Talk:Mulatto/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Eurasian (and Blasian)

Should this article be set up like the Eurasian article, it seems very well put together. And I said Blasian as well because both of those articles have pictures of people you can see, not a painting. Does anyone have any pictures, preferably not someone famous? Shakam 21:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC Yes it should be setup like eurasian

I think this article is fine as is. It was nicely put together before and After the eurasian and Blasian board was created. The article has a few nicks and cranks, but I think it is pretty informative. If I do recall, the Eurasian and Blasian board guided itself with the help of this article.Americanbeauty415 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

YES I HAVE PHOTO BUT WIKIPEDIA DELETES THEM

I'm not sure how to picture works, but how do you upload one and how do you type the link in? Shakam 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Press edit botton

File:TEXTOF IMAGE.jpg

TEXT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images this is link on how to upload images South African Monique Cassie Coloured Image:Meryl_fever_1.jpg and South African Coloureds Megan alatini , 2006 Image:Megan_alatini.jpg

So why do they keep taking them down, if you have pictures? Something to do with the copyright? Can you use a picture from the paparazzi or news media? Shakam 04:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I tryed everything the just keep deleting them you can ask them may be thell let you post some photos

"Myth of the Light-Skinned Black" removed

I removed the following section from the article. This is completely unsourced, POV, and unencyclopedic. ===The Myth Of the Light-Skinned Black=== A light-skinned Black person is a mixed race person basically. You don't really get Black people who randomly happen to be Light-skinned, just like you dont get random white people who happen to be brown-skinned. Look at Afrcian people. They are all pretty much Black and Black as the ace of spades whereas a lot of African-americans are lighter-skinned. this is not because they are randomly lighter-skinned its because they have white blood in them and are mixed race. Obviously a person is 1/2 white, 1/2 Black are gonna be in the middle of both in terms of colour.

Peple like Halle Berry, Alicia Keys, Leila Arcieri, Karyn parsons are all mixed race. they are not light-skinned Blacks. dark skinned people are not mixedrace there are blacks

By that logic American Whites should be generally darker-skinned than Europeans. Also, your assessment of African blacks is very distorted and inaccurate. Further, how can Alicia Keys be black when her mother is white? That's like saying a cross between a car and a boat is still a car...

Wrong. The cross between a car and a boat is a rabbit. The cross between a rabbit and a boat is a car. The cross between a boat and a rabbit, logically, is a mulatto. .....and Kriss Kross makes you wanna..JUMP! JUMP! uh huh, uh huh, JUMP!, JUMP! ....lol CreoleMe 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{editprotected}} (not sure where this template goes, so sorry if this is the wrong place) I'd like to request the following edits:

• From the first paragraph, the removal of Also, a person of lighter skin pigmentation that may refer to his/herself as the oxymoron, light-skinned black.
  • For starters, this is an incomplete sentence.
  • Secondly, unless black people and white people are "oppositions" in terms (and it would seem quite POV to make this claim), mulattos are probably not "oxymorons".
  • Thirdly, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
• The text describing how people are misguided for objecting to mulatto, in particular

Others, however, insist on using the term mulatto because it is more precise in defining the genetic admixture. Even though some words may have negative origins, many words that are now widely used are acceptable in American vernacular, e.g. Hysteria (sexist origin but now refers to something very amusing) and Slav (referred to being enslaved but now refers to the Slavic people.

• • Mulatto is not a "precise term" in defining genetic admixture. Feel free to produce any peer reviewed genetics article that says otherwise.
  • "Hysteria" does not mean "something very amusing" in American vernacular.
  • What relevance do terms like "Slav" have to the offensiveness/archaicness of the term mulatto?

--Media anthro 01:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I would like to second this motion. The referrals to light skinned blacks also being mulattoes is completely contrary to the definition of mulatto. These comments are not factual and smack of personal politics and I, as a mulatto, want them removed, never to return again. A mulatto is not a light skinned black, a mulatto is a person with 50% black African heritage and 50% white European heritage, regardless of their appearance. (Jennifer Beals, of "Flashdance" fame, is a mulatto and is in no way a light skinned black.) This is what a mulatto was, what a mulatto is and what a mulatto will always be. As an encyclopedia, people with no historical connection to mulattoes are able to read this article. As it stands, they will get the wrong idea about what a mulatto is. If a discussion on the multiracialness of light skin black people is desired, a separate page should be created. This page, however, is supposed to be about MULATTOES.Rpbyrd3 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

light skinned people are mulattos when a mulatto call him or her self a light skinned black there still mulatto how you think light skinned black came her threw race mixing they are not fullblood blacks. why do people separate light skin African American and biracials like where to two separate racial groups ,like light skin african americans are unmix and some how biracial are mixed.

why do people think you can only mixed one time and thats the frist born fristgenation? People seem to for get about when mulatto/biracial have children there kids are still mixedrace and not fullblood.

{{Editprotected}} first of all, YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. i NEVER SAID that a mulatto could only be first generation. as a matter of fact, i said that MY CHILDREN will be mulattoes. they will be second generation. second of all, what i said was that being a light skin black has NOTHING to do with the definition of mulatto because there are mulattoes who are in NO WAY light skin blacks. therefore, "light skin black" should not be included in the definition of mulatto. the phenotype and physical appearance of a person has NOTHING to do with whether or not a person is a mulatto. i will say this ONE MORE TIME, and then i will leave it alone because i can no longer deal with this unobjective nonsense. a mulatto is a person who is 50% black African and 50% white European. regardless of generation, REGARDLESS of phenotype or physical appearance. and why don't you ask the question about caucasian people with the same amount of black ancestry as these light skin black people have european ancestry? why are they not included in your physical description of what mulattoes are? today, mulatto does not "usually refer to people with a median of African and European" features. jennifer beals is a mulatto. does she have a mixture of african and european features, or is she a mulatto because her father is black and her mother is white? a mulatto is what it has always been. and anyone who thinks that a mulatto is the same race as ANYONE who is not a mulatto, you need to realize that this also HAS NEVER BEEN TRUE. don't believe the hype. by the way, i am not trying to decide for anyone what they label themselves as. but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place where personal politics are played out. the definition of a mulatto is a person of 50% black African ancestry and 50% white European ancestry or the children of two mulattoes. nothing, NOTHING, else matters and therefore should not be included, especially if it is not true.Rpbyrd3 12:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Media anthro wrote, "The text describing how people are misguided for objecting to mulatto, in particular Others, however, insist on using the term mulatto because it is more precise in defining the genetic admixture. Even though some words may have negative origins, many words that are now widely used are acceptable in American vernacular, e.g. Hysteria (sexist origin but now refers to something very amusing) and Slav (referred to being enslaved but now refers to the Slavic people.

• • Mulatto is not a "precise term" in defining genetic admixture. Feel free to produce any peer reviewed genetics article that says otherwise.
  • "Hysteria" does not mean "something very amusing" in American vernacular.
  • What relevance do terms like "Slav" have to the offensiveness/archaicness of the term mulatto?"

Regarding the "more precise in defining the genetic admixture:" earlier in the article it stated that some people preferred the terms "biracial" and "mixed." Mulatto is way more descriptive than biracial or mixed.

And to the latter part, if the section about "how people are misguided to objecting to mulatto" were to be kept, the latter 2 examples should be kept for examples. (The definition for Hysteria should be changed however.)

Finally to the first part about light-skinned blacks, if it is kept it should be reworded, because light skinned black could mean anything. (BTW, it is a complete sentence and I don't think that the author meant mulattoes are oxymorons, but the term light-skinned black most certainly is. Shakam 00:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping other people will comment on the other issues, but just a quick response to say that Also, a person of lighter skin pigmentation that may refer to his/herself as the oxymoron, light-skinned black is not a complete sentence. It looks like one because it has a lot of words, including a verb, but these particular words do not form a complete sentence. (It's not really an oxymoron, either.)--Media anthro 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really fond of English, so you probably are right; however, I do know the definition of oxymoron. Shakam 03:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my comments here. I think it is best to put 'derogatory term' next to this term as a lot of people find it offensive and I think if you're going to not treat it as such then you are giving preference to the American readers who, as it seems, use this word freely. Remember, this should be objective. Calling someone a mule is akin to calling them a mongerel and on a personal level I do find it highly offensive and derogatory. To me, it's like writing 'half-caste'. In fact, i'll check if you have that term on Wikipedia. Yes you do and that article is much better because it expresses the level of offensiveness. Here is a quote from that article - " Both terms are considered impolite and potentially offensive by some, as the words have been used pejoratively in the past to ostracize and isolate the offspring of such unions". This line should be in this article too.

Who wrote this article? Good stuff otherwise but I think this word should be treated in the same way as the 'N' word or the 'P' word (to describe pakistanis). This is not an openly 'ok' term. At all. Peple may be trying to reclaim the word as they did with the 'n' word but as with the 'n' word, ALOT of people do not like the term and it is still taboo.

