Talk:Black British people

Content

This page needs expanding by someone more qualified than me.

I'd suggest a bit on The Voice, perhaps the riots in the 80s and modern British rap. FreeMorpheme 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this article will not be degenerating into a purely one-sided presentation of black british grievances. Although these are important, it is very important in an article of this kind to put forward all the alternative viewpoints involved. This will allow production of a balanced article with differing perspectives and analysis, which is the intention of a Wikipedia article.

You should sign your stuff if you're posting on a talk page, or people might not take you seriously. Of course, that still might be a danger. You deleted out the phrase unwilling visitors to the isles assuming it meant 'legitimate' slaves, and cite the Cartwright Decision as proof there were never slaves in Britain. (!) That decision was made before the colonies had even been discovered; as soon as the proto-Empire found out there were rich resources to be plundered any ethical niceties were completely abandoned. You can't deny Britain's involvement in the slave trade, and the notion that no slaves ever came here is laughable, as well as ignoring the evidence that there were plenty of slaves knocking about back then. A quick Google will provide that.

Anyway, I laud your attempts to provide a balanced view in the article, but I don't think you're quite as disinterested as you might like to be. What's all this 'most Britons', and 'many non-Blacks' stuff? Where's your evidence that most crime against Asians is perpetrated by blacks? If you've got it, great, throw it up here. If not... FreeMorpheme 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you never came back, so I've changed your stuff, removing the weasels and hopefully leaving it more balanced. It still needs a lot of additions, there is next to nothing on the actual culture the article references so much. I might tag it as such. Ciao. FreeMorpheme 18:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the notion that no slaves came to Britain is far from laughable. You can try to find an authoritative academic source to back your opinion.

Secondly, i did not say (a) most crime against Asians is perpertrated by Blacks, or (b) anything involving "most Britons". You should read more carefully.

Thirdly, i'm not sure what this not-so-disinterested stuff is about, but as long as the article is is adequately referenced and includes the relevant viewpoints, i am fine with it.

Link between Black and Asian

It was my impression that British Asians were included along with Afro-Caribbean people in a politicized British conception of the word "Black" (e.g. Southall Black Sisters) in the 1970s-1980s (somewhat like the way South Asian Americans are part of the larger Asian American movement). This isn't addressed in the article. Any comments? --Anirvan 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I've never heard "black" used in this way, for Britain or for other countries. I think very few people would think of Asians of you said "Black British". But maybe others have heard it used like this? Wxyzzz 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly true pre-Scarman. Indeed Lord Scarman was very keen to break up solidarity between people of Asian and African descent, and in many ways followed policies of ethnicisation used in South Africa.Harrypotter 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly heard of so-called asians being called black - in fact i will be changing the Black people and other articles to reflect this - i think you are right Harry re: ethnicisation, i reckon that the UN policy of diferentiating between Arabs and African is similar. However the pan-African politics of groups like Ligali.net support that diferentiation - so a siference has to be made between family, tribe, village, race, nation and class. Paki.tv 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain or UK? and ancestry

There are several problems here . . . 1) We are not refering simply to people "in" Britain/UK, but in some way "of" Britain. Likewise it is a matter of ancestry not where they are from themselves. 2) Are Black people in Northern Ireland British. Certainly "British" people, or people witha "British" identity, or people with a protestant identity are called "Black" as a term of abuse, which seems to have little to do with Africa or Asia - (but it might be a projection of heathenism as a non-European quality . . . So unless soemone is prepared to deal with this thorny issue let us leave it at Britain for now!!!!Harrypotter 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is also the old term "Black Irish" which refers simply to distinctively dark haired Irish people! So it is a minfield. --Zleitzen 14:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added this info to the Black people debate page too

The Runnymede Trust and Radical Statistics Race Group, in the glossary to their joint book "Britain's Black Population" (London, 1980) define black as follows: "Generally used in this book to refer to the population of New Commonwealth countries and Pakistani origin, that is the population born in New Commonwealth countries and Pakistan and their children born here. When used this term does not imply a cultural homogeneity among the various groups to which it refers. (This corresponds to the definition New Commonwealth and Pakistani origin used by Office of Population Censuses and Surveys)."

