Talk:Black people and Mormonism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Leaders' positions are quoted here. What about the flock?

I may be biased (I'm attempting Good Faith here, so my intentions are good... I hope), but outside of the very generous Mormons that I've met here in Puerto Rico (either native Puerto Ricans or missionaries from abroad) and at Temple Square in Salt Lake City when I visited (extremely nice, I should add), at one time I had to interface with various members of the Church, whose ideas on multiculturalism were, uh, negative, to say the least. Two particular women that I met were brutally (and stupidly) racist. Somehow I sense that in Mormon culture, racism is a taboo topic. Of course, reporting on this on a Wiki topic is a NPOV minefield, but I sense that, somehow, the topic has to be addressed beyond what is official LDS church policy. Any comment? Demf 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I imagine there might be as many opinions among "the flock" as there are members of said flock. Racism is a very touchy topic everywhere in the United States. The LDS community is no exception. My own personal experience mirrors yours a bit.

• When I lived among Latter-day Saints abroad (Venezuela) I encountered almost no racism. The members were very proud of their "Lamanite" heritage, and very little if anything was said about blacks or the former policy of exclusion.
• On the other hand, I grew up in a Sundown town in Southwestern Lower Michigan. The