In Central Amerca mulatto is not, from what I know, an offensive term, and indeed black people with anyt trace of white ancestry call themselves mulattoes, and with pride, SqueakBox 16:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The same is true of Brazil, where the term mulatto is largely inoffensive and there are any number of "types" of recognized Euro-African admixture (mulato-claro (light skinned mulatto), mulatinho (somewhat light skinned mulatto), mulato-escuro (dark-skinned mulatto), cafe-com-leite (cafe au lait), preto de cabelo bom (dark with wavy hair), escuro (dark skinned)). One big difference, however, between the US and Brazilian notions of race and admixture is that in Brazil, the race category is based largely on physical features of the individual, and less so on the racial identity of one's parents or ancestors.--Media anthro 16:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought social status was a factor as well? Shakam 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my understanding is that you're correct. Brazilian mulatos are often "ranked" as lighter on that scale above if they are wealthy, famous or otherwise seen as successful. --Media anthro 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I have said countless times over, today's "mulatto 'movement' " or "internet mulatto 'movement' " ,lol! , (for lack of a better phrase) draws all its esteem from the counterproductive denigration of "black" people and nothing else. I put black in quotes because in the United States "mulatto" and "black" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive concepts. I will go as far to say any power self-identifying "mulattos" have or hope to have will always be in relation to "black" people. But what these "mulattos" fail to realize is that their very existence promotes "race mixing" or encouraging 6'8" Mandingo date, marry, and impregnate 5'3" Mary Sue which whites, no matter how much you cozy up to them and try to delink yourself from blacks, will innately reject and perennially frown upon (I am sure there are black/mulatto men who would take advantage of the "mulatto movement" to sleep with as many white women as possible - white women who were not accessible before). Interestingly, people at the helm of the "mulatto movement" more than likely turn out to be quadroons or octoroons. It's fascinating because there is a hierarchical paradigm that is followed; and what's funny is that I can imagine hexadecaroon's forming a "quadroon movement" that not only denigrated "black" people but "mulatto" people as well. You gotta love this stuff! lol! :-) The hobgoblin 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone gave me a very good hypothesis about why black people fear a mulatto uprising. You (This person was using you to refer to black people with your mentality) fear that once emancipation is granted, that you won't have anyone to drag you along and that all of the achievements of black people will resort to almost nothing. It's just some pseudoscience to make mulattoes black, so people like you can feel better about being black.

I don't whole heartedley agree with what that person said, because I try to be optimistic in people and see that ignorance is the reason why many people think the way they do; however, I can see that statement as a possibility in many people. ORLY?, YARLY 20 November 2006

Dude, let's not be silly. I wholeheartedly doubt that "black people" are afraid of a "mulatto uprising." I think "black people" are more afraid if not most afraid of not progressing due to perceived racism (real or not) by whites who have the real power. Besides, there have been plenty of "mulatto" (those people who phenotypically have kind of a beige skin color, and caucasian features) "uprisings" against darker skinned people be they in North Africa or Western USA or South America. Actually, these people whether they be mestizos, mulattos, Arabs, or dark skinned caucasians are already racist towards darker skinned people, which most of the time includes Black people and native Indians - ie, the systemic racism is already there. There isn't going to be some sort of "big bang uprising" wherein "mulattos" start to "uprise" against darker skinned people or "black people." The concept of "black" and "mulatto" aren't diametrically oppossed like the concepts of "black" and "white." The worst thing that can happen is balkanization. Furthermore, as white people continue to identify as "white", I don't see the idea of "blackness" going anywhere soon. The hobgoblin 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe that there's going to be any racial uprising anytime soon. But when talking about the success of African-Americans, if "African-Americans", from the past, that were actually Mulatto, African-American history can barely exist. Examples being that most of the people that fought for Civil Rights were Mulatto. The first successful heart surgery was performed by someone who is Mulatto. All these things we learn that were done by "black" people were actually Mulatto, black/white biracial, Eurafrican...w/e you want to call it. So if that history was to sever itself from its already labeled "Black History" or "Black Acheivements" what would people of African Descent be left with ?[User:Shaun|Shaun] November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Hale Williams? The guy was a quadroon not a mulatto. The hobgoblin 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth,the term Mulatto is in use in the textbook The American Pageant, which is held in high standards by many American Universities. BraveFoot (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms nigger, darky and a number of others that are currently considered racial epithets also exist in both older fiction books (see Mark Twain) that predate the change in usage and acceptability and newer textbooks that teach the history of race relations, etc. I'm not one who believes that certain words should banned, expurgated and redacted as the mindlessly politically correct would prefer - that only increases their power. However, for the purposes of a properly written encyclopedia article we should be careful to note when a particular term is or is not in common, modern verbal usage in a given culture or language. The current article falls far short of that mark. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Request for comment filed regarding article introduction and picture captions: Does the offspring of a black person and white person constitute an "oxymoron"? Is mulatto a common racial categor[ical term] in US society? Are Barack Obama and Colin Powell "American mulattos"? Is it okay to tell readers in the introduction that one shouldn't find the term mulatto offensive/inoffensive? --Media anthro 13:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like this article needs unprotecting and editing; it looks like one of the worst articles I have had the misfortune to see on wikipedia. the idea that the mul comes from the Spanish word mulo and not the English word mule is just the sort of unsourced opinion that the article is full of and which needs re-editing, SqueakBox 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be unsourced and obnoxious, but it's etymologically factual: mulatto Sp. young mule, from mulo, mule; from Latin mulus, mule (Am. Her. Dict, New Coll. Ed., 1974, p.860B) Katzenjammer 21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC) responding to RFC

Where this article has any value, it falls foul of WP:NOT. The rest is [WP:OR]. ''Does the offspring of a black person and white person constitute an "oxymoron"? - no. an oxymoron is the juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory terms. As for describing an individual as a mulatto, as it is widely considered a derogatory term, I would say no.[1] Overall, I would push for deletion, rather than editing :: Princess Tiswas 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that some folks like hobgoblin come into this page with a significant bias. A better article would reflect the diversity of views regarding "mulatto". Not just negative views, and not just positive views. websites like mulatto.org indicate that a lot of people view mulatto as a positive identifier, and that should be reflected in an article like this. An article about mulattos should be as balanced, as well written, and as positive as an article about eurasians or about mestizos, in my opinion.

I agree with the above anon, SqueakBox 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My two cents:

1. It's not oxymoron: that can only applied to linguistic paradoxes.
2. I have used the term mulatto myself to describe C. Powell, to emphasize that he's not more black than white (at least significatively). The term is clearly valid if used appropiately. US-Americans may have a different view because of the "one drop rule" but that's not biological/scientifical, just a social/political construct.
3. Mulato is indeed of Iberian/Iberoamerican origin and terefore comes from Spanish/Portuguese mulo/a and not directly from English mule. The reason is obvious: Spanish and Portuguese were colonizing America and importing slaves from Africa long before English, French and others did. Also, would it be an English term it would probably have an -e ending ("mulate" maybe). You may find interesting to check a dictionary definition that confirms this etymology.
4. I'm not sure if that if the description of offensive/inoffensive is correct. Possibly it can be less offensive in Spanish speaking contexts because diversity and admixture is more celebrated somewhat than in Angloamerican societies that have developed some greater rejection for any sort of race admixture. I don't think it's the etymology what is most ofensive but the cultural/ideological feeling that racial admixture is "wrong" that impregnates many sectors of US society (implicit segregation). --Sugaar 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your third point clears up my confusion as to the origin of the term somewhat, indeed the Iberians were interbreeding in numbers long before the anglosaxons while yopur fourth point goes some way to explaining the controversy surrounding this subject both on and off wikipedia, SqueakBox 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd like to emphasize that this difference of attitude regarding admixture doesn't necesarily means less sociological racism but just less fear of admixture, specially if that implies ascending in the racial-social scale (i.e. becoming "whiter").

In the time I was living in Virginia I found that while most black/mulatto people seems to favor "black pride" and tend to accept implicitly the "one drop rule" (i.e. all mulattoes are black), some mulattoes do not. Some do celebrate multiracialism and admixture and others seem to prefer a variant of the "Spanish system" considering themselves "brown, not black" (i.e. mulatto or mixed). As European raised in an almost white-only society, I have little opinion on such issues, I'm just mentioning facts that I observed "from outside". --Sugaar 08:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to quibble with my old friend Sugaar but he's not actually white he's Basque (no offense). With regard to the word "mulatto," it's generally accepted that it's derived from the word "mule," for just as mules are the result of the crossing of a horse and an ass, mulattos were originally understood to be the result of the crossing of a white and a black. Hope this clarifies things. Also I encourage you to inform yourself on the wave (read invasion) of African pateras presently sweeping the Canary Islands. My regards.--LaBotadeFranco 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the oxymoron sentence: It was not saying that mulattoes are oxymorons, but that the term light-skinned black is one. Shakam 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Basques not white? Dont think i agree with that one (and I have spent maybe 3 weeks in the Basque country). Of curse we precisely are one human race whereas donkeys and horses are not one race because mulattoes are, of course, as fertile as anyone else, SqueakBox 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read that guy's user page, talk page and contributions? You can:

a) Ignore him

b) Report him

And no: we are not "old friends". C'mon! --Sugaar 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hysteria

What? Couldn't that silliness have been removed before the protection? Sure I know about "hysterical", but that section just sounds silly... 惑乱 分からん 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

SO what its law know and you can`t change it :op —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.162.130.85 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User has been temporarily blocked for vandalism and incivility.—WAvegetarian&;bull;(talk) 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Coloured"

Is it really necessary to refer to someone as a "coloured mulatto"? (See caption for Megan Alatini.) - Emiellaiendiay 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not? The hobgoblin 04:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In some ways, isn't that offensive, depending on the type of mulatto, it forms mostly from their psychological background of interaction that determines how they take it...so the reason it should probably not be necessary is because some mulattoes would just browse by it while others may take offense to the word coloured, due mostly to the one-drop rule.