In the introduction to the book, the editors Usha Prashar of the RT and Dave Drew of RSRG explain that: "What immigrants from New Commonwealth and Pakistan (NCWP) and their children have in common is the material consequences and, in very many cases, the direct experience of discrimination. Discrimination, as the studies by Political and Economic Planning (PEP) have demonstrated, is based upon colour. Hence, the reference to Britain's black population. It can, of course, be argued that some immigrants and their children do not want to be labelled as black. That is not denied, but the defence of this terminology in this context lies with the fact that, irrespective of their own particular beliefs, experiences and the wide range of cultural variations, racism and racial discrimintation is a crucial determinant of their economic and social situation." It may also interst you that the same glossary refers to race (racial group) as follows: "A term which was used in the late eighteenth and duruing the nineteenth century by scientists and public to refer to a supposedly biologically distinct section of homo sapiens. The scientific basis for such distinctions has now been discredited. However, the general popuilation continues to use the terms to refer to a group of persons who they identify as having different physical features from themselves. Because this usage has no scientific validity, the term is not used as a descriptive category in this book, except where usage by others requires." 62.25.106.209 10:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Asians

Sure, white people have occasionally called Asians "black". But that is something that should not be expanded on in the opening paragraph of an article about Black British people. The citations provided each refer to racist applications of the term. By that reckoning, we should go to the British African Caribbean Community page (which I wrote) and write in the opening paragraph "British African Caribbeans are also referred to as ******"(add insult), that would be citable and true but wholly innappropriate to an encylopedia. Asians self describing as black was a feature of civil rights movements during the 70's and 80's - that is of note. Correct me if I'm wrong but people seem to be suggesting that the view of bigoted/ignorant people should be represented in equal measure. --Zleitzen 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citations do refer to abusive use, but that does not alter the fact that it was commonplace and remains familar. The citation is not for the abusive term, but for the use of black, and for the fact that this experience - in part - explains later self-identification. Also, it was commonplace from at least the mid-nineteenth century, as the reference to Salisbury (who is not trying to be abusive) indicates. Paul B 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you need to refer to back to Salisbury is evidence that this issue is far too complex to be summarised in one opening sentence of this page. There are many descriptions of black people that were "commonplace and remain familar" - yet certainly do not warrant inclusion in this form. This is one of them. Explore it in a section within the main article. --Zleitzen 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from mere assertion, I see no argument being made here. The summary is one sentence, and its truth is not even being disputed. Paul B 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racial stereotypes or the opinions of people who lumped all dark skinned people together do not belong in an encyclopedic article about Blacks. That's like saying, oh Neo-Nazis commonly refer to black people as monkeys so lets go to the monkey article and mention blacks in the introduction. Paul, don't be absurd.--Editingoprah 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a silly thing to say. There is no analogy to "monkeys" except in the world of people who confuse species-differences with socially defined racial categories, which are typologies not immutable facts of nature. The latter is just the kind of belief that Neo-Nazis do have. Paul B 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Paul, monkeys are not a species, they are a broad socially defined category of primates. And btw my blackness is an immutable fact of nature, not the political prop you're trying to make it. I know you're trying to be politically correct, but all you're doing is looking foolish. Did Neo-Nazis believe that race was biological. Yes. They also believed that birds could fly.--Editingoprah 03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is clear. Do not refer to complex, highly charged and potentially offensive usages of words in one sentence of an introduction. It is very poor practice. And, as is clearly evident, unworkable. It should be removed and explored in full in the main body of an article.--Zleitzen 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is non-existent. The sentence did not refer to "highly charged and potentially offensive usage of words" except in so far as the term "black" generally carried some negative connotations in mainstream/white culture (which would apply equally to anyone it was used of). The sentence merely states that the term often included South Asians in mainstrean usage. If you think that is "offensive" to South Asians then that may say something about your own unexamined prejudices. Paul B 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Paul, as a black person, calling South Asians black is very offensive to me because I don't enjoy my racial identity being used as a political prop. Blacks are not the race that everygone gets to run to when no one else will accept them. But aside from whether it is offensive or not, it is fringe POV pushing. Mentioning South Asians in the opening paragraph of this article elevates a fringe view to center stage. It is a violation of wikipedia's no undue weight rules.--Editingoprah 02:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It's "offensive" to Zaph to exclude non-Africans, and in the opinion of User:195.92.40.49 it's apparently "offensive" to Africans to be called black. There are too many people here being "offended" for completely contradictory reasons, all convinced that the others are "uncles Toms" or whatever. It's pathetic. But the truth is that the real offence here is your refusal to accept consensus and your dishonesty by using sockpuppets. Paul B 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this is far from clear, but in the words of NWA:

Fuck tha police

Comin straight from the underground

Young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown

And not the other color so police think

They have the authority to kill a minority

Paki.tv 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuor

Intro

I must admit that I am getting a bit fed up with the continual reversions Editingoprah, not to mention some of the comments they have made on this page, which on occasions have fallen little short of bigotry. In fact this is the person pushing a fringe POV (as shown by the surveys quoted), whereas the article as I have reverted it, reflects the debate around this issue. Further more the insistence on regarding the governments census as determinant rather than another piece of New Labour social engineering is quite revealing. Clearly Editingoprah doesn't mind using this as political prop. Also the removal of the piece about historical texts further creates more confusion. Of course this refers to records which existed a long time before Editingoprah was born or had a racial identity, but when there were people described as Black in Britain. When we look at organisations such as the Committee for the Relief of the Black Poor and examine the names, we realise there were people of Asian origin amongst them, and indeed amongst those who went to found Sierra Leone. It is important that this is made clear, whether Editingoprah likes it or not. Having this some what trite argument obscures a deeper seated problem which has arisen when trying to assess the size of the "Black British" population - a problem which exists historically as much as in contemporary society. As more and more admixture happens in British society, is it possible to rigorously define who is or is not "black". In many ways this, and the problems which Editingoprah has in getting others to accept their view, have provided the impetus for the adoption of the term African British as an identity, and allowing the term Black British to have a looser more general meaning. I hope we can resolve this issue without a continuing edit war, as there are so many ways in which the page could be improved. I would hate to see the same sort of stalemate which has affected the Black People page spread here!Harrypotter 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell kind of POV paranoid crap are you pushing? The census definition social engineering? Yes all the census definitions in nearly every country in the world are all involved in a grand conspiracy to keep South Asians and Africans from realizing they're both part of the same race. And the anthropologists are in on the conspiracy too, that's why they classify South Asians as Caucasoid and Africans as Negroid-all part of the social engineering to keep the dark skinned people of the world from rising up against whitey. Oh and the genetic research by Cavalli-Sforza which shows that sub-Saharan African ethnic groups form a clear genetic cluster totally distinct from the Caucasoid cluster in which South Asians fall is part of the conspiracy also. Oh and dictionary.com which defines "black perosn" as a dark-skinned person from Africa-also in on the conspiracy to separate me from my long lost South Asian brothers. And don't tell anyone, but South Asia's really in Africa. The maps were all redrawn as part of a New labour social engineering experiment. Shhhhhhh.--Editingoprah 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Asians shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all

Certainly not in the opening paragraph. This is an article about black people. Create an article about British South Asians if that's what you want to talk about. But South Asians are not black. Never have been never will be.--Kobrakid 01:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they have, and you know it. It's been demonstrated to you over and over and over. Paul B 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]