Talk:African diaspora

Coming soon: updates

My interest in the plight of African Americans in the US has inspired me to contribute to this page. My work for this page will be driven toward insuring that the page is non-bias and inclusive. The page is currently filled with driving forces for diaspora and numerations of how certain countries have been affected. I aim to make sure that the article also includes the social, psychological, and economic effects on diasporic people. I hope to update the article to include this information with supporting references from peer-review sources. The Wikiproject: African Diaspora lists this article as top-importance but it only has a B-class rank. I hope my improvements give the article more depth in order to increase it's rating.

These updates will take place over the next few months. I welcome edits and advice. This will be the second Wiki article I have edited; I could use all the help you guys are able to give. Looking forward to working with the Wiki-community. Ratilley (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ratilley: I am glad you are interested. Me too. What are your reading? Ivettedez (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Vague term

"Beginning in the 8th century, Arabs took African slaves from the central and eastern portions of the continent (where they were known as the Zanj) and sold them into markets in the Middle East and eastern Asia."

It would be nice if "took" was changed to an entire sentence of it's own describing how this was accomplished. Took is unnecessarily vague, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.147.94 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

African Diaspora

There are over 100 million Black people in Brazil https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html and a little over 4 million Afro descended people in Cuba https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html. Where did you get 55 million from? Stop omitting information.--GodSentMe22 (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if we were to take the World Factbook figures at face values, how did you manage to arrive at "black 9.3%" of the 11,179,995 total population of Cuba as being over 4 million. As regards the Brazilian population, you are (as with Cuba) conflation the concept of a 'diaspora' with those who do not identify as being African/Afro-'something'. The majority of nation-states in South America use different terminology for mixed race, and these terms are often considered mutually offensive. Throwing the World Factbook (which does not provide their sources for the 2010 estimates) and replacing the reliably sourced figures with your own preference is misinformation and intentionally misleading as you've introduced your WP:OR a few times now despite what reliable sources used say. If you dispute the numbers presented, the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that you have better/more recent/more reliable sources for any content changes you make. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I removed GodSentMe22's previous commentary on the subject on this talk page as WP:SOAP. For the edification of other editors, however, please note that the editor made his/her intentions of continuing a POV-push clear here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead is whack

I came her to figure out what that d-word meant. Instead it's used again without definition then poorly written self-definition. The very first sentence should clearly and unambiguously define the word diasporsa (found as a misspellt word in chrome dictionary, something I've written up in Chromium bug reports in the past about so don't bother). I got confused quickly then came here. Technophant (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a fuller explanation of the word itself (basically, it just means "scattering") at the article on Diaspora. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you trying to say exactly? I’m confused. Is that a misspelling? I am also interested in revising this article.Highflyingkitty (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Should North Africans be included in this article?

The term African diaspora is usually used to refer to people of sub-Saharan African descent outside of their native lands. However, in this article North Africans are included in the numbers for African diaspora in France, Italy and probably some of the other European countries as well. Thus, my question is if we should include North Africans in this article or not. Pastore Barracuda (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We should not. There was already a discussion here on what the African diaspora encompasses. In my opinion, these numbers should only include Black people of sub-Saharan African descent anywhere, including North Africa. Therefore, these numbers should be revised for France, Italy and Spain. Maxxies (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Lol, you guys are idiots and racist. North Africans are still Africans and this term should absolutely not be defined by skin color 2601:8C:981:A3C0:6883:6362:600:D7C5 (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not idiocy not racism. In Brazil for example, people of North African descent, mostly Moroccan Jewish, self identify and are identified as white. Therefore they are not considered Afro-Brazilians.

To give some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Pazuello

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Benayon_Sabba

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Benchimol Knoterification (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Data for Brazil

@Leo020304 and Slainek: You changed the data for Brazil, but the sources you gave don't contain information about the number of members of the African diaspora in Brazil. That's why I had to revert you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Genetic history

@Daniel Power of God: I deleted your recent addition of genetic history. It is based completely on primary sources (see WP:PSTS). An article should be based on secondary sources, because WP is not a repository of all kinds of lists, but should present information in a way that allows our readers to understand information in its context. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Alex Peters0707, Kenzieballantyne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

User @Belevalo: are persistently trying to change the information presented for Brazil in the infobox simply because they doesn't like how it appears, despite with verified sources - and the information being consistent with the map and the order of data by country. I have warned them several times, but they still keep on doing it. I asked him to seek a consensus, apparently they refused. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

infobox isn't for duplicating everything in the dedicated stats section. also, wiki image is a bad source also the notion that all pardos are of african descent is blatantly incorrect. Belevalo (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You see everything according to your own point of view. You don't care about what reliable sources are saying. I don't think that would work well with YOU as an editor in WP. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"we citizenship"

The article mentions "we citizenship". Is this a term that needs to be explained, or is it a typo? Pete unseth (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding New African Diaspora in Indonesian

Please, add new African diaspora in Indonesian (population total)! If all of you can do it. Hariman Muhammad (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Africa Dispora and their presence in the new world

Their Presence in the world today 102.90.43.233 (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

African Diaspora

It is not clear if the information in this section is factual as the source url does not work properly.--Mayor1704 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong article for 'Kush' link

In the subsection Dispersal through slave trade in the History section of this article, the 'Kush' link - in "Most Aithiopian slaves in the Greco-Roman world came from Kush (modern-day Sudan) ... [bold emphasis mine]" - takes users to the Kushan Empire article. The Kushan Empire was a polity in the Indian subcontinent, not modern-day Sudan as the quote claimed. The Kush article link needs to be changed to the correct article.

Thanks. Factthinker (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Brazil's afrodescendant population figure

The data for Brazil has been edited to keep consistency with the article to include multiracial afrodescendants as that is what is included in the UK and US' population. the US and UK's multiracial figures include people like Rebecca Hall who have biracial/black parents and she's not even 10% African in ancestry via her test results, so if someone like her counts for the mixed black population then why is Brazil suddenly different?