Colored, mulatto, half-caste, octoroon, quadroon, sambo, negro-light, negro, negrellow, hexidecaquatriroon etc... same difference. The hobgoblin 22:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The above edit has been censored because of racial abuse. Racially abusing certain groups of people does not help this article and further incidents will be dealt with swiftly, SqueakBox 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't think so there buddy. I gave examples of words that could mean the same thing as "mulatto", in that saying "colored mulatto" wouldn't be offensive but redundant. The hobgoblin 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Emiellaiendiay that it is rather useless to write "coloured mulatto", as in first off it could be misunderstood, and second of its saying the same thing twice, a mulatto is a person of a specific race. in the same way you wouldnt have a picture of an african american saying "black african-american" ?

i find the idea of writing coloured very dubious at least in this context.

care to explain why its here the hobgoblin? if not i will edit it myself.--Partheth 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

hobgoblin is indefinitely blocked from editing here, SqueakBox 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I'm not entirely clear on how page protection works, but is it normal to keep a page locked this long? Seems like it's been awhile and the "last stable version" that is currently showing is still pretty awful. To reiterate, the parts I personally find objectionable are:

Also, a person of lighter skin pigmentation that may refer to his/herself as the oxymoron, light-skinned black.-->this makes no sense

at all; I would agree to change this to something like A person of some indeterminate degree of African ancestry (wording can be tweaked)

Others, however, insist on using the term mulatto because it is more precise in defining the genetic admixture. Even though some words may have negative origins, many words that are now widely used are acceptable in American vernacular, e.g. Hysteria (sexist origin but now refers to something very amusing) and Slav (referred to being enslaved but now refers to the Slavic people. -->inaccurate and unnecessary

Is there any way an administrator could unprotect this article, now that a number of editors have expressed interest in the page? Or failing that, could an administrator please initiate some sort of consensus building process here? Thank you. --Media anthro 20:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Make a request to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and one of the admins over there will look into the case, SqueakBox 02:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection Reduced

I've reduced the protection on this artice from full to sprotect, as unprotection was requested at WP:RfPP. Hopefully you all have worked out your issues a bit, but if not I'll have this article watchlisted and will reprotect at the first signs of an edit war. If anyone disagrees with the unprotection, or if an edit war flares up, please don't hesitate to email me. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

edits for style

I'm going to remove the etymology discussion and oxymoron bits from the intro. I believe we have enough of a consensus here to do this. I'll leave the other areas that I find problematic (e.g., Colin Powell as "American mulatto") alone for now pending further discussion.--Media anthro 12:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pics

Were hopelessly cl;umped together and slightly too large. You couldn't even find the edit button for the first 2 sections, SqueakBox 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

72.89.216.37 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Latin America and the Caribbean

It is highly relevant that mulatto is is socially acceptable in Latin America and the Caribbean, it has also been impeccably sourced and the consensus from the editing is that people want this statement to remain. Please remeber Hobgoblin that we are not writing a US encyclopedia but a truly international one (the first ever!) and therefore the article cannot solely contain the US view on things. Latin America is a place as well and mulatto is a term used their in a socially acceptable way, therefore its inclusion is vital, SqueakBox 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Save the bull, dude. What "source"? The "source" in question references another source: online dictionary encarta.msn.com Which doesn't mention anywhere that "mulatto" is a "socially acceptable" term but in contrast is a taboo term for someone with a black parent and a white parent. Whoops. The hobgoblin 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the bull you want me to save? What have bulls to do with this article. You have already reverted too much today, do it again and likely someone will block you again! SqueakBox 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, still evading my question? Where is the source that "mulatto" is a "socially acceptable" term? The current "source" references another source which doesn't say at all what the first source "referenced". The hobgoblin 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference. you deliberately broke the 3RR rule after being warned so this edit clearly wont stand. the source is given in the ref you deleted, SqueakBox 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And the bull? Please explain his relevance, SqueakBox 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, dude .. if you provide a statement such as the one in the article about "social acceptability" (which is difficult to prove in the first place let alone with one source) and you provide a source, but the source doesn't stand, then the statement goes regardless of whether I broke the 3RR rules. It doesn't magically stay there because you want it to. This is an encyclopedia not your blog. haha. The hobgoblin 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Right off the top of my head, there's this article:

Vania Penha-Lopes. "What Next? On Race and Assimilation in the United States and Brazil." Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 26, No. 6 (Jul., 1996), pp. 809-826

which recounts the history of why mulatto is a common racial term in Brazil.--Media anthro 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have included the ref. Please check that i have done so accurately, SqueakBox 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To whomever it may concern: Multiple accounts are not tolerated.

Anyway, have you been to Latin American? The CIA World Fact Book uses mulatto as an identifier for many Latin American countries.Shakam 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jamaica

As a Jamaican the fact that "mulattos" were treated as inferior by Blacks in the past in Jamaica came as news to me. Even more surprising to me was the fact that the fame of Bob Marley improved the status of "mulattos" on the island. What exactly is the source of this information?

Jamaica had 500 years of history prior to Bob Marley and during that time people of mixed African and European heritage played prominent roles and had leading positions in society. The fact that three of the seven Jamaican Prime Ministers since independence have been men of obvious mixed ancestry (Bustamante, Sangster and Manley) is certainly evidence that mixed race people were not treated as inferior by Blacks. In fact it seems to indicate the contrary--that for whatever reason they were overrepresented in positions of power.

I think the Jamaica section should be removed as the term "mulatto" is not widely used on that island or anywhere in the English speaking Caribbean as a racial classification. Most Jamaicans of mixed ancestry identify as Black not because of historical mistreatment of "mulattos" but because of the strong sense of Black pride on the island. As far as I know in Jamaican culture so called mulattos are not and were never considered a separate group from the Black population so unless you can cite a source proving otherwise that section should be removed.

Also I think the photos in this article should be removed unless it can be proven that the people pictured would classify themselves as mulatto.

I got all that info from the bio by Timothy White called Catch a Fire: The Life of Bob Marley. Marley with white father and black mother was clearly a mulatto, SqueakBox 16:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing the race of The Honourable Mr. Marley's parents. I am disputing the validity of a Jamaica section in an article on mulattos and strongly disputing the accuracy of the statement that people of mixed race were treated as inferior by Blacks in Jamaica before their status was raised by Bob Marley's fame. I haven't read Catch a Fire in years and I don't have a copy on hand so I guess I'll have to find a copy and reread it. If indeed it does say all the things you claim then as a Jamaican, and a "brown skin" one at that, who lived on the island for almost thirty years I would have to say that Mr. White is mistaken. The island's history certainly does not agree with him.

In many parts of Latin America there is a clear distinction drawn between mulatto and Black. As this distinction does not exist in the English speaking Caribbean the Jamaica section is inappropriate for this article.

The hobgoblin and his socks

The hobgoblin (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and Jghfutikdpe3 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and AmyCrescent (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) are clearly the same user, and if the hobgoblin returns this needs to be kept in mind by all editors, SqueakBox 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's just the way sockpuppets talk. The hobgoblin needs no help in besmirching his own character. If you think you are so smart prove it by accepting your ban instead of attacking other users. One user is disrupting this page, and that user's comments while he is blocked will not stand, SqueakBox 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked not banned and a sockpuppet has a master, in your case The hobgoblin, SqueakBox 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are trolling me, no question, you are The hobgoblin pretending to be Ms crescent in order to evade your block. as if you have the right to edit wikipedia while blocked for 3RR and being highly offensive, lol indeed (but I am not), just look at your contribs. When you make edits like this you know what to expect, SqueakBox 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos

There seems to be an inconsitency with some of the articles. I do believe when celebrities were posted on the Eurasian and Blasian boards, no matter what rights were attached, they were taken down because, and I quote from a wikipedia editor "These photos are for the sole purpose of the celebrities article" and were not to be used for anything else. Yet the only images on this article are that of famous people. Why are some rules acceptable for some articles but not others?Americanbeauty415 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me but I also suggest we should avoid bikini clad beauties as being distracting from the seriousness of the article. Anyway the pic you added is of Leila Arcieri who is also famous. I dont have a digital camera but occasional access to one and will see if I can come up with anything locally but not very quickly, SqueakBox 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed two of the article. Copyrighted images cann't be claimed as fair use on this page, as the simplicity of getting an image of a biracial person shouldn't be hard at all, and there are three qualifing images already --T-rex 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. One of the current images needs to be at the top, i puit Berry but any of the others would do. If we have even one pic it should be at the top, SqueakBox

I am correcting Colin Powell's title from "Secretary" to "Secretary of State". Kodius Champion 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Muwallad versus mulo/a

I feel very unhappy with this section which is barely referenced and may be original research. Comments please, SqueakBox 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since noone else is going to respond, go ahead and start editing it. When I first saw this article, content aside, it had a lot of grammatical errors, which led me to believe the original editor may have been someone from Latin America. But yeah, go ahead and we'll see what you come up with: fix whatever needs to be fixed. Shakam 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I say nuke that entire section. It smacks of WP:OR. It would be nice to replace it with something that is referenced, but the article would be better without that section as it stands now.--Media anthro 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, some of it does contain citations. Still, someone should have a go at removing information that does not conform to Wikipedia policy (particularly the text on pronunciation).--Media anthro 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In process, do feedback if required, SqueakBox 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

mulatos whiote people blakc people and st

how come we cant have an atrticle on people? this is divisive and i thik we can reoqrd the article69.156.49.119

afd it then, SqueakBox 01:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

When I tried to delete Afro-Latin American I got a lot of abuse but I understand where you are coming from, SqueakBox 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You got abuse cause you tryed to delete info about a race of people, thats a terrible thing to do.

