Talk:Brown (racial classification)

Colour blind

Have you looked at a few people recently? Look at my user page to see the difference between the alleged black person and the black dog, to claim that people arent brown is likle claiming the sky isnt up, it is a defiance of reality, SqueakBox 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your user page is irrelevant, as is who I have looked at. If you want this article to put forward the thesis that all people are brown, then you must provide a source for that thesis. The article currently has a source that states unequivocally that "brown people are not brown". Therefore that is what the article says. Please read our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Uncle G 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So one poor reference makes for a truth, eh? I have now referenced that some people do think skin colour is brown, SqueakBox 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the content. You appear to be basing your content on song lyrics. Please use good sources. Uncle G 17:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please dont delete references, it amy not be ana academic ref but this isnt an academic encyclopedia either, SqueakBox 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • On the contrary: This is meant to be an accurate and reliable encyclopaedia. Basing articles upon song lyrics, as you are doing, does not lead to either. Uncle G 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Song lyrics are fine, we are not talking about an academic subject but about yoyur absurd claim that no people are brown. If you keep deleting anything that contradicts your own beliefs we end up with a really useless article, SqueakBox 18:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Song lyrics are not fine as a basis for an encyclopaedia article. I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And as I said above, my beliefs, which you have no way of knowing, are irrelevant. This is an article based upon sources, and is an academic subject, as clearly evidenced by the several sources cited that treat it as such. Problems with such articles only arise when editors decide to write articles on such subjects based upon song lyrics rather than upon good sources. Uncle G 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not an academic subject. What, you think we'll rely on your word for that? The article starteed as troll bait and what has changed? Are there any people who study brown people (who you on the one hand claim dont exisdt anyway)? Stop throwing WP articles at me which I am at least as familiar with as you. nothing about song lyrics in WP:RS, if it can be sourced that many black people think they are brown none of them need to be academics to make this true, as I am sure you well know, SqueakBox 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• You may not think that it is an academic subject. There are currently 15 cited sources that disagree with you. I have made no claim about the existence of brown people, incidentally. As I wrote below, please stop constructing straw men. As for what many black people think they are: You have cited no sources that discuss that at all. I strongly suggest that you read the cited books and journal articles first. Uncle G 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, your suggestion that song lyrics are good source for this is pretty unreasonable. You obviously have strong feelings on this subject, but you have to understand that our individual opinions on the subject matter mean very little- we use proper sources instead. Friday (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• If 'Blackies' aren't Brown, then I must be colourblind. My eyesight is perfect. I'm, supposed to be 'White', but I'm anything but. I agree entirely with Squeakbox. You'll be saying ginger haired people aren't ginger haired next, because it's 'politically incorrect'. White, Black, Brown, Yellow, whatever, so what? It doesn't need an 'issue' making of it. Wipe the article, it's not worth the space. 80.192.242.187 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
• Agree, this is an entirely unnecessary and contradictory fork that does no more than make wikipedia a laughing stock and unreliable source of info amongst those who arent racially obsessed, which Americans clearly are and seeme to want to impose their racial theories on the rest of the world. Shame on wikipedia, SqueakBox 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• This article does nothing of the sort. You don't have to be "racially obsessed" to study the history of physical anthropology. Nor does this article impose American "racial theories" on the world. In fact, it was a German who first characterized five races that included SE Asia as "brown people". Please edit and discuss this article from a more neutral PoV. Thanks. ju66l3r 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Coloureds

Take into account that I speak of the South African group referred to in this article. The phrase "who were largely, and erroneously, believed to have been the production of black-white sexual union out of wedlock" -- what exactly does it suggest? Also, in Afrikaans, one uses the diphtong "ui" instead of "y" in the words "bruin", "bruines" and "bruinmense". BooBooSpooki 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• The source, which is a study of such words, spells the words as they are written, and contains no occurrences at all (in 500 pages) of the words that you give. Please cite an equally good source for the spelling that you are claiming. Similarly, the sentence fragment quoted is based upon Adhikari's discussion of the "stigma of illegitimacy" and an "enduring myth" in popular thinking. Please read what the source says. Uncle G 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up! Well, the author of your source hardly speaks Afrikaans fluently, whereas I do. I suppose it reflects the document when such spelling is used, but if you wish to refer to the way it's spoken lately, you need to use the spelling in the article about coloured people in South Africa, where "ui" is used instead of "y". Hopefully I can get hold of the source and read it properly over the week. BooBooSpooki 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Your spelling might simply be outdated. Adhikari talks about an article "Ons Bruinmense" that was written in 1962. Patterson (ISBN 0415178266) talks about "Bruinmense" on page 140. But that book was written in 1953. In contrast, Stone, who discusses "brynmense" and related words, was writing in 2002. Uncle G 11:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Brown