- Black and Pardo Brazilians have substantial African ancestry. White Brazilians, despite also largely being afrodescendants, were excluded from the population figure

- All Brazilian Pardos have significant African ancestry, even in states like Amazonas that have had historically less to do with slavery. The averag African ancestry is about 17%, such as seen here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3779230/

- I gave multiple sources showing that with the exception of first and second generation immigrants and showing across the board African ancestry is prominent

Please try not to use ethnocentrism about what quantifies someone as being an afrodescendant or not and be instead partial and fair. If you are going to include multiracial American and British figures in this article then do the same for Brazil Kyogul (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate my response

1. I have given plenty of sources, particularly in the notes section here, here, as well as other ones that correspond with what I said about Brazilian pardos having prominent African ancestry. All regions of Brazil basically have prominent African ancestry, even the ones where indigenous Brazilians are the most prominent such as in Amazonas where the average African ancestry is almost 1/5, as seen here.
2. The self identification of being mestiço/caboclo (indigenous+Portuguese ancestry) does not preclude someone of having African ancestry as seen in the sources above which are in depth genomic studies covering the entire region. It's also very disrespectful to erroneously dismiss the legitimacy of these sources, especially mislabelling peer reviewed collaborative efforts by multiple scientists and researchers as well as university-sponsored publications as simply being some blog articles written by "undergraduates"
3. I even specified in the notes distinguishing the amount of self-identified black Brazilians versus afrodescendants/pardo Brazilians. This is why we have notes. I also intentionally avoided including White Brazilians in the figure even though they also technically would apply, so no, I am not including people with merely "one percent of African ancestry" as I was erroneously accused of earlier. I also never ignored the census. Literally the Brazilian census board, as seen here, agrees that pardos are afrodescendants: ^{"Among the hypotheses to explain this trend [of black and mixed-race Brazilians now being the majority], one could highlight the valorisation of identity among Afro-descendants," Brazil's census board, the IBGE, said in its report."} So who's ignoring the census now, actually?

Again, if you have differing opinions, keep the talks in here and not the edit notes and please present your sources AND reasoning (not just the latter) if you disagree instead of giving emotionally-charged disagreements like the users @2804:6f80:c069:4e00:6568:8860:afa6:590b + @2804:6f80:c069:4e00:9587:f399:5777:c888. Thanks. Kyogul (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Not all Pardos have African ancestry. The majority does, not all. When you include all pardos as being part of the "African diaspora", you are doing original research. And genetic studies only show the "average" ancestry of a certain population, it does not testify that the whole population share the same ancestral components, which implies that not 100% of Pardos have African ancestry, particularly those who are of Caucasian/Amerindian admixture. Xuxo (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You're going to need sources for that because literally the Brazilian census has commented on it and disagrees with you. Kyogul (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

PT. 2

Brazil has some of the lowest amounts of indigenous people in all of the Americas--way less than the US, barely more than Canada, and in context of its huge population is basically one of the lowest amounts in all of the Americas, meaning the amount of Brazilians who are predominately~purely indigenous is extremely low. Also accompanied with the fact that the region where they are most prominent (basically certain areas in Amazonas) is extremely far away from where European migrants settled, let alone Portuguese settlers predominately settled, so the notion of widespread mestiços without African ancestry basically does not exist to begin with due to this fact as well as the fact that Brazil has some of the lowest amounts of peoples with overwhelming~pure indigenous ancestry.

Studies should show what you're talking about. If what you're saying is so true, statistics is compilation of data, meaning if what you said was true it would be reflected by the various data shown, including of indigenous regions of Brazil still showcasing prominent African ancestry. It's already been discussed as well that being mestiço doesn't preclude someone of having African ancestry but it very clearly implies the native mixture is much more prominent than the African one, as we see in the most indigenous state such as Amazonas.

If I'm also going to be pedantic, I can make accusations of casting doubt upon the black population of Brazil because of many historical and recent accounts of white Americans/non-black Americans passing for black for various reasons, such as the story of Clarence King doing it for love, in addition to modern ones like Rachel Dolezal and Vijay Chokal-Ingam doing it for personal reasons.

Again, back up your responses with resources instead of giving speculation with no sources that are unfounded. Wikipedia isn't a place to play devil's proof. I gave well over five sources that are all reliable and for it to just be invalidated just because of incredulity and you have no sources is pretty unprofessional. Until you provide sources, let's not do that erroneous edit again Kyogul (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Even though a significant part of Pardos people have some sub-Saharan African origin, there are still Pardos people who are Caboclos (European and Amerindian), when you put the number of 113.9 million Afro-Brazilians you are including all black people and all Pardo people as African descendants, literally ignoring the Caboclos.

There is no current source that accurately indicates how many Pardo people are Afro-descendants and how many are Caboclos, so it is not correct to simply assume that all of them are Afro-descendants, this is a subjective assumption.

Furthermore, not only Amazonas, states such as Pará, Roraima and Acre, the Pardo population has slightly more Amerindian DNA in its composition than African. Although in other states the Amerindian contribution is also important (Central-West and northern part of the Northeast region).

Finally, it is necessary to clarify that even in Pardo people, the portion of sub-Saharan African DNA is substantially lower than the European DNA (Iberian in the vast majority of cases), according to studies from several Brazilian universities. Placing these people as part of the African diaspora, even if they are 1/4 or even 1/3 sub-Saharan African, is a complex issue.

Putting the entire Pardo population together with self-declared black people as Afro-Brazilians is not honest. The Brazilian Census should be the sovereign source, and gives us the number of 20,656,458 Afro-Brazilians (10.2% of the population). This is the official number released by an official organization of the country, the rest is speculation. Accepting the number of Pardos+blacks, this article loses its reliability. Wikipedia should not be a place for subjectivity. Ohio Statein (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

1. As I said before, being mestiço/caboclo does not preclude someone of having African ancestry, it just means the Amerindian ancestry is relatively more prominent, and genetic studies from multiple sources say that.
2. Already discussed the demographics and migration patterns that pose people who are purely European+Indigenous as being very unlikely
3. If you don't have sources then the claim is baseless. Literally the IBGE which conducts Brazil's sources already considers Pardos to be afrodescendants
4. Amazonas was just one state, but other studies I linked also include the entire region. Again, if what you say is true, the data would reflect that. Statistics is just a compilation of realities. If mestiços without African ancestry in the North(east) were that common the data...would reflect that and it doesn't.
5. Being afrodescendant does not mean you have to be predominately African, and both in the template as well as notes it is clarified that the figure for Brazil includes multiracial people. Even in the US, being black does not mean being predominately African; historically it has ranged as low as being 1/32 or circa 3% classifying someone racially as being black
6. Before responding please read my responses next time because the IBGE already commented on how Pardos are part of the afrodescendant population in a response I wrote above. So why are you trying to question them when you already posed them as the final authority? In addition to the fact that you've had no sources so far?
7. As I said before, if the US and UK figures include multiracial people, then so will Brazil's. If you want to exclude multiracial figures for the US and UK then it is only fair to only include the 'preto'-identified population for Brazil.
8. You talk about subjectivity but...link no sources. I linked almost ten sources so far including from the IBGE but you're dismissing them because of your own biases and incredulity.

