont want to nationalize. So you're definitely wrong to say that we're nationalized, because I don't know any white guy who could reliably relate to a white guy on some level, anywhere he went in the world.

I think that black people have suffered because of white people(notice i dont say white jews or russians or irish or italians, i recognize it was all whites) , so black nationalists are eager to see us as some organized national mass. But in fact, whites were just power hungry, and picked on those who they could take resources from. There's no real kinmanship I experience on any level with another man because hes white-- and I think this is the case with most other whites.

In conclusion, black nationalism is an effective defensive response to white racism. However, you are an individual, and you can think for yourself, so you should be able to see the fallacies in grouping all white people together or all blacks together on an intellectual level. Right? --Urthogie 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See thats just it, this isnt about your personal identification. This is about a point of view. Seperate yourself from the conversation. I will never ever ever address you personally. I address your position. That being said, realize this. You do not consider yourself white, and therefore you are not a part of their social experience. Therefore in conversation, when you talk about white people you would invariably use the terms "they" or "them" and never "we" or "us". And trust me, I am aware of non-white Indo-Europeans. A lot of the insight I have on race comes from them. For example, it was a "white" looking Italian teacher that taught me that Europe is not a continent and that we should be aware of the racial innuendo of viewing it a such (its the region where the white Eurasians live). So I know whats going on. But you also say "we are divided" so you still see a group link to these other "white" people. Once you can say "many have left" or "many of us left their group, and are not a part of that". THen you have made another step. Its like Christians still calling themselves Jews. At some point Christianity was no longer jewish. So at some point you individually have to accept the fact that your experiences may not be a part of the "white" group even though you may resemble a white person. A lot of white people have to give up that when they marry a black person, especially a white male. Some "white" people have had to "pass" for being lightskinned black in America because they loved their families who were black and didn't want to abandon them. That is what I call, virtue, and integrity, and being a good person. I know that Indo-Europeans have that capacity, but white identity is always going to be a tempting lure to easy fast-track respect and exclusivity. thats why there is no reason to ask or expect (out of a sense of fairness) for a black person to pass for white, it's an absurdity. I seriously have the most profound respect for white men who marry black women because they LOVE them, who STAY and RAISE their children. They know firsthand that all this shit im talking about is for real. I have talked to some white people, they know what is really at stake. I dont mean to reiterate, but some of this is getting it from experience. Like, I didnt get that police brutality was "REALLY" an issue with black people until I myself experienced it. It was like, ok, I got it. Now I have rarely come across black police officers singling out white motorists to beat up and send to jail for resisting arrest. I'm telling you all this so you can get an image of what it means to be "white" and what it means to just "not be white". I've met some "white" people who are offended for being viewed as a part of the white identity. I'm talking about Irish people in upper manhattan, greek people in Astoria Queens NYC, some germans, etc... They don't want to be in that circle of white privelidge, and they KNOW that there really IS a circle of white privelidge.

wait up though. its not a circle of white privellage. just because all types of whites are racist against blacks, that doesnt mean they help each other out. theres no kinship. i think that black and white nationalism are based on the blurring out of the individual, of turning them into their group identity. you use my way of talking about white's in the "us" and "we" form as proof of my political and social affiliation with the white people as a whole. in response to this, I'd counterpoint that I only use "us" and "we" for convenience purposes-- to make clear that I have experience in this group, but I don't make any social or political decisions based on it.