To claim or imply that all Mexicans are brown is rascist claptrap, eg see Afro-Mexican, SqueakBox 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article did not say that. It quite clearly said that some people refer to Mexican Americans as brown people. That is what the source says, too. Please consult our Wikipedia:No original research policy again. You are not working from sources. Please work from sources. Uncle G 18:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We are talking about the people being referred to no those crass enough to do the referring and all Mexicans are not brown ,l that's justrt an ignorant generalisation. Pleasse source your claim that all Mexicans are brown, and take a look at Demographics of Mexico, hardly OR, SqueakBox 18:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • For the third time: The article did not say that. And nowhere have I made any such claim. Please read what the text actually says. You are not reading what the article actually says. Uncle G 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's your opinion, and as an argument it doesnt holod much water, SqueakBox 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Talking of arguments: Please stop constructing straw men. The only person who has stated that "all Mexicans are brown" is you. The article has made no such claim. I have made no such claim. Inventing a claim and attributing it to other people, and then requesting that they defend it, is a straw man argument. Uncle G 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• SqueakBox, Uncle G is one of the most respected contributors on Wikipedia. You appear to be allowing your personal views about this terminology to override normal standards of civility, and I am not at all convinced that you have properly read the rewritten article, which is carefully neutral and very well-referenced. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, we report what the secondary sources say. That is precisely what we are doing here. Please calm down and stop attacking Uncle G, it is not helping. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Guy. I also am concerned that SqueakBox may have violated 3RR in the process. Since myself and another editor have now characterized this article as neutral, I would like to remove the NPOV tag. Can anyone give a specific and valid reason for leaving it on the article? ju66l3r 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. Neither Mexicans nor Hispanics are brown people, either in shade of color or in ancestry. The article does not make this claim, but it surely implies it for three reasons: (1) It says that "Americans" refer to mestizos and Hispanics as brown people. (2) It doesn't acknowledge that this is wrong at more than one level. One editor claimed this was addressed in the introduction of the article, but this is not the case, as even if we are to consider "brown-looking" Hispanics or "brown-looking" Mexicans, you'll find that this is a subset of both groups (see Demographics of Mexico and Hispanics). (3) Some editors, including SqueakBox and myself have tried to rectify the matter, and are reverted with no legitimate justification. Deepstratagem 00:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(4) Try telling South African Nationals that they are just white or just black or just brown. It's just not accurate enough. Why must this article imply that this is the case for Mexicans and Hispanics? Obviously someone is not doing his/her research. Deepstratagem 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be misisng the point. It's not about what we tell them, it's about what the reliable secondary sources tell us. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If your secondary sources contradict reason, they are not exactly reliable. Deepstratagem 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, sourcing is no substitute for decent encyclopedia writing. Following the letter and absolutely not the spirit of wikipedia policies can produce a contrived OR piece like this, SqueakBox 16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll remind you again, SqueakBox to refrain from characterizing the article in a defamatory way. To do so is to break the assumption of good faith that the editors who wrote the article extend to you and does not maintain the civility of the discussion. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to your logic one cant criticise articles. Absurd! Just because you wont acknowledge what you and Uncle G are up to (using academic references to pursue OR) doesnt mean others cant tell the truth. i would remind you to stop reminding me in a petty, unintelligent way as if you are the teacher and I am the student. This might fit your aggressive pursuit of this article as uncriticisable but its not how we do things here, SqueakBox 19:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Another source

Economist Robert Ferguson was interviewed in 2004 by Black Issues in Higher Education and used the term "Brown people" when discussing the need for better minority education [1]. His use is combination with Black people and White people as descriptors for general culture groups in America. ju66l3r 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also found a decent Google Scholar search here that may elicit even more useful references for the usage of the term. ju66l3r 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is incredible

I agree with with deleting it. It just represents the twisted, strange and deeply racist view of "some" Americans when they deal with race, etc. It is as if I used these radical views to speak of Americans:

Here you have what "some" people think of Americans:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/01/

If you cannot open it, I have cut and posted this part:

---

"U.S. is definitely Judeo-Saxon in every sense: culturally, socially, and morally. The old-money W.A.S.P.s and Ashkenazi Jews are also increasingly intermarrying one another, so within a few generations, distinctions may be further blurred than at present.