Mulato according to the Real Academia Española

mulato

mulato, ta.
(De mulo, en el sentido de híbrido, aplicado primero a cualquier mestizo).
1. adj. Dicho de una persona: Que ha nacido de negra y blanco, o al contrario. U. t. c. s.
2. adj. De color moreno.
3. adj. Que es moreno en su línea.
4. m. y f. ant. muleto.
5. m. Am. Mineral de plata de color oscuro o verde cobrizo.
6. f. Crustáceo decápodo, braquiuro, de color pardo, casi negro, muy común en las costas del Cantábrico,
donde se le ve andar de lado sobre las peñas en la bajamar. Su cuerpo es casi cuadrado y muy deprimido;
las patas anteriores, cortas, con pinzas gruesas, y las restantes terminan con una uña fuerte y espinosa.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carrasco (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

just a heads up...

User:Americanbeauty415 has removed the lead and made a quite a few historically and gramatically incorrect changes to the article that he or she refuses to discuss here. I suspect this is some more intentionally disruptive editing.--Media anthro 03:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

'Just a heads up' Media anthro is a bit new to this so he may need some help along the way. All edits were given reasoning in the edit summary like wikipedia asks of it's users. Media Anthro has yet to catch on to this. There is no need to discuss on the discussion page unless you are debating an issue or you need more space to clarify why you felt something needed to be changed. Thank you for using Media Anthro. Please read the "how to" guide wikipedia provided, and I wish you best of luck on the rest of your editing. Americanbeauty415 03:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Media anthro It is not disruptive or mallicious editing if the user is supplying the board with historic studies.71.138.141.230 04:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Media, can we please have some diffs, which you will get from the history page, otherwise we cant comment on your points. This, for insytance, is the diff of my comment on this page. Please also remember WP:AGF, SqueakBox 23:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This would be one. Brazil outlawed slavery in the 1880s, so if they continued to import slaves into 1900s then a source would help. The "facts" surrounding who is called a mulatto are also wrong; as discussed above, "mulatto" is more often a descriptor of phenotype.

Here's another diff, in which the intro is given a title heading and inexplicably chopped off and in which we learn that "98.9% of blacks in the U.S. have a bloodline that can be traced to European ancestory (sic) which has helped to distinguish the term African American." I'd like to see some sources for this and every other fact inserted into the article. Not that this matters because User:Mulattoempires has returned to reinsert the old text that started the edit war before.

I think I'll just go ahead forego WP:AGF, given the obvious sockpuppetry above and poorly spelled and written threats on my talk page. --Media anthro 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Media anthro saying I will report you for threats is not a threat. Please be well informed. I'm sorry you don't agree with someone explaining to you how to use the User Talk pages....but anyone should know that you can not reply to your own talk page and expect the person you were addressing to know it's there for them to respond. Then you had the nerve to say you had the ability to block people. If you had that power, I wouldn't have had to explain to you how to use the User talk pages. Therefore you were reported and administration said they will look more into it.Americanbeauty415 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What the crap, it looks like someone just reverted the whole page to what it was 3 - 4 weeks ago. Shakam 04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Alot of people have claimed that this article has original research. How about we work with one section/sentence/phrase at a time and fix the article? Shakam 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I was bold, however, and went ahead and removed the following from the Latin America section:

When slavery was abolished , the African and Mulatto populations were even more absorbed. Culturally the blending of native American, European and African elements over four and a half centuries produced new cultures reflective of the mixing of these peoples.

This is a good example of WP:OR that fails to tell the reader anything useful or specific about the subject of the article. Slavery was abolished at many different times throughout Latin America, "blending" took place in many different ways depending on the country, and none of this is really related specifically to mulattos.

I also tweaked the rest of the section, particularly the part about genetic evidence.--Media anthro 12:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand what the original author was trying to convey; however, I have read that during the Antebellum period, Mulattoes were primarily identified as seperate than black, and when slavery was abolished, they began to be absorbed. Shakam 16:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article back, although there were some really good edits like the one User:Shakam did. I can't recall everything word for word, but I'm trying to go back and apply those edits to the revert. If you don't see yours on there, can you add it in?Americanbeauty415 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I re-reverted it, because the old article is not concise, coherent, nor does it cite a lot of sources. What are you trying to add back into the article? The old article just jumped around from one point to another. Shakam 06:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

edit

{{EDITPROTECTED}} i removed a line from the first paragraph that described mulattoes as people with a mixture of african and european ancestry for two reasons. first, a mulatto is not a person with just any degree of this mixture, a mulatto is a person who is HALF african and HALF european. this is what a mulatto is. the second, and more important, reason is that the issue of individuals with other varying degrees of african and european ancestry is addressed in the second paragraph in a more accurate way, making the false mention in the first paragraph redundant and unnecessary.Rpbyrd3 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to revert this because this is not true in Latin America (see, for instance Brazil), and there is documentation in the article to support that.--Media anthro 10:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

pictures

I'm not necessarily opposed to using images to illustrate this article, but I think that many of the pictures that have been used here were poor choices, given that most are not actually identified as mulattos in contemporary society. Colin Powell, for instance, is not commonly described as a mulatto in the United States.

I propose that we limit images to those people who identified themselves as mulattos, or who are identified as such by the societies that they live/d in. Frederick Douglass would fit well here because he had a white father and was referrd to as a mulatto during his lifetime when the word was more common in the US than it is today.--Media anthro 19:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob Marley said in the ref I have given (talking about his childhood) "Them call me half-caste, or whatever." which sounds to me like it fits so I have moved the pic to the top, SqueakBox 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't contest or attempt to delete the picture of Bob Marley because I think there's a better case for his inclusion given his known ancestry and the quote you cite. Still, if we accept that mulatto is a term of classification used in particular societies and not a biological fact, it becomes unclear whether Bob Marley was actually a mulatto. Is half caste the same as mulatto? --Media anthro 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

--stop deleating stuff Media anthro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.27.165.170 (talk • contribs) 15 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree that "Them call me half-caste, or whatever" is not enough to conclude that Bob Marley self-identified as mulatto. FilipeS 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think half caste and mulatto are du[pl;icate articles and one should be merged into the other. There is evidence both that that is what he was and that mulatto is a word used in the Caribbean. he fits our opening definition and so whether we have a statement of his identifying as one is frankly irrelevant (he clearly idenitified in his work as being black) as the society did identify him as one, SqueakBox 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe branding public figures with labels they do not accept goes against Wikipedia policy. FilipeS 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

African/European?