I am fine with objections, but it's a waste of time to entertain incredulous responses with absolutely no sources. If you are just going to theory craft and are devoid of any objectivity and want to dismiss any source I have including literally from the Brazilian census itself (IBGE) then I don't think you are in any authority to talk about subjectivity or in a position to edit the article without bias.

I will reiterate my point again, the IBGE (Brazilian census) has already commented about the trend of afro-descendants in Brazil (both pardo and black/preto brazilians) being the majority of the country now. And yet you are still questioning it but providing no sources. If you have no sources then there's nothing worth responding with Kyogul (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Kyogul The IBGE never said afro-descendants are majority in Brazil. This is a disruption from afro-centric media. From the official manual for the last census: "Ademais, o manual do IBGE deixa claro que se o entrevistado se declarar de cor ou raça "negra", o entrevistador não deve pressupor nem a classificação na categoria parda, nem a classificação na categoria preta, e sim insistir para que o entrevistado escolha uma das 5 categorias: "Explique que o IBGE usa apenas as 5 (cinco) categorias mencionadas, desde o Censo 1991, e peça que o informante escolha uma das opções. Jamais assuma que negra é preta ou parda".[1]

Kyogul, why do you keep reverting me, when I already provided a first-hand source from IBGE (Brazilian census) clarifying that Pardo shall not be confused with black? It seems you cannot read Portuguese, so I ask you to use google translator and stop edit-warring: "Furthermore, the IBGE manual makes it clear that if the interviewee declares himself to be of "negra" color or race, the interviewer should not press for classification in the "pardo" category, nor for classification in the "preta" category, but rather insist that the interviewee choose one of the 5 categories: "Explain that IBGE uses only the 5 (five) categories mentioned, since the 1991 Census, and ask the informant to choose one of them. Never assume that negra is preta or parda" Xuxo (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I read your response the first time, but the reply button was not available so I could not reply and it still is not available as you can see here. I'll reiterate my points for the nth time

1. I linked a source from The Guardian which gave commentary specifically from the IBGE about how "African-Brazilians"/afrodescendants are now the majority of the country and comments on the trend. The article says African-Brazilians are both black brazilians and pardos and so does the IBGE in the article. The Guardian is not afro-centric source. This is the third time you've been asked to read the article and you've refused to read it before shutting it down. The Guardian is a well-known and reliable international source of information, it is not afro-centric by any means.
2. What you linked doesn't contradict what I said since I never said that pardos classified themselves as black. African diaspora includes afrodescendants which includes multiracial people of African ancestry, and as I said before, if the multiracial population for the US, UK, Colombia, and more are included then it only makes sense for Brazil's to be included. If you think that is "sullying" the integrity of the article as you say, which makes sense to a degree, then that is fine but multiracial populations across the board should be excluded, not just for Brazil.
3. I already linked multiple genetic studies showcasing prevalent African ancestry across the entire country across racial classification including for self-identified black Brazilians, white Brazilians, and pardo Brazilians, in virtually every region.
4. You're misusing the word "fake". One, the source is very real. Two, the source comes from a university in Brazil, and you're using fallacies such as fallacy of composition by being pedantic about the wording. The statement was broad and is very clearly talking about people of colonial stock and says people of immigrant ancestry are the exception, which German Brazilians are not of colonial stock in Brazil and are relatively.

This is my last proposal with you. If you want to exclude multiracial populations from the article that is fine but you have to do it across the board for all countries rather than cherrypick which country's afrodescendants count or not. Elsewise start a dispute since you're being obstinate and you have a history of doing edit wars on Latin American articles based on your own ethnocentrism and incredulity. Kyogul (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1- Fake. The Guardian source cites IBGE, but nobody from IBGE is being interviewed there. By the way, I already posted a first-hand source from IBGE, the manual for the last census, which claim that Pardo should not be confused with the Black category. Nowehere in the source it claims that Pardos have African ancestry. By the way, all the genetic studies that you repeatedly cite show that Pardo Brazilians have an overwehlming majority of European ancestry, so to count them as "African diaspora" is just an American neo-colonialism trying to impose on Brazil their bizarre one-drop rule, which does not exist in Latin America or outside the U.S. The genetic studies you brought show that Brazilian Pardos have a majority of European ancestry, so they mostly cluster in a European diaspora subgroup, not African one.

2- The multiracial population for the US, UK, Colombia includes those with African ancestry, but what you're doing doing for Brazil is different, since you're trying to claim that 100% of Brazilian Pardos have African ancestry, ignoring the Caboclo population of Brazil. You show a complete ignorance of Brazilian history. Me and Ohio Statein already show you that many Brazilian Pardos do not have any African ancestry, so to conclude that 100% of them are part of the "African diaspora" is fake news.

3- Can you read English? All the genetic studies you brought show that European ancestry predominatez in all regions of Brazil, not African one. Brazilian Pardos are predominantly European, in all regions of Brazil, this is old new, since 2000 genetic studies show that. One of your sources: "In all regions studied, the European ancestry was predominant, with proportions ranging from 60.6% in the Northeast to 77.7% in the South."[2]

4- The source you brought is fake, since is stated that only first and second generation Brazilians do not have African or Amerindian ancestry, which is not true. Model Gisele Bundchen, for example, is 6th generation and all her ancestors were Germans. It is not that rare in the South.