As the great German intellectual Werner Sombart said: “Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism.”

---

You can also check what "some" Europeans think about Americans in Anti-Americanism.

If you are too lazy to read I will help you cutting and pasting:

---

Racialism

"In the middle of the nineteenth century, the racialist theories of Arthur de Gobineau and others spread through Europe. The presence of blacks and "lower quality" immigrant groups made racialist thinkers discount the potential of the United States. The infinite mixing of America would lead to the ultimate degeneracy. Gobineau said that America was creating "greatest mediocrity in all fields: mediocrity of physical strength, mediocrity of beauty, mediocrity of intellectual capacities - we could almost say nothingness."

---

I do not need to say what a racist charlatan this Gobineau was or what stuff all these Nazi websites are made of, but following the arguments that I can see here, why should we speak of Americans as white people at all, if white people live mainly in Europe, with a population of 728 million people, "some" of whom seem to view Americans as suspicious "whites" who are really not "white"? Veritas et Severitas 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening statement

"Like black people and white people, the concept of brown people is a political, racial, ethnic, societal, or cultural classification" . This is unsourced and looks like OR to me as there is not the concept of brown people that there is of white and black people, in that sense brown people are like red people and yellow people, so you need a source for every claim within this sentence to put it back in its entirety, ie a source that brown people are ethnic, cultural and societal classifications, SqueakBox 17:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is good summary of what to expect in the article per WP:LEAD. It is not research. It's the same has having a line at the beginning of an article about apples that says Apples are fruits and fruits are a part of different food pyramids. Specific discussion of how the term "brown people" are used in classification schemes comes within the main body of the article. ju66l3r 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that it is OR, NPOV and not true so it needs sourcing or we need an opening we can agree on, SqueakBox 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article is a mess and I cant figure out how to clean it up. The Mexican section appears after the references but in the text this isnt so, and being after the refs it converts the refs code inot unreadable text. can someone please fix it, this article is a disgrace to wikipedia in its current state and we cant blame it on newbies. Some bug I cant find, SqueakBox 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Another editor removed a significant portion of a reference (including the end tag) in the process of blanking a significant portion of the text without discussion here first. I also disagree with your blanking of parts of the lead section. Please remain cool and constructive. Thanks. ju66l3r 18:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One contribution

I have made tis contribution:

In fact white people are not literally "white". Most of them are some shade of brown, some may even look pinkish or reddish, but none of them white. These concepts derive from a eurocentric view of race.