This has been raised before but usually dismissed by somebody with a poor grasp of concepts. A mulatto is a cross between a Negroid and a Caucasoid, not an "African" and a "European". To wit, if a Spaniard and a Moroccan have a child together the child will NOT be a mulatto, as they are of the same race. Likewise a cross between a German and a Khoikhoi will also NOT be a mulatto, although the Khoi are "African"! How about Lenny Henry and Dawn french's children? They ARE mulattoes, but not according to wikipedia's confused terminology. The people we today call "North Africans" are the SAME race as native Europeans, and always have been. Indigenous Southern Africans (Khoikhoi and San) are a totally different, third race. Using "African" to mean "Black" or "Negroid" seems to be all the rage, yet is completely inaccurate and leads to large amounts of confusion. Things get even stranger now that Turkey may be joining the European Union, making Turks "European"! And what about people like Thierry Henry etc, are they "European"? In fact the term mulatto was mostly used in American colonies to denote the male child of a Caucasoid slaemaster(who didn't necessarily have to be European, and may well have been Jewish), and a Negroid slave who almost certainly would have come from what is today classified as "West Africa". Saying "a cross between a European and an African" is in effect meaningless. Please could somebody correct this misinformation and replace "European" with "Caucasoid" and "African" with "Negroid", so that this article makes sense, and won't confuse and irritate anyone. Thank you.........15 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.232.128.10 (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

How truly odd you are. This is a bizarre and somewhat capricious rant, and I believe that we dont' use teh terms Caucasoid or Negroid with any degree of seriousness at this point, yet African/Black and European/White are still used. Your denotations are also skewed. Caucasoid and Negroid are simply irrelevant terms at this point. Elefuntboy 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Context makes it clear that "African" and "European" refer to races, here. Let's assume some intelligence from the readers. FilipeS 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The context is irrelevant. Regardless of what you may personally use or what is "made clear here", the fact of the matter is that THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS "AFRICAN" OR "EUROPEAN" RACES. The whole idea of a single "African" race was created by so-called "Afrocentric" "historians" who are attempting(and succeeding rather impressively thanks to people like the 2 of you) to appropriate the heritage/history/legacy of ancient CAUCASOID civilisations such as Egypt, Carthage, Numidia, The Moors etc. Anyone with any common sense and any grasp of reality would never refer to such a thing as an "African" race. What are they referring to? North Africans? Bantu? West African Negroes? East African Nubians? Pygmies? Khoikoi? San? Of course, "African" is used to mean "black", because if all Africans are one race, then any blacks can claim as their heritage anything that has ever happened on the continent of Africa as "all Africans are one race". Only people with low self-esteem who consider their lives worthless would promote this nonsense. of course many "liberal" "whites" also espouse this view so they don't come across as racist! By bursting the "African" bubble it leaves the main promoters of this garbage (the so-called "African-Americans") as inner city descendants of slaves and their rapist, lynching slavemasters. If the "African" myth can be "made true", then the "African-Americans" can claim to be Pharaohs, Sultans etc. Also "Caucasoid", "Negroid" etc are nor discredited. They are still scientifically correct terms and perfectyly valid. Just because you don't like them, or CNN doesn't use them, doesn't make them any less true and correct. Also, calling me "truly odd" and "bizarre" is a personal attack. As for "assuming some intelligence from readers", well it would be even better to present facts rather than politically correct propaganda on wikipedia I think......8 March 2007

Errm, an area is defined by the majority of its inhabitants. Africa is a majority "black" continent just like Europe is a majority "white" continent. When someone thinks about a European, he initially sees a "white person". When someone things about an African, he initially sees a "black person" - indeed Europe is majority "white" and Africa is majority "black". It's ludicrous for a minority, or sur-Saharan Africa, to have precedence over the rest (the majority) of the continent's right to self-identify as African. Likewise, the Turkish can be seen as "non-white", but this issue doesn't define Europe since they are a minority. You won't see white people saying "oh, there are is a huge minority in Europe so we can't call ourselves Europeans, let's call ourselves Caucasoid instead!" I think the majority "race" of "black" people in Africa have the right to self-identify as African because, well, it is their land and they are the majority. Who are you to say Africans can't call themselves Africans? I think this is a step in the right direction for Africans to create a positive identity for themselves, even if inchoate. I don't see an "Asian" identity being attacked even though Asia technically comprises Russia, India, the Middle East, China, Japan, and Europe.

Furthermore, you claim African-Centrics are attempting to "appropriate yada yada, Egypt, yada yada, Numdia", or whatever you said, but for all intents and purposes, what exactly do they have to lose in pursuing this path? At its position right now, the African continent and its people have nowhere to go but up. CreoleMe 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous poster, not "CreoleMe" the one previous to him. In classical times, and early modern Africa/Ifriqiya meant what is roughly Tunisia and Northwest Libya, obviously caucasoid peoples. I can understand that repeated misuse of the term meant that "Africa" came to be used to denote the entire "continent of Africa", but saying that African now means "black" is ludcirous in the extreme. As for "Asian", in some parts this means Indians/Pakistanis, in other parts "Asian" means Chinese/Japanese/Korean. So which identity did you mean? Or do you mean that since YOU use "Asian" to mean East Asian Mongoloid that that must make it correct, and everybody else's understanding of ther term is irrelevant. As for your offensie "yada yada" bit, well it is clear that "blacks" have nothing to lose by attempting to claim that Egyptians, Numidians, Carthaginians, Moors etc were also "black". Nothing except the truth and any sense of self-awareness that is. But of course it's another attack on evil "white racism and imperialism", the bs argument that "the Egyptians and Moors MUST have been black because they were African!" There's the main crux of the matter. Tjis kind of imbecillic "logic" leads to violent racist groups. Also there is no such thing as a "European" race either. While it is ture that the indigenous Europeans belong to a single racial group, that racial group is also indigenous to North Africa and Western Asia. Thus we can't call a Georgian or and Iranian "European" although they are part of your "European race". If the various non-Caucasoid peoples of the sub-Saharan region wish to create the concept of a common identity and common destiny whatever, I have no problem with that. But using "Africa" is obviosuly very misleading, as it excludes North Africa. Of course since 99% of progress/civilisation on the "continent of Africa" occurred North of the Sahara, the "Africans"/"blacks" will obviously want that to be part of THEIR "Africa". As for "Africa can only go up" well people were saying that BEFORE Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Amin etc.............12 March 2007

I agree with the previous poster, not "CreoleMe" the one previous to him. In classical times, and early modern Africa/Ifriqiya meant what is roughly Tunisia and Northwest Libya, obviously caucasoid peoples. I can understand that repeated misuse of the term meant that "Africa" came to be used to denote the entire "continent of Africa", but saying that African now means "black" is ludcirous in the extreme.

African means a black person or dark skinned person. It's really as simple as that. This period is not "classical times". Over time, the meaning of words change. Socially, sur-Saharan Africans don't publicly identify as African in any meaningful way. Indeed they identify strictly by nationality or as "Arabs"; they see themselves as part of the Middle East not Africa. Frankly, I haven't ever seen an African identify as "Negroid" as is what you are pushing for. In your use of the word "misuse" you are being subjective. But I wonder what happens if someone else uses his subjectivity to call you mulattos "Black"?

As for "Asian", in some parts this means Indians/Pakistanis, in other parts "Asian" means Chinese/Japanese/Korean. So which identity did you mean? Or do you mean that since YOU use "Asian" to mean East Asian Mongoloid that that must make it correct, and everybody else's understanding of ther term is irrelevant.

"Asian": I didn't give it a precise geographical reference -- perhaps in order to make a point. Asia is the largest continent with 60% of the worlds population and probably has different "races" within it. It's clear that you see validity in the geographic variability for people who identify as Asian (even though these people may be of different "races"), yet in Africa a continent smaller, you are earnest in your attempts to firmly pigeonhole the majority of Africans on the African continent into an us-verse-them framework because of Africans naturally dark brown skin.

As for your offensie "yada yada" bit, well it is clear that "blacks" have nothing to lose by attempting to claim that Egyptians, Numidians, Carthaginians, Moors etc were also "black". Nothing except the truth and any sense of self-awareness that is. But of course it's another attack on evil "white racism and imperialism", the bs argument that "the Egyptians and Moors MUST have been black because they were African!" There's the main crux of the matter. Tjis kind of imbecillic "logic" leads to violent racist groups.

Here, you decided to rant on your soapbox about topics we weren't even discussing.

Also there is no such thing as a "European" race either. While it is ture that the indigenous Europeans belong to a single racial group, that racial group is also indigenous to North Africa and Western Asia. Thus we can't call a Georgian or and Iranian "European" although they are part of your "European race". If the various non-Caucasoid peoples of the sub-Saharan region wish to create the concept of a common identity and common destiny whatever, I have no problem with that. But using "Africa" is obviosuly very misleading, as it excludes North Africa. Of course since 99% of progress/civilisation on the "continent of Africa" occurred North of the Sahara, the "Africans"/"blacks" will obviously want that to be part of THEIR "Africa". As for "Africa can only go up" well people were saying that BEFORE Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Amin etc.............12 March 2007

LOL. Whether you have a "problem" with Africans self-identifying as Africans or not really is irrelevant. What, have you appointed yourself King of Africa? haha. The habits and behaviors of groups of people aren't changed by mere intellectual squabble (definitely not by mere assertions). At best we can observe and really just try to figure out in what direction that group of people's (that we don't belong to) self-identification takes them. It's a little over the top to impose our own biases on millions of people of which we probably are not a member of or culturally know nothing about. CreoleMe 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Both of you have got WAY off the actual point here. The point is this...while CreoleMe(and millions of other people) us the term "African" to denote a "black" person, there are more than 100 million people in "Arab North Africa" who are clearly NOT black, besides being African. mY original point is if that one of these people were to have a child with an indigenous European person, then that child would NOT be a mulatto, despite being the cross between a European and an African. The very first sentence of this article states that a mulatto is the offspring of a European and an African. Obviously this is not entirely accurate, as while today "African" may be used to mean "black", and while people may regard North Africa as being part of the Middle East, the fact is that North Africa is obviously part of Africa, and the indigenous people to North Africa are pure African(in the real sense), but NOT "African"(black) in the way that you mean, and that the article uses it. My point is that a European/North African offspring is not amulatto, yet wikipedia states that that child WOULD be a mulatto. If you don't like "caucasoid" and "negroid", or "white" and "black", then perhaps stating that a mulatto is a cross between a "European" and a "Sub-Saharan African" would be mora appropriate? All I was attempting to do was point that not all Africans are black. And North Africans are every bit as "African" as the "Blacks" of the Sub-Sahara.....15 March 2007