5- I'm not trying to "exclude multiracial populations from the article". I'm just removing your fake news that 100% of Brazilian Pardos have African ancestry, which is not true, given Brazil's historical Caucasian/Amerindian mixed population, or that the "vast majority of White Brazilians have prominent African ancestry", when the given source does not even mention that. You manipulate genetic studies to make false conclusions: as I explained, genetic studies show the "mean" ancestry of a population, not that the whole population has that same "mean". If a population has a "mean" of 70% European, 20% African and 10% Amerindian ancestry, it does not mean everybody have the same percentages; some people will be 100% European, others 0% Xuxo (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1. For the love of all is holy, please stop erroneously using the word fake. Also, Your English is not good enough to try being snippy with me, particularly when you don't understand basic English words.
2. IBGE is an entity, not a person, therefore there is no specific person to be quoted, but the entity of IBGE was quoted in the Article. Your source also doesn't quote specific people; it quotes the entity/organisation of IBGE. You also lied about The Guardian being an "afro centric" source.
3. The census is for self identification, not genetic studies, so your source inherently is not going to say it but it did not say anything against it either. In my source it talked about pardos being part of the afrodescendant population when commenting elsewhere about trends of the Brazilian demographic
4. You don't understand the term afrodescendant. Everyone of African ancestry is an afrodescendant. Every black person is an afrodescendant. Not every afrodescendant, however, has to identify as black or actively identify as black. That is your misconception, therefore your accusation of me trying to apply the "one drop rule" is folly as I never classified pardo Brazilians as black. Black ≠ afrodescendant. That is your misconception. I even wrote that in the notes, and the fact that multiracial populations of UK, US, and Colombia are included also showcase that you can be multiracial and still be an afrodescendent. Afrodescendant merely means being of African descent, that does not mean someone is only of African descent. For multiracial people, their ancestry is not bimodal, it is all encompassing, meaning that they are European descendants, indigenous descendants, as well as African descendants all at the same time.
5. Being predominately European does not preclude someone of being an afrodescendant. If you bothered whatsoever to look at the studies, even self-identified pretos/black Brazilians are most often predominately European. This does not mean, however, that Brazil has no black people.
6. This Ohio person has not talked here nor shown anything, just as you haven't in terms of sources. As I said before also, being mestiço/caboclo does not preclude someone of having African ancestry, it just means the Amerindian ancestry is more prominent. Multiple genetic studies I've shown showcase this. You have none. For the nth time, back it up with studies or drop it
7. Gisele Bundchen is a white Brazilian and she is irrelevant to the conversation when talking about black and mixed-race Brazilians. Also being X generation doesn't preclude you from having recent immigrant ancestors either, i.e. you can have one great grandparent(s) who are recent immigrants in multiple generations.
8. Again, your English is too poor to actually understand what is being said here. I did not say you are trying to exclude multiracial populations, I was asking if you want to do that across the board to keep consistency. Because there is zero reason to cherrypick which countries get to have their multiracial populations included in the figures of afrodescendants or not. If you want to include people who identify as black only that is fair, but that means for every country it is excluding multiracial people.
9. You're arguing in bad faith, because I didn't manipulate anything. I just provided sources that back up my claims. You also didn't look at the studies because you're arguing about something it never talked about. The genetic studies are not of the overall genetic makeup of all residents regardless of racial identification, it does it for the three individual categories per state, such as average ancestry of self-identified white Brazilians, pardo Brazilians, and black Brazilians in various states or regions of Brazil. And focusing only on Pardo, you see significant African ancestry. There are no studies that back up your claims of huge cabuclo/mestiço populations where there are pardos with no African ancestry and only indigenous and African ancestry
10. Even if going based off of maternal haplogroups across the country alone such as from this study here, 28% of Brazil's population have maternal haplogroups, that's still over 60 million people. And not having an African haplogroup still doesn't preclude you from having African ancestry, either.
11. I'm not sure what your obsession is over white-washing Latin American demographics, but you have a history of doing this, such as in other threads where you were warned about it. This is a trend for you.

Your reading comprehension is poor, so I'm going to need you to re-read what I said multiple times until it clicks. I will reiterate my proposal one last time.

If you want the article to only include people who self identify as black, that is fair. But you must agree that you must exclude multiracial populations for other countries and the article should be exclusively for people who self identify as black only, not black in combination/multiracial with African ancestry. Kyogul (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Xuxo As @Mawer10 has said, you are forcing your views in the edits and therefore will continuously be reverted. You are doing bad faith misinterpretations of what the census says and cherry picking sources to fit your own narrative, as you've done in other articles related to Latin America

If you re-configure what the template says and take out multiracial populations for Colombia, US, and UK, then you can only include the 'preto' figure for Brazil. I'm not going to do it for you though, and if you continue with your current biased edits I will just undo them. I have more patience than you think.

This will be my last message to you. Cheers. Kyogul (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If any person with any drop of African ancestry is to be included, then millions of Latinos should be added to the figures of the United States. Where are they? Or is your one-drop rule only applied to Brazil? Because millions of Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Haitians, Colombians or Venezuelans in the USA have African ancestry, but only the figure for self-declared Blacks are on the article. So do not make false claims, only self-declared Blacks are in the figures for the US, meanwhile you're trying to include any non-white person of Brazil as part of the "African diaspora". Why is your agenda only towards Brazil? Xuxo (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm only responding to this because of the accusation, but I already had the vast majority of the sources for Brazil already so I knew where to look and therefore it was easier to edit. It would take time for me to search for reliable sources for other countries so I just stuck with what I was familiar with as I didn't feel like editing all of the countries. I thought about it though, but nothing specific to Brazil. Not responding to the drivel about the one drop rule and whatever as I already responded to that before.

Again, edit the other countries' figures to include black only and you get your wish. Elsewise your edits are going to be reverted. Not sure why you're being obstinate and not doing what I recommend. You get what you want, and I go away. Elsewise, I'm going to firmly stand right here. Kyogul (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I also did do it for the US too, in the notes if you checked it out (you didn't, though). So your accusations of bias are yet again, amongst other things you've done so far, folly. Kyogul (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You lie when you claim the figure for the USA includes any person with African ancestry, because that is not what the source said. Only self-declared blacks are there, but you wanna include any non-white as African diaspora for Brazil, not only self-declared blacks, ad for the USA. This is strange. I will have to revert you, unless you change the figure for the USA to include any person with African ancestry, the way you want it to be for Brazil. Xuxo (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"You lie" when I clearly have it in the note section where I include the figure for the few percentage of white americans with african ancestry...interesting.

Nothing more to say to you than this.

If you re-configure what the template says and take out multiracial populations for Colombia, US, and UK, then you can only include the 'preto' figure for Brazil.