whiteness and blackness are only major issues because of the human tendancy to group ourselves this way-- to become a white or black nationalist is intellectual suicide; its admitting that you've given in to the toxic groupthink that has stained the history of human thought. white people don't exist as a political force. the cause of segregation was white racism, not white nationalism. the main reason why all our presidents have been white was white racism, not white nationalism. white nationalism is way more rare than black nationalism, by the way. if my point isn't clear, lemme simplify in one sentance: just because theres a bias against blacks coming from whites, that doesn't mean that there's any group identity among whites. hate doesn't unify as well as you think it does-- its very easy to create a white nationalist straw man to knock down-- but he doesnt exist, aside from your marginalized hate groups like the KKK. -Urthogie 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I will have to consider that. But I want you to give me a clue as to why unrelated whites tend to be racist against blacks? For example, why would an arab or iranian living in the US go nuts if his daughter dated a black guy but not go nuts if the same daughter dated a white guy? I am aware of the lack of "unity" among people considered white. But if you recall, I identify whiteness as a social order, and you actually seem to agree based on what you are telling me. I don't believe the insanity from the father would be due to a cultural barrier being an arab or other (although I agree some parents would go nuts regardless of the race of the man she is dating). I just spoke with a Chaldean woman who indicated that her parents would disown her if she dated a black man, but they would not react as badly if she dated a white man. I certainly do not believe in black nationalism, as it's only going to enhance the hatred of whites in the US, and it doesnt seem to lead to any sensible goal other than to on the surface get payback for slavery. But the whole nationalism thing, thats an extreme viewpoint anyway, doesnt seem to be a common viewpoint among black people. Now I do believe however that white people do exist as a political force, you have the entire white ring mentality with Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. The entire political shift in the early 60s was due to this white political force. I can see where you are coming from on one level, but I can see what goes on around me, and it flows a consistent pattern. I mean what is all the talk about white people becoming the minority in this state and that state, whats the significance in pointing that out in the news every so often? (as an example) --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point(s). As far as the arab guy he'd be afraid of his daughter marrying a black because of stereotypes he has of blacks, and his lack of exposure to them. I'd say that Bill O'Reilly and Pat Robertson are just starting to notice that they're losing their upperhand in the social and political arena and it scares them. I disagree with whites who think they're becoming oppressed or a minority. One thing that does piss me off though is that ideas like black nationalism aren't academically stigmitized, while white nationalism immediately turns someone into a bucktoothed redneck(instead of, say, a harvard racist). As a jewish person, I've found myself sometimes grouping people who are anti-semitic against me into political groupings, but then I came to recognize that they have no real kinship because of their hate for me. They just hate those that are different, and because they fear the unknown, they try to group what they can't understand together. --Urthogie 11:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you thus see a relationship between the stereotypes that the arab has and the prejudice that many whites have? I think the two are very closely related. Black Nationalism and all of that is little more than a defense to the pre-existing condition. We have seen what white nationalism does, and that is why it is viewed with much more academic stigma, because of the results of it. Nazi (white nationalism) of germany. KKK (white nationalism) of the USA, and so forth. These nationalistic organizations still refer to the "purity" of whiteness, which excludes many mixed people of European descent. Black Nationalism on the other hand refers more to the people who merely contain African descent, not exclusively so. That alone is a subconscious element that makes the two identities unequal in academic analysis. How many black nationalist organizations require it's members to be purely of African descent? That doesn't exist. So those two reasons, the lack of "purity" and the lack of historical evidence of capital crimes against humanity is why black nationalism is not academically vilified as white nationalism. The Nation of Islam (being the most villified of the nationalists out there) would not be as dangerous to you being a Jew as the KKK or the NAZIs. And although in some "philosophical" way you could equate the two, in actual reality, you would be safer with the Nation than with the NAZIs. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that if we just hate nazis for having suceeded, we're setting the path for new bad things to happen as far as racism and nationalism. If we learn from history, we can see that we should equally stigmatize present day race-nationalists. I mean, way back when, the nazis were just a rebel political party..so I think we should learn from history in that respect.--Urthogie 23:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can agree. I do not see the relationship between NAZI supremacy goals and the Nation of Islam's insistence on self determination, however I do see the underlining fear-gullibility factor and the anti-semitism. I also find NOI to be hypocritically out of touch with black people, with it's allegiance to Islam (and the extreme elements of it in the Middle East). --208.254.174.148 02:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

They're both racist and anti-semitic, as well as nationalistic and unscientific.--Urthogie 03:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

latest user page updates

like always i really found your user page insightful and interesting, and on the section on hip-hop i had a suggestion for listening: KRS-ONE, an MC who is socially concious with a lot of skill and always something new to say:

let go, it's not a novelty

you could love your neighborhood without loving poverty

follow me, every mother, father, son, daughter

there's no reason to fear the New World Order

we must order the whole new world to pay us

the New World Order and the old state chaos

the Big Brother watching over you, is a lie you see

Hip-Hop could build it's own secret society

--Urthogie 06:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

First edit of 2006

By the way, you made the first edit of 2006, UTC time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zaphnathpaaneah&diff=0&oldid=33450389 . Congratulations! :) -- Perfecto Canada 05:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)