You must use common sense. You're being conveniently literal and fronting naiveness. We know geographically that Europe and Russia are part of Asia, yet when someone says he or she is Asian, we generally accept that he or she is East Asian or from China, Japan,or Korea. In other words, even though Russia, Europe, India, and East Asia share the same landmass called Asia(just as north Africa and south Africa share the same landmass), people are keen to discern between the different groups of people. In the case of the African continent, the north Africans are known as "Arabs", while south Africans are known as simply African or Black so to say that European+African= a mulatto isn't incongruous at all. Why is it that even though Europe and Russia are in Asia that no one fusses over East Asians being labeled as "Asians" even though technically Europeans and Russians are Asian, too - or, "pure Asians" to follow your reasoning. If anything, instead of the majority population of Africa being generously afforded a special label of "sub-Saharan", the minority (Arabs) should be afforded the special label instead. If you want to make a distinction, knowing that African means Black, say Arab Africans. To end, I will play your game by saying that not all Europeans are white. CreoleMe 00:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly "we" do NOT generally accept that an "Asian" is an East Asian. In various countries, "Asian" denotes an Indian/Pakistani, NOT an East Asian. Just becuase you personally believe something, or think something, does not make it so. Next, indigenous South Africans are not "black", they are Khoikhoi and San. I checked up on another encyclopedia(Encarta) which stated that the population of the "continent of Africa" was 70% black, 25% North African caucasoid, and the remaining 5% were comprosied of various groups including Khoi, San, and whites and Asians descended from colonial settlers. First, ONLY the minority "whites" and "Asians" were NOT considered to be indigenous, meaning that the North Africans (1 in every 4 Africans), and well as the Khoi/San are INDIGENOUS AFRICANS WHO ARE NOT BLACK. All in all, 30% of Africans are NOT "black". That may be a minority, but think about it......3 out of 10 Africans are not "black"! If you had 100 people in a room, 70 "black" and 30 caucasoid, nobody in their right mind could make some broad defining racial category for the whole room.....if at the end of the month you got your paycheque and it was only 70% of what you were supposed to be paid, I doubt you'd accept the explanation that "the majority of it is there, and the rest doesn't really count"......in mathematical formulae, for something to work it must ALWAYS work. If it doesn't work JUST ONCE the formula is shit. Now if it didn't work 30 PER CENT of the time, it would be a laughing stock. It is irrelevant what you may believe..anything, ANYTHING that has 30% of its use ebing the exception can not be taken seriously by any sane, rational person. Also, DNA tests are now showing that many "blacks" may not be "black" at all, eg. Ethiopians, Eritreans, Sudanese, Somalis. And very many people do not count pygmies as being part of the "black" population as such. If we take this into account, then the "black African" population may even dip below 50% of the total population of the continent of Africa. Also, I never said all Europeans were "white", that was one of your earlier arguments to attempt to "disprove" my point. I also read through the archives and discovered that what i am saying now has been said before, and also, that you have repeatedly been vandalising this page. This is growing futile now, if the article isn't changed from "African" and "European", then I can only assume that someone has a personal agenda that is quite far apart from actual factual, encyclopedic editing. Obviously all Africans aren't "black", and African doesn't mean "black"!!! 22 March 2007

1. "We" do NOT generally accept that an "Asian" is an East Asian. In various countries, "Asian" denotes an Indian/Pakistani, NOT an East Asian.

In North America, Asian means an East Asian and African means a sub-Saharan African as opposed to a sur-Saharan African. Sur-Saharan Africans are identified as "North African" or as "Arabs". I think in Britian, Asian means an Indian or Pakistani.

2.

a. indigenous South Africans are not "black", they are Khoikhoi and San.

b. I checked up on another encyclopedia(Encarta) which stated that the population of the "continent of Africa" was 70% black, 25% North African caucasoid, and the remaining 5% were comprosied of various groups including Khoi, San, and whites and Asians descended from colonial settlers.

c. First, ONLY the minority "whites" and "Asians" were NOT considered to be indigenous, meaning that the North Africans (1 in every 4 Africans), and well as the Khoi/San are INDIGENOUS AFRICANS WHO ARE NOT BLACK. All in all, 30% of Africans are NOT "black".

d. 3 out of 10 Africans are not "black"! If you had 100 people in a room, 70 "black" and 30 caucasoid, nobody in their right mind could make some broad defining racial category for the whole room

e. .....if at the end of the month you got your paycheque and it was only 70% of what you were supposed to be paid, I doubt you'd accept the explanation that "the majority of it is there, and the rest doesn't really count"......in mathematical formulae, for something to work it must ALWAYS work. If it doesn't work JUST ONCE the formula is shit. Now if it didn't work 30 PER CENT of the time, it would be a laughing stock. It is irrelevant what you may believe..anything, ANYTHING that has 30% of its use ebing the exception can not be taken seriously by any sane, rational person.

Honestly, you must discern between different groups of people.

Sub-Saharan Africans = south African = African = Black African = Blacks

Sur-Saharan Africans = north African = Arab African = Arabs

It's really just how that goes.

3. Also, DNA tests are now showing that many "blacks" may not be "black" at all, eg. Ethiopians, Eritreans, Sudanese, Somalis. And very many people do not count pygmies as being part of the "black" population as such.

If Black means someone with predominate African ancestry from sub-Saharan African countries (which includes the countries you mentioned), and knowing that Black is a socio-political construct that was invented not by Africans, then how does one test for actual "Black DNA" if you're not working under this definition? You can find out from DNA a specific cline, but in itself, can DNA tell what percent Black you are. In other words, DNA may point most of your ancestry to Nigeria or Sudan, for example, but how do you find out what percent Black this person is, if you can't scientifically determine this at all. Scientifically, "Black DNA" doesn't exist. I think it's kind of like saying: "what percent North American is this person through DNA testing?"

You know what..give me your definition of a "black person" so I can better understand what you're saying. This definition would be helpful to any further discussions we have about Africans.

4.

a. Also, I never said all Europeans were "white", that was one of your earlier arguments to attempt to "disprove" my point.

b. If the article isn't changed from "African" and "European", then I can only assume that someone has a personal agenda that is quite far apart from actual factual, encyclopedic editing. Obviously all Africans aren't "black", and African doesn't mean "black"!!! 22 March 2007

Should we just say black African + white European = a mulato? CreoleMe 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are certain DNA markers that are unique to certain biological/racial groups. These are however still very controversial/disputed, so perhaps that wasn't a valid point.....

What this all comes down to is the phrase "a mulatto is the offspring of a European and an African parent", which is just plain WRONG. Some examples...

1)If the African parent is a North African, then the child is NOT a mulatto. 2)If the African parent is a Khoisan, then the child is NOT a mulatto. 3)If the European parent is Uralic(Finn, Estonian, Saami/Lapp, Turkish, Azeri, Hungarian, Albanian), then the child is NOT a mulatto.

Mulatto(e)s can be conceived without a, African/European combination in at least 2 ways.... 1)If the parents are a "black African", and a Semite(eg Jew, Arab) then the child IS a mulatto, although Semites are actually Asian, not European. 2)The offspring of a North African parent, and a Sub-Saharan African "black" IS a mulatto. Thus you get a mulatto from two African parents!

Also, "dark-skinned" is also a poor description. Many Australian Aborigines, New Guineans, Southern Asians are as dark(and in some cases even darker) then many "black Africans".

That is why the original suggestion was for "Negroid" and "Caucasoid". They may not be the best possible terms, but they're the best of what we have.......26 March 2007

All right, this is wondering on pure silliness. "Negroid" is an archaic term which means its no longer in use scientifically. Beside the point that it has all sorts of negative connotations, we can use other terms which are in use and are for the most part accurate. I think you are dilly dallying between what you personally consider to be Black and what you personally consider to be White. We can remain objective by stating that generally a mulatto is a combination of a black African and a white European (or a white and a black person). If you want specifics and to nitpick then I suggest you add the appropriate new section to the main article and write an article that demonstrates differentiations based on what you consider to be Black and what you consider to be White (with sources of course). I suspect your piece would border on POV(if not POV already), however. I'll still post it for you if you want because you may be unable to post to the main article because of restrictions. Have a good one, man. CreoleMe 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The central problem is that "European" and "African" are NOT racial terms, they are GEOGRAPHIC terms. A non-"black" African is still an African, a non-"white" European is still a European. Also, "white" and "black" are subjective terms. Everyone would agree that, say, a Nigerian is Black, but what about someone from Papua New Guinea or an indigenous Australian? As for "white", well sin some countries, Arabs, Turks, and Kurds are considered white, in other areas some people regard Italians and Greeks as "non-white". So where is the line drawn as regards "black" and "white"? "White European" is also too subjective as it includes people like Tatars and Andalusians who are borderline "white". It is not silliness, it is merely pointing out that the terms "African", "European", "Black" and "White" can be interpreted in various ways by many people. Some people would regard a Bangladeshi as "black", some may consider an Azeri to be "white". Egyptians and Maghrebis, and Khoi and San are African, but not "black", many Turko-Finnish peoples are European, but not "white". This may seem like splitting hairs to some, but I believe that it should be addressed, otherwise the article just ends up looking stupid......29 March 2007