Elsewise, good luck in your edit war. Kyogul (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about the template. It links to self-declared black people. Nothing about whited or Latinos with African ancestry. Or you add them to the total figure for the USA or I will keep reverting Brazil only for the figure of self-declared blacks, in par with the USA. Xuxo (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

1. The hyperlinks on the template were already there; I didn't edit the hyperlinks on the template because the format is too confusing and it can only be done manually and you can only link to one page. For example, the hyperlink for the UK only links to Black British and excludes the multiracial figure, but the sources add on to it to include the multiracial figure. France's page also does this too

2. There are no singular pages for certain countries like the US and Brazil to include Afrodescendants (afrodescendants =/= black) so I just left it as is. At best I thought about this page and forgot why I didn't include it

3. I wouldn't mind including the figure for white americans in the figure for the US, but for Latinos I wouldn't for a multitude of reasons. One, the overwhelming majority of them are Mexican and in the US there are two sets to consider: ones very recently from Mexico due to immigration, and the other who are multi-generational due to land acquisition from Mexico such as Tejanos and Chicanos. The latter group make a substantial portion of the Mexican-American population and many have intermarried with white Americans. Not only this but during colonial Mexico many Mexicans in the extreme northern territories were of solely Spanish descent, and so many of the multi-generational Mexican Americans are just Spanish rather than indigenous or mixed indigenous, so it makes the figure very ambiguous. For a similar reason I excluded including white Brazilians in the figure for Brazil, if you read the notes (you didn't).

Now, I can very easily edit the amount to include just white americans, but like I said above for a variety of reasons including Mexican-Americans in the figure is going to be not so smart Kyogul (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

And not acuse me of trying to white-wash Latin Americans. Just check my battle in White Mexicans. I,M against biased people. It seems you are the one trying to white wash the USA when you do not want to include Latinos of African ancestry in the figures for the USA, but started a crusade to include for Brazil any person who is non-white as part of the African diaspora. Xuxo (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, do not complain about my English, it is not my native language. And what about you? Can you speak any Portuguese? No, so look at youself in the mirror. Xuxo (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I know enough Portuguese to read sources! Why are you continuing this edit war and refusing to talk? You ask for other populations to include mixed-race populations but don't edit them yourself nor do you want to talk about how I even agreed to add it for the US. @Xuxo

Please stop the shenanigans. If you aren't going to contribute positively you need to stop the edit war, a war you won't win anyways Kyogul (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Xuxo: Brazil has by far the largest afro-descendant population outside of Africa, it would be extremely misleading to place Brazil in second place after the USA here. It is estimated that between 65 million and 120 million Brazilians are of African ancestry, see here. Just 65 million represent approximately 31% of Brazil's current population of 203 million. A 2011 study shows that if the category "pardo" (brown/mixed) were excluded and Brazilians had to choose between "preto" (black) and "branco" (white), 32% of Brazilians would identify as black. In 2010 the Brazilian Congress passed the Statute of Racial Equality, a law that considers pretos and pardos together as constituting Brazil's black[negra] population. The IBGE frequently lumps browns and blacks together in official analyses and reports, using the category "negros" to refer to the aggregated group. Many scholars and social scientists agree that the sum of census blacks and browns should be conceptualized and studied as a single collective, collapsing them together under the terms negro, Afro-Brazilian or Afro-descendant. See here.

“ By the United States definition of race descent, at least a third and perhaps half of Brazil's population of 115 million is black, giving the country the largest population of African descent in the Western Hemisphere. ” — The New York Times, 1978

A third of Brazil's population now would be 67 million people. Many media outlets and organizations considers pardos and pretos as the same or talk about them together, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mawer10 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kyogul: Where did the number 113,983,148 come from? I did a search and no reliable source came up. The sum of black and brown people using the 2022 census numbers is 112,739,744. Mawer10 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't use a direct source for the specific numbers, but I did for the percentage. It could be slightly off so your correction is fine Kyogul (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Brazilian Black population

@Torimem: Not all of the 92 million Brazilians who declare themselves as pardos in the census have African ancestry, that's true. But most do. I won't repeat the same arguments I've presented previously in this discussion. My proposal to resolve this impasse is to do as I did in the article on Jews: a minimum estimate of the number of Jews along with a maximum estimate. Mawer10 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

That's fine and I won't object as long as you provide a reliable source. Torimem (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The number of 55.9 million black Brazilians seems like a good maximum. When we add the 40% or 50% of pardo people who also identify as black or would identify as black in a binary racial questionnaire to the 20 million Brazilians who identify as pretos, the result is close to the estimate of 55.9 million presented in this source. Mawer10 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it is better to simply go with what the government says about pardos, in which it classifies them as afrodescendants. People who are half Japanese are not considered pardo, and being mestiço does not preclude one from having African ancestry either, it just means the indigenous proportion is higher than the African proportion, so it's best to not use personal interpretations and stick with what official sources say. The Charleston book linked has an unsubstantial figure for Brazil and I think it is a bit silly for a random book from an American with no citations on this particular bit to speak over what the Brazilian government says about its own country and its demographics.

There are obviously going to be exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't mean the general consensus that pardos are almost always afrodescendants isn't true. Likewise in the United States, many people, specifically indigenous americans were classified as black, specifically because of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This doesn't mean for the handful of indigenous people who are legally classified as black that we have to start doing personal interpretations of the black figure in the United States.

Again, the IBGE comments on pardos being classified as afrodescendants here and there are endless autosomal studies that affirm every region of Brazil, including the North which is the most indigenous where said mestiços are prevalent, has its pardos noticeable African ancestry. I added back the previous iteration to also keep consistently with the format Kyogul (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This source doesn't even say all pardos are "afrodescendants". Even if it did, a British newspapers is not a reliable source to talk about Brazilian racial topics. Xuxo (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The article clearly quotes the IBGE talking about how pretos annd pardos are labelled as afro-brazilians. The Guardian is also a generally reliable source but it literally is quoting the IBGE above all else which is what you ignored. Your source doesn't quote anything of the Brazilian government and has no citations that you've provided

As it stands now, a "British newspaper" that directly cites what the IBGE says is more reliable than a random book made by an American with zero citations and made up its own numbers. The figure will be changed back for the time being Kyogul (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is a final compilation of sources to regard on the matter, but first let's address:

- Should not need to be said, but afrodescendant =/= black. One can be an afrodescendant and not be classified as black. Very similarly to the Jewish diaspora, you can be of Jewish descent, be classified as part of the Jewish diaspora, and not self-identify as Jewish. Diaspora is not about what you self-identify with but particularly about your genetic descendants, and in the context of this topic it's about descendants of enslaved Africans from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade

- The nationality of a publication does not inherently affect its reliability if it is commenting on foreign matters, specifically if it is quoting said target country's authorities. In this case, the IBGE was quoted. In addition to this, the Guardian is regarded as a national sources. The Guardian was merely quoting what the IBGE, and other Brazilian sources, say, not making their own personal interpretations.