One user insists on deleting it. What is wrong with it? Veritas et Severitas 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it is unsourced PoV and not applicable to an article on "Brown people". Furthermore, similar comments on using the color "brown" is already available in the article just prior to where you were adding it. Except those comments are sourced and don't try to attribute the original derivation (which is covered later in the article when discussing anthropology. ju66l3r 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We should focus less on whether such labels are literally correct, and more on how these terms are used. "White people aren't white" is a bit of a strawman in this regard. See color metaphors for race. Friday (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not agree. those terms are made up by white people to refer to other people ignoring the basic fact that they are also brown. Veritas et Severitas 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. The term "white" can be sourced from Latin/Greek comparisons to other people in the Mediterranean (see White people) and is not just some "igorance of being brown". The source of calling white people "white" is also much better addressed in that other article and is simply not applicable in discussing the term "Brown people". ju66l3r 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The term brown doesnt really exist in the way it does with white and black people, which is why this article should be deleted or if not redirected to people, and why this article doesnt do anything other than to stir up conflict. The idea that we are giving an encyclopedic definition of brown people is simply no the case, SqueakBox 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also not true. Do a Google search for "Brown people" and you'll find hundreds of references just the same as the usage of "white people" or "black people", nevermind the fact that this all stems formally from the 5-color classification system by one of the original physical anthropologists. You are refusing to read the article's content nor the references and until you do, you will continue to argue around the actual issue. Do you not agree that the term was used by physical anthropologists? ju66l3r 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I insist. I do not agree with the article, but if we are to analyse the concept, white people, who like to invent all these terms to refer to other people, ignore the fact that they are also some shade of brown and that they are certainly not "white". So if the article stays, the statement should stay. Veritas et Severitas 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is false, PoV, and not applicable. Plenty of civilizations have ways of describing themselves from other civilizations based on physical traits like skin tone. Your comments are that you have an opinion on how white people treat others and you want that opinion known in an article on the term "Brown people". That is not neutral. You need to stop adding your point of view to this article, please. ju66l3r 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of view?. My God! Do you mean that "white" people are literally "white". Do you doubt that they are some shade of brown themselves or may look other colors but certainly not white? What do you mean?. Veritas et Severitas 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, PoV is : "...white people, who like to invent all these terms to refer to other people..." and "...(white people) ignore the fact that they are also some shade of brown...". That is PoV. ju66l3r 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with LSLM) The problem is the article exists even though the concept is a minority rascist one. How we deal with this huge problem is indeed a tricky one. I think the way Ju and Uncle G remove any statements, sourced or otherwise that they disagree with while insisting that there own unsourced statements stand is very sad. Trying to give respectability to a minority rascist concept will not serve wikipedia, SqueakBox 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the biggest problem that I have come across in race related articles. You can have a look at the White people article itself. Right now it is not perfect but some time ago it looked like a Nazi manifesto. What I have found surprising is that most of these people come from the United States and want to impose on the rest of the world their twisted and strange ideas on race. Veritas et Severitas 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The historical usage of "Brown people" in physical anthropology is not a "minority racist concept". Your refusal to recognize this makes it impossible to discuss the article's worth. You are beginning to edit out of making a point rather than from a neutral point of view for the benefit of this article. Both of you continue to point out your blatant lack of disregard for neutrality ("...minority racist concept...", "...(editors) want to impose...twisted and strange ideas on race...") on these topics rather than comprehend the content of the actual article and discuss the article meaningfully rather than from the point of straw men and out of your own concept of what the article's title "means". ju66l3r 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a firm commitment to NPOV, that's why I tagged the article. Turning even minor sociological subject matter into an article on people who are brown and then filling it with ridiculous, highly lunatic fringe ideas such as that there are no brown people, and then to contradict that with all sorts of examples of people whose brownness happens to have caught the attention of someone else is not making for an NPOV article, however allegedly well referenced (it takes more than referencing to make a good encyclopedic article and a bad article can be well referenced). If you refuse to discuss with other editors and instead insult them (straw men) then we have reached an impasse so I woulsd advise you to change tack, SqueakBox 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"No people are really brown in colour."

What is this line supposed to mean exactly? (No, the wikilink Human skin colour which is offered up as explanation doesn't help - it specifically says that human skin tone ranges "from dark brown to nearly colorless".) Such a statement seems to defy everyday observation (there are many more people who can be observed as literally brown in skin colour tone - including sun-tanned or olive-skinned "whites" and self-identified "black "people) than people who can be observed as literally white or literally black for instance), so it needs much more explanation than the unclarifying wikilink and figleaf reference note currently offered (Race is one of the most written about topics in sociology, social/cultural anthropology, cultural studies, sociobiology,political science etc etc, we shouldn't just use one source for such a sweeping statement) The term may be overworked or disputed in many cases, but this is not necessarily mean it totally lacks any direct correspondence with actual skin color whatsoever. Bwithh 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is widely written about. And one of the people who has written about this particular aspect of it (note the chapter title) at length is Forbes. He has a lot to say — several pages in fact — on the subject of "everyday observation", quoting people such as Ludwig Wittgenstein on the subject of colour perception. Three particular sentences are apposite here. The first, from page 96, is is: "Anyone who takes the time to carefully look at another human being or at one's own body will immediately be struck by the fact that there is no single color at all." (Forbes' emphasis). The second and third are from page 99: "The practical problem is that we cannot know what a Spaniard of 1560 meant by 'stewed quince' color or what an Italian of 1530 meant by 'olive-ish' color. Nor can we know if there was any agreement among people about such terms or, more importantly, about the colors in the mind conjured up by such terms." A lot of arguments on this talk page, including the above (which, ironically, talks about "sun-tanned" and "olive-skinned"), are based upon not actually reading what the source materials actually have to say, and what scholars have written, on this subject. I strongly suggest that editors read the sources. What is a single sentence in the article is a lot more in the sources. Uncle G 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There are not people who are literally white. The term white has been ingrained in some people's minds to see "white" people that they distort facts in an incredible way. White is a white piece of paper, or a white shirt. In fact it could be said that most people are some shade of brown. Some users here who like to classify people in colors just try and ignore that basic fact. Veritas et Severitas 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)