Also, a belated re: the "African means a black person or dark skinned person. It's really as simple as that." comment.....no it's not. According to who? You? Perhaps where you live it does, but I can guarantee that that is not a widely accepted view/understanding. This is a common problem with wikipedia overall, just ebcause in a certain region, or amongst certain people a word has a particular meaning, they assume that that meaning is universal. Clearly, "African" is an obvious example. I have heard reports about Egyptian immigrants to the USA being denied to refer to themselves as "African-American", because they were not "black", despite being born and raised in Egypt, as their ancestors were for thousands of years before. Meanwhile any "black person or dark skinned person" can claim "African" as their own?! This may make sense to some, but surely if wikipedia wishes to be a factual rather database this sort of crap should not be included?......29 March 2007

A. "The central problem.."

You provide absolutely no sources or evidence to any of your claims. Moreover, the "problem" to your "central problem" is that all the multiracial articles here on wikipedia use "geographic terms".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Population_groups_of_mixed_ancestry

1. Eurasian - is a term that refers to those of mixed European and Asian ancestry, regardless of continent of origin. The term Eurasian may also be used among those of mixed European and Pacific Islander ancestry, although the term Euronesian is becoming more popular in usage.

2. Filipino Mestizo - is a term used to designate Filipinos of mixed Austronesian and European ancestry.

3. Indobrit - The term Indobrit is used to describe individuals of Indian heritage and British nationality.

4. Mestizo - is a term of Spanish origin used to designate people of mixed European and indigenous non-European ancestry.

5. Mulatto - is a person of mixed ancestry with an African and a European parent Health library 17:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

B. "..a belated re:"

Ahh..duuude..! It's obvious that you have in your head your own definition of what Black means. That's fine. Subjectivity is not a crime. Although It's hard to see where you're coming from in this discussion. You may be right, you may be wrong, you may be right and wrong. You may have good points and you may have bad points. I, however, think it's important to strive for objectivity in this internet encyclopedia. For matters of practicality, it's best to generalize a mulato as someone with black African ancestry and white European ancestry. If you want to get into how Black is actually defined or how White is actually defined, like I said, create the appropriate section in the main article and talk about it so that readers can be educated(of course sources would be needed). Also, I'm actually interested in learning from some things that you have to say if only you would provide credible sources for the myriad claims you make.

In the mean time why not read up on Black people from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people (this article should be properly sourced)
Of particular interest to you might be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#Sub-Saharan_Africa_debate

..Read up on White people, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people (this article should be properly sourced)

...And I cannot stress this enough: Please provide credible sources for your claims. Health library 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly just because another wikipedia article states this "African" nonsense, doesn't prove anything. Perhaps you just edited it? And for the billionth time, YOU are the on who is being subjective, just because people in your particular region may use the term "African" to denote a "black" person proves absolutely NOTHING. As for sources, well there are over 150 million of them, Africans who are not "black" by any stretch of the imagination. I do not have "myriad claims", merely a few interrelated ones.....that using the names of continents to describe a person's race is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Check out the "Racial Reality" website for very brief overview. Or check out any site that deals with North Africa, the historic meaning of the very word "African" etc. If all my posts can be boiled down to one central argument it is this(which I have repeated more than once already)....THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "AFRICAN" RACE ANY MORE THAN THERE IS AN "AMERICAN" RACE, AN "aSIAN" RACE, OR AN "ANTARCTIC" RACE FOR THAT MATTER.Wikipedia on a whole uses "European" to mean "white", "African" to mean "black", and "Asian" to mean "yellow". No serious encyclopedia would beleve this incredibly narrow-minded, inaccurate, and deeply offensive nonsense. If "black" African people want to identify themselves as "African", that is their choice, but that in no way means that all Africans are black, or even that all blacks are African.

This was all about the one inaccurate sentence that a mulatto is the offspring of a "European" and an "African" parent, thich any rational person would find to be entirely inaccurate, and actually pretty damn funny were it not for the fact that many people take that seriously. All I am/was saying is that "African" does not, and has never denoted what you describe as a "black" person.Anything beyond that is just troublemaking. Okay , SOME people where you come from may use "African" to mean "black", but they are definitely a minority. I thought the point of wikipedia was factual accuracy. Guess I was wrong. This will be my last post, as this is getting incredibly tedious, if the article is not corrected, then I guess wikipedia ISN'T about factual accuracy, but rather appeasing the personal viewpoints of certain members........1 April 2007

Dude, don't go. I went to the "Racial Reality" website. ra****.blogspot.com. Now, I don't know the hidden motives for this site nor do I know their conclusions and how that positively or negatively affects Africans or Europeans. Nor do I know the significance of these excerpts at this point nor do I necessarily agree. But I will just post several excerpts which contradict what you said using your own source.

"..numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion - that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis."

"..these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American."

File:Http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3955/risch2002qk8.jpg Health library 23:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

thats not the site it is....(link blacklisted by some twat)

So I tried to post the 'REAL link and someone has blocked it from being posted here...I think that sums up wikipedia quite nicely, if any scientific information contradicts and disproves what you claim, merely block it. HAHA!

Also, like all your other crap it never said anything of the sort about "continental basis" or "Africans", that's typical "Afrocentric" bullshit, inventing facts and quotes to support your flimsy crap. Just like claiming stuff that was supposedly said in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or what herodotus supposedly said. Fact is, you KNOW that "African" does not mean black, that is why there so many "African" commercials, spots, phrases etc. If "African" WAS synonomous with "black", then there would be no need to keep saying "Africa Africa Africa" over Again And Again And Again to the point where everyone just wants you to shut up. Remember in Fahrenheit 9/11 when the whole "Saddam Hussein Weapons Of Mass Destruction" was repeated over and over to hammer home a blantant lie so that the sheep would accept it as fact? Wel that is what all this Afro-this and Africa-that crap is essentially doing. "African-American", "Indigenous African", "African Clothing", "Pan-Africanism", blah blah blah, but you and I both know that "African" does not, never did, and (God willing) will never mean the same thing as "black" or "negroid". Indigenous North Africans are Caucasoid, indigenous Southern Africans are Capoid, neither of 'em are or ever were "black". Okay, South Africa has been taken over by black settlers/invaders, but the North remains "Middle Eastern". Let's pray it stays that way! 16 April 2007

I hope you're not at tension with any Africans or Coloreds in South Africa, mate, because you're about to burst a vein in your neck! I recommend you drink some herbal tea or something. Health library 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Mr/Ms "health Library" is unaware that THE COLOUREDS (correct spelling) ARE AFRICAN, and in fact that they are the only indigenous people of what is today known as "Southern Africa". Also, the rather ill-researched "African People" page on wikipedia will most likely be deleted as it has no research/sources and is viewed by all as being extremely POV.

Look, this whole thing boils down to the fact that a very few people are unable or unwilling to comprehend that NOWHERE in the world do the indigenous people correspond exactly to what our modern ideas of the continents are. I say "modern idea" as historically North and Sub-Saharan Africa were viewed as being 2 separate continents. The whole concept of "one Africa" stems from European colonialism and imperialism, as the "civilised" Europeans wouldn't colonise other likewise people, but had no problem colonising "savage Africans". When the French entered Algeria/Tunisia they found people who looked just like them, and were at a comparable level of technology. The same crappy idea was to claim that all Portugese people are mixed-race mulattoes, so the British could claim the Portugese colonies, and possible even Portugal itself! I wish you people would realise that the REAL racist idea that came out of colonisalism and imperialism is the "one Africa" concept. Certainly claiming that all Africans(whether all Africans or only just "Black Africans" are one generic simplistic type of person is HIGHLY racist and offensive. There are literally thousands of cultures, languages, ethnicities, and histories across the continent of Africa. The generic "African" tag may suit identity-challenged American mulattoes, but actual Africans of all types claim pride in their individual people's culture, history and uniqueness. Nice of you to use the old racist "all Africans are the same" idea.....19 April 2007

Also, it is somewhat humorous that you use the American phrases and concepts, yet here is a link within wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Original_locations_of_races_US_census_definition.PNG

What do you make of that he said expecting a long, meandering answer....19 April 2007