- Furthermore, you did not care about the nationality of the source when it came to lowering the Afro-Brazilian figure. In the case of the book Charleston and Savannah: The Rise, Fall, and Reinvention of Two Rival Cities, it both uses an unsubstantiated figure with no sources, but it is directly contradicted by the IBGE as well as other Brazilian sources. This inconsistency from you implies bad faith.

Now, in regards to the sources affirming the claim about the figure of Brazil's afrodescendant population being 45-50%~:

- Every genetic study shows that pardo Brazilians in every region have African ancestry, such as this. There is an endless amount more available already on Wikipedia pages about Brazilians.

- Being mestiço does not preclude one from having African ancestry, and as the genetic studies show all pardos have it. The identity of being mestiço simply means you have more indigenous ancestry than African and also relate to it more culturally.

- Minority Rights Group also attests to pardos and pretos being both classified as afrodescendant here.

- Reiterating the Guardian article here that says more or less the same thing as Minority Rights group.

- Last but not least, a Brazilian source from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) here specifically says that the overwhelming majority of pardo Brazilians are afrodescendant. Here is the quote:

"Os números mostram que 45,3% da população do país se declarara parda; 43,5% se declarara branca, 10,2%, preta, 0,8% indígena e 0,4% amarela. Na somatória, 56,7% dos brasileiros são não-brancos, desses, 55,5% são afrodescendentes."

So you now have your Brazilian source that affirms a British article so nationality is no longer an issue. This clearly states of the 56.7% Brazilians are non-white, and 55.5% Brazilians overall specifically are afrodescendants. This means 55.% of the population and is using both preto and almost all pardo figures. It should be noted half white half Japanese Brazilians are not socially seen or legally classified as pardo (as Asians are not brown, mixed or unmixed), and it also should be noted as well that there's a substantial number of pardo Brazilians who don't have any African ancestry is false and consistently contradicted by a plethora of sources, Brazilian and non-Brazilian. The quote very clearly says only 1.2% of non-white Brazilians at all are not afrodescendants, meaning the notion that mestiços without African ancestry being prevalent (such as the 12% figure) is unsubstantiated on multiple fronts (via genetic testing as well as by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics)

Any new information is up to debate, but so far it has been consistently showcased that virtually all pardo Brazilians are afrodescendant by multiple reliable sources, both Brazilian and non-Brazilian sources (in which quote Brazilian sources) as well as all genetic studies. Going forward I would recommend more objectivity in assessing the issue and double-checking the sources that are cited and also look for consistency in information.

Specifically to user @Xuxo I would calm down with erroneous reporting of vandalism when you have a history of it yourself, as well as I have affirmed my position in debate page with reliable sources. Your bad faith participation may be reported in the future if you continue with your agenda-pushing and belligerent behaviour

I will try to add some of the citations about this to clarify with quotes, particularly from the UFRN and Minority Rights Group Kyogul (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on one of my points about this source

The quote says _{"Os números mostram que 45,3% da população do país se declarara parda; 43,5% se declarara branca, 10,2%, preta, 0,8% indígena e 0,4% amarela. Na somatória, 56,7% dos brasileiros são não-brancos, desses, 55,5% são afrodescendentes."}

Just to clarify I made a slight perception error, but the gist of my point that pardos are classified as afrodescendant is the same. It says 56.7% of Brazilians are non white. 45.3% identify as pardo, 10.2 identify as preto/black. This means that 56.7% of non-white Brazilians - (45.3 pardos + 10.2 blacks) = 1.2% non-white Brazilians who are not afrodescendant, in which 0.8% of the entire Brazilian population classified themselves as indigenous, meaning 1.2% - 0.8% = 0.4% who classify themselves as non-white. The remainder is likely Asian-Brazilians as the figure specifically of Japanese Brazilians is about 0.4% of the population.

To reiterate, the quote is not saying 55.5% of the 56.7% of all Brazilians (which would equal about 32% of the Brazilian population). This is evidenced by the fact that the 55.5% figure is a direct sum of the preto and pardo figure (10.2 + 45.3 = 55.5), in which they specifically say 55.5% are afrodescendants. Kyogul (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

No. You're misinterpreting your own source and disregarding the discussion. Your very source states not all pardos are mixed with Black, and thus the inclusion of all 92 million people is incorrect.

"Na somatória, 56,7% dos brasileiros são não-brancos, desses, 55,5% são afrodescendentes".

Therefore, by doing simple maths you reach a number of approximately 62 million people.

Now let's analyze point by point:

• "Every genetic study shows that pardo Brazilians in every region have African ancestry, such as this. There is an endless amount more available already on Wikipedia pages about Brazilians."
  • Original research. You cannot derive the number of people from these sources, because they make no statement in this matter.
• "Being mestiço does not preclude one from having African ancestry, and as the genetic studies show all pardos have it. The identity of being mestiço simply means you have more indigenous ancestry than African and also relate to it more culturally".
  • Incorrect. This is your own conclusion. Genetic studies draw results from limited samples. You cannot make such a claim as "all pardos have it", especially when no source is given.
• "Minority Rights Group also attests to pardos and pretos being both classified as afrodescendant here".
  • Because they're misinterpreting IBGE. The institute classifies both groups as "negros", i.e. a skin colour, but does not state that all pardos are "afrodescendants". You can see the official definition here, p. 8: "4 - Parda. Para a pessoa que se declarar parda ou que se identifique com mistura de duas ou mais opções de cor ou raça, incluindo branca, preta, parda e indígena". Two or more. Two. Not three, not four, two or more.
• "Reiterating the Guardian article here that says more or less the same thing as Minority Rights group."
  • See above. Same thing.

Therefore. The only conclusion is that the inclusion of the 92 million figure is incorrect. Original research, false, etc.

Torimem (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• • No. You're misinterpreting your own source and disregarding the discussion. Your very source states not all pardos are mixed with Black, and thus the inclusion of all 92 million people is incorrect.

You're ignoring that 1) The figure of pardo Brazilians being classified as afrodescendant has been attested by other notable sources such as The Guardian (which quoted the IBGE talking about this, linked here before) as well as Minority Rights group saying the same thing, and 2) the figure for afrodescendant precisely adds up with the percentages of 55.5. 45.3% pardo + 10.2% preto = 55.5%. In addition to that, the way the sentence is written very clearly states that it is saying 55.5% of all Brazilians are afrodescendant as it was talking about all Brazilians. It is not talking about 55.5% of 56.

• • Original research. You cannot derive the number of people from these sources, because they make no statement in this matter.

Genetic studies are very much important to dismiss the notion that mestiços do not have African ancestry. Even in countries like Mexico and Peru which self-describe themselves as mestizo it is proven that virtually all Mexicans and Peruvians have African ancestry despite self-identifying as a mestizo country (to a degree).

• • Because they're misinterpreting IBGE. The institute classifies both groups as "negros", i.e. a skin colour, but does not state that all pardos are "afrodescendants". You can see the official definition here, p. 8: "4 - Parda. Para a pessoa que se declarar parda ou que se identifique com mistura de duas ou mais opções de cor ou raça, incluindo branca, preta, parda e indígena". Two or more. Two. Not three, not four, two or more.

You are actually the one misinterpreting here. Afrodescendant does not equal black, it simply means an African descendant. This is why, for example, the Dominican Republic is a predominately mixed country in which its mixed population are afrodescendants but they are not labelled as black. This is the case for Brazil, hence the division of self-identified blacks/pretos versus pardos or afrodescendants.

You're adding your own interpretations to sources that clearly state something otherwise, which is unfair and not the place to do this. This is not up to your personal interpretation to push a particular agenda. It's been three sources at this point that have clearly said from the IBGE, from Brazilian universities, and so forth, that pardo Brazilians are afrodescendant, and DNA tests also affirm this

Until you come back with reliable sources that showcase otherwise to prove your interpretation, it will be reverted back. This is not a playground for your personal interpretations Kyogul (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I would very much recommend, if you choose to come back to this article, to come back with sources that affirm your point, but your persistence of discrediting reputable sources that say X per your own incredulity and personal interpretation to have it say Y is misplaced. Your incredulity is not a source or authority

The sources I presented are kosher, even if you disregard the genetic study (which I did not add as a source to the article, might I add). Afrodescendant =/= black. One can be mixed, or even white, and be classified as an afrodescendant. It is very comparable to how someone can be part of the Jewish diaspora and not be classified, or identify as Jewish, but still have Jewish ancestry and be part of the diaspora ancestrally (which is what the article is about)

If you continue this behaviour, you will get reported for vandalism or agenda pushing. Come back with sources and not personal misinterpretations, please. Kyogul (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Kyogul, stop doing original research. Xuxo (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Please stop agenda pushing. You have no sources and are just belligerently participating Kyogul (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Mind you, the topic at hand I linked at least three credible sources, It's not original research. You're using the term in bad faith Kyogul (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Pardo Brazilian figure classifying as afrodescendants

I think there needs to be another clarification about the sources and the way to go forward with this

It seems to be agreed upon to include mixed people in the figure and to also separate them from self-identified black people, but there seems to be only targeting of Brazil

There first needs to be an established distinction between identifying as black (or preto) versus being afrodescendant. Afrodescendant is interpreted quite literally; it means being of African descent to whatever degree, which applies to mixed people. Pardo Brazilians have been tested thoroughly in every region, including in the north which is more predominately indigenous, to have bare minimum moderate (10%+) African ancestry by way of the slave trade from West and Central/Bantu African populations. Genetic studies are reliable to assert this notion

Furthermore, multiple sources attest that pardo Brazilians by and large are classified as afrodescendant, all hyperlinked in the previous topic. These all say the same thing: that pardo Brazilians, in context of ancestry, are considered of African descent, which is true. Saying someone is of African descent, again, does not inherently mean they identify as black. It is very comparable to how if this was a topic about the Portuguese diaspora, virtually all Brazilians would be classified as descendants

There seems to be incredulity about the figure of Brazilian afrodescendants amongst pardo Brazilians. Again, I've provided several sources, including that quotes the IBGE as well as another Brazilian source from the university, in addition to a consensus in genetic testing that consistently shows pardo Brazilians having prominent African ancestry in every region.

Mestiço, for one, is not a category in the Brazilian census, and second, personally identifying as mestiço does not preclude one from having African ancestry, as shown by the previous sources particularly the test (such as in the north of Brazil where indigenous ancestry is often twice as much if not more than African ancestry). Reminder that race in Brazil is based off of phenotype, so for many Northern Brazilians who would identify as mestiço it means they likely visually look indigenous as opposed to African, but phenotype =/= genotype.

Lastly, I would really recommend not adding personal interpretations to sources as it comes across as bad faith and really muddies the quality of the page. Any dispute is welcomed with reliable sources, but so far from the people who have objected to the pardo Brazilian figure (or Pardo brazilians in general being counted under the article), they come with no sources and are directly contradicted by the sources linked. The only source given was a uncredited book that wasn't peer reviewed from an American university (the Savannah book linked in the previous conversation) which had an unsubstantial figure and, again, uncited.

The page had peace for a while, but there have been multiple repeat offenders about this. Again, disagreements are welcomed and sources are imperative to almost every thing said here. Incredulity about the amount of afrodescendants are not enough -- you need reliable sources.

If you want to exclude mixed people from the article, that is fair. But for the longest time before, the United States and the UK were allowed to have mixed populations in their figure but not for Latin Americans despite sources bluntly stating the afrodescendant figure. You have to pick one; you cannot cherry pick which population gets to have it and which does not, and furthermore ignore a source erroneously, such as saying a source is unreliable because it's British (despite that source quoting the IBGE which was the source material of the article) Kyogul (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kyogul: I agree with you. I reiterate my proposal:

African diaspora

Regions with significant populations
Brazil	20,656,458–112,739,744
United States	41,104,200–46,936,733

The number 112 million (20,6 million pretos + 92 million pardos) is within the estimate of Brazilians with African ancestry.First, we put in the lead the number of people who self-identify as black and second the number of people who self-identify as black + the estimated number of people of African (and mixed) descent. For other countries where there is no official data, we will use the lower estimates alongside the higher estimates. I do not believe it is fair to exclude people of mixed heritage from the list as it may result in an underestimation of the number of black people. Furthermore, the quality of censuses and perceptions of race in different countries vary. Mawer10 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this somewhat kind of the same thing that's already on the page now though? On the current page, such as for Colombia, DR, Brazil, US, etc. we have the self-identified black figure first and the mixed population underneath. Perhaps I'm missing something; if you can clarify

The total absolute number of self-id black and mixed people can be specified in the notes section. What do you think?