Everything in the article is skeletally intact the way I see it. In describing the contents of the article, I would say it has little substance if any. The mestizo, eurasian pages have adequate substance. I think the problem lies with the label itself; "mullato". It's difficult to document a stark label such as "white", "black', or "mulatto" in and of themselves. Geographics lends more feasibilty in that it's easier to document a region rather than a "color". Like Black American, White American, Mulatto Trinidadian, Black African, White European, et cetera. You, South African guy, I don't know what all the hubbub is about. You're franticly vying for a slight modification of the article instead of offering content, sorely needed indeed, which would help people better understand mullattos. You obviously have a lot to say about Africa and seemingly how this relates to mullatos. Why not add this content to enliven the article? I think that by you focusing on a mere point of non-scientific labeling in the article says more about you being racist and contradicts your thinly veneered attempt at being "anti-racist", and is also funny coming from a guy who wants to describe black Africans as negroids. Give me a break, boy. Health library 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, it is not a "slight modification". The point is that there is no such thing as an "African" in the racial sense. That was the only point that was attempted to have been made. There is more genetic variation on the continent of Africa then in the rest of the world combined. My only problem was with the idea that "African=black". EVERYTHING else has been building on that one error that some person or people are determined to keep in the article. The point is that North Africa does, and always has, had far more in common with the Middle East, hence North Africans are African, but not "African" in the sense that these misinformed people use it. That is all. There is no such hing as an "African race", and the word "African" does not mean, or even imply, a "black" person. Any other commetns are merely building on this one central point....... 22 April 2007

Yeah, it will just link to the Wikipedia definitions of Black and White now. If you want to discuss the meaning behind these terms then you are free to debate on the respective talk pages. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_people
Health library 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatant bias

User Health library has been ignoring sources which he himself came up with, to impose a one-sided definition in the intro. He needs to have a more NPOV attitude. FilipeS 23:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What is my one sided definition? Health library 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify your objection to using a sourced definition in its entirety? (FilipesS' version did mention "black" and "white" parentage, I believe.) --Media anthro 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a little bit more clear? Everything in the source is mentioned except the "light brown skin" which means nothing in an encyclopedic context unless that is expanded on. Health library 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that it would be best to use a definition as close as possible to that provided by a reliable source. The intro of this article is the subject of periodic edit wars in which people with the One True Definition of mulatto duke it out over what a mulatto is and isn't. Personally, I favor as broad a definition as possible. Yes, mulatto can mean half black and half white. More frequently, it refers to someone of mixed ancestry. In Brazil and elsewhere, people's skin tones can be described as mulato or mulato claro, which is probably what that "light brown skin" part of the definition refers to.--Media anthro 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I provided all definitions for mulatto as is from the source. Do you have any other definitions on mind? How could you make the current definitions more broad? Please give me examples. And What do you mean by "mixed ancestry"? Obviously someone half black and half white has mixed ancestry. Do you mean just a general term for someone of mixed ancestry who can be of any racial mixture? Like someone half African and half Asian? If so you can add that definition, too. Though that would take away from the uniqueness of the word and the purpose of this article. But if you have more definitions to add, then add them. Health library 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You "provided all definitions for mulatto as is from the source"?! LOL! You keep insisting on some fetishistic 50/50 percentage!

Whatever. Anyone who wants to know can look up "mulatto" in a dictionary. There's more to the Internet than Wikipedia. FilipeS 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have one black parent and one white parent you are 50% black and 50% white. Don't know how you can debate that. Health library 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Mulattos are not just people with one black parent and one white parent. I don't know how you can debate that. FilipeS 15:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is essential. No where in the definition does it say: "mullato = only exactly half black and half white", however, that's one of the given definitions. Add on to the current definitions with more definitions, of relevance, if you wish. Health library 16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Buzz... Still wrong. Being mulatto is not just about ancestry. You could do with some reading comprehension, yourself. FilipeS 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

FilipeS--Health library's latest version does contain at least two meanings for mulatto. I don't think it's fair to say that HL is pushing just the "50% white and 50% black" definition. I do prefer your version though because it is very broad and mentions skin color as a defining characteristic of being mulatto. Even more importantly, it refers the reader to an outside reference text.

Health library: If you are going to cite a source in order to define the term mulatto, and the source lists three definitions of the term, you can't really choose some of those definitions and leave out others arbitrarily.--Media anthro 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Health library 17:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to this article, it looks like a stub now? Shakam 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mister Shaka, are you mulatto!? Health library 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a proud one I might add. Shakam 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm just going to come out with it -- I like you, Shaka. You are a good and wholesome person. You are likable therefore I like you. You will do great things one day. You are a valuable human being. Health library 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brazil

The data about Brazil in the 05:14 18 May 2007 version is wrong. It's based on a document in English on the IBGE web site [2]. There is a mistraslation on that document (which I already alert the IBGE about it). The original data are written in a Portuguese (official language) [3]. This document showing that 38,4% of the population call them self as "Parda" skin color. This term is quite accept in Brazil, but not very used, for a person that is not quite white, black, east asian or indian. Also, since there were just 6 options of color or race to be selected (white, black ,yellow, "parda", indian or do not declare) anyone that is multiracial incline to mark "Parda". As a Brazilian, I know there are a large population of blanded white and Brazilian Indian (so called, caboclo) and they incline to mark the "Parda" option. So, the assuption that Mulattos constitute 38.5% of the Brazil's population is wrong. The right is that multiricial constitute 38.5% of the Brazil's population. Please, read Demography of Brazil.--ClaudioMB 13:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that you're correct. I changed the entry on Brazil to reflect this. --Media anthro 13:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

May the 13th celebrates Slavery Abolition in Brazil. There is not, and there never was a "Mulatto Day" in Brazil. The terms "mulato" and "moreno" have different meanings in Brazil. "Mulato" is exclusive for describing people of mixed caucasoid-negroid descent. "Moreno" focus on the hair color, not the skin. Someone of very pale skin with black hair is called "moreno". These terms are not considered offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.119.232 (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear ...

I am a member of the group in question and I do consider the term offensive. The reference to the redirect was in re the current DYK list item, the mixed race entry has an appropriate redirect. It is a constant across human languages and cultures that to associate a person or group with an animal is an insult unless some noble property of said animal is intended. Stubbornness is the only attribute I know associated with the mule. Lycurgus 19:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, much of our history and culture happens to be offensive. Wikipedia is about documenting the world as it has been and is now, not for rewriting it into something more palatable.Geira (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a mulatto, but I don't find it offensive, at least not in Portuguese. As was pointed out before, the crossbreeding aspect of the mule is what is being referenced to. 201.53.49.209 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture

Instead of putting up pictures of celebrities or living persons, which is kind of distasteful, how about reusing the excellent ancient portrait of a mulatto that is in the Spanish language article? FilipeS 20:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is an excellent idea. ArabicX 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not know how to move images from one version of Wikipedia to another. Does anyone else know? FilipeS 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Move them to Commons. --NetRolller 3D 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Afro-Asian girl

Why is an Afro-Asian girl being placed in the article? Why not place a real mulatto girl in the article instead of a girl which represents people from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Asian page.

Someone who is half black/half white (a mulllatto) is not racially the same as someone half black/half asian (an Afro-Asian).ArabicX 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

Mariah Carey is 25% black, therfore she is not a mullato. She is a quadroon (or quarter caste, or quarterback: in England). ArabicX 21:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe she's Cablinasian. Either way, her music isn't as good as it used to be. FilipeS 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mulatto origin...

I don't know why there is so much discussion about this word. It came from pre to post colonial Latin America and South America as a whole. Unfortunately, this was a time when African slaves were being brought from their homeland to work for French, English, Spanish, and Portuguese colonists. After the South American Indians were almost completely decimated, races began to mix. Caucasian, African, Indian, and countless others. One should just view the word as a way these people in the colonies described these new racial mixtures. As race blended, so did cultures, which also lends to the formation of new words that have been created across these language differences. Technically the original post was correct. Its just that people like to get crazy... I don't know about you, but I haven't heard the word used at all in my life, let alone lately... Mitchman45 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WHY CANT WE MULATTO EDIT THIS PAGE OURSELFS CENTS WE ARE THE PEOPLE WIKIPEDIA IS TALKING ABOUT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.53.100 (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Slash, another notable mulatto

I think we should include him as one of the most well-known mulattos (with his photo and so). --Taraborn (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should not. It's not up to Wikipedia to slap ethnic labels on celebrities. FilipeS (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Category ?

I find it a pity that there is an "Eurasians" category and not one for "Afro-Caucasian people" (as a "mulattos" category might be objected by some). If nobody objects, I'm creating one. Wedineinheck (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Would not the category then be Negroid-Caucasian? Or is Afro-Caucasian interchangeable with Euro-Negroid? Either the category is "Negroid-Caucasian" or "Afro-Caucasian/Euro-Negroid". KumarFilo (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Will i tried to make mulatto or any wikipedia pages at that, but all they do is delete them.i think its time for mulatto or Afro-Caucasian Caucasian-Afros to make our own wikipedia website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.190.2 (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion with a newspaper bureau chief has revealed through a number of letters to the editor a racial perspective of Whites which I am currently researching. The perspective is that Whites in general believe Blacks to be of a primitive race and feel that it would be an injustice to their offspring to degrade them by having sexual relations with a Black. The more editors I speak with, however, the more comments I hear in support of this reason for rejecting the Obama "Mulatto solution." Currently my resources lack the rigor of a scientific poll so I'm looking for polls which may make the statistical basis clear and discussions which address this topic from both the Black and the White point of view. Multimillionaire (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.32 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)