Another suggestion I just thought of, as well, is to make a note about the meaning of afrodescendant on the top page just for clarification since it seems to cause so much confusion as people seem to be unaware that one can be afrodescendant/have major African ancestry but not identify as black, especially in the case of Latin America (and to a degree the US, as many mixed people with African ancestry have been prompted to identify as black even if they are predominately European) Kyogul (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The separation of the number of "pure" Afro-descendants/self-identified blacks from the number of mixed-race Afro-descendants in the infobox is a bit confusing. For example, while the U.S. census allows you to identify as black and mixed-race at the same time, the Brazilian census does not; so many Brazilians who identify as black may be mixed-race to some degree. Furthermore, this separation results in some countries being misplaced in the ranking. Costa Rica has more than 330,000 people of African descent, but it wrongly ranked due to the separation of the numbers of blacks and mixed. Putting the number of those who identify exclusively as black first next to the number of all Afro-descendants (mixed-race and "pure") follows the example of other articles, such as the one on Jews, and seems clearer. As for the notes section, I think it would be better to put the number of self-identified blacks and mixed-race people separately in the notes. In the Brazilian case, the note would explain that the sum of self-declared blacks and mixed-race people results in the maximum number of 112 million.Mawer10 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kyogul: A note about the meaning of Afro-descendant on the home page is a great idea. Mawer10 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Why do they continue to distort and erase the INDIGENOUS miscegenation of the Brazilian population?

In regions such as the North, part of the Northeast and the Midwest, the majority of mixed race people are of indigenous descent and have NO African genes.

A survey conducted last year by the biggest research institute in Brazil revealed that 60% of mixed race people do NOT consider themselves "black"

Link of survey: https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2024/11/24/datafolha-60percent-dos-pardos-nao-se-consideram-negros.ghtm Antifalsidade (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for clarification on what afrodescendant means

I suggested about a month ago to make a section to clarify what afrodescendant means as it confused many people who think afrodescendant = black when that is not the case. Some people still think that is the case. Here is my proposed section:

Title: Afrodescendant versus black classification

Content:

Self-identifying as Black refers to a personal, social, and political identity. It involves recognising oneself as belonging to the Black racial group, often shaped by experiences of racialisation, cultural heritage, and solidarity with the broader Black community. However, individuals of mixed heritage may choose not to identify as Black, even if they have African ancestry.

In contrast, being labelled as afrodescendant–literally meaning "a descendant of Africans"–is typically a demographic or genealogical classification. It refers to anyone with African ancestry, regardless of how they personally identify. A person may be mixed-race and not consider themselves Black due to cultural upbringing, appearance, or personal experience, but can still be classified as afrodescendant for purposes like census data, affirmative action, or historical recognition of African heritage.

The distinction between personal identification and ancestral classification is echoed across other diasporas:

• The Jewish diaspora includes individuals with Jewish ancestry–such as one Jewish grandparent–even if they do not practise Judaism or identify as Jewish. For example, Israel’s Law of Return grants rights based on descent, not personal or religious identity.
• The Chinese diaspora encompasses people in countries like Peru, the Philippines, or Thailand who may be partially Chinese but do not speak Chinese, practise Chinese customs, or self-identify as ethnically Chinese
• The Indian diaspora includes anyone of Indian origin. The Indian government tracks data on Overseas Indians, which includes anyone of Indian descent living abroad. This group is divided into Non-Resident Indians (NRIs)–Indian citizens living overseas–and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) who are foreign nationals with Indian ancestry. PIOs often include people in Southern Africa and the Caribbean descended from 19th-century Indian indentured labourers, many of which are mixed race. The Indian government has even classified Romani people as PIOs due to their ancestral migration from India to Europe between the 9th and 14th centuries.

In Latin America the term also functions this way, such as pardo Brazilians being classified as afrodescendant–or of African ancestry–but explicitly not black (preto) as per census

In all these cases, diasporic or ancestral labels are used to recognise lineage and historical connection, not necessarily present-day identity. Afrodescendant functions similarly: it marks ancestry, not how someone chooses to identify in daily life, in which mixed-race people such as pardo Brazilians or mixed Dominicans are of African ancestry, as well as others.

~

Please give any feedback and thoughts below Kyogul (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

So, I edited the article on the "African diaspora", because it omits the Brazilian racial concept and uses it the same way for all countries, each one having its own particularities.

If we follow this logic that ancestors count in the "diaspora" count, then would the same logic be applied to "white Brazilians"?? Adding up the declared whites and the mixed race, since every mixed race person is descended from a European

Even more so because many people from the Black Movement itself (the movement that started this idea that mixed race people and black people are "Afros") say that the valid thing is the phenotype and reject "ancestry", because many mixed race people in documents (birth certificates) are refused to use the quotas for "blacks" here

Also, in a recent survey from 2024, conducted by the largest research institute in Brazil (DATAFOLHA). 60% of mixed race people do NOT consider themselves "black" (Afros).

That's why I think that using mixed race people (mixed race people) as the diaspora gives an inaccurate and biased result.

I hope the moderation understands that generic information on a site like Wikipedia is something that should not be taken forward, for credibility's sake! Antifalsidade (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

A while ago I actually did include white Brazilians in the figure but it seems like this was not agreed upon and got removed. I also did something for the US in the notes section, it still might even be there. Even still for white Brazilians in particular I've only come across many two pieces of evidence that explicitly talks about African ancestry of white Brazilians, such as one in particular saying only about 25% of white Brazilians have less than 10% of African ancestry so I stopped mostly because there were less resources talking about that to showcase the point

If this was a topic about a Portuguese diaspora then basically all of Brazil would count yes, and subsequently a European diaspora. But it's about an African diaspora

Again, being afrodescendant is not the same as identifying as black as explained in my proposed section with other examples of other diasporas. Pardo Brazilians are a mixture of various ancestries and would count towards a multitude of diasporas, so saying they are afrodescendant in one context does not remove their relevance in another. Similarly, Brazilians commonly accept that Brazil has the largest Italian and Lebanese diaspora in the world despite the majority of the qualifying people only being of partial ancestry. Specifically with the Lebanese diaspora, only a minority would wholly identify as Lebanese; most are only partially Lebanese and do not actively identify as such or even know about it, but they still count towards the Lebanese diaspora for their ancestry Kyogul (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but I think it should be stated that "African diaspora" is different from being "black people". In the case of "Italian or Lebanese diaspora" they are not included in the count of "white Brazilians" Antifalsidade (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

That is why I want to add a section that makes the distinction so there is no confusion going forward but I'd like to hear at least a couple of other opinions too before adding it since I think it's a going to need its own section Kyogul (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Your proposal is great. Depending on the size of the text, it could just be a subsection of section "Concepts and definitions". Mawer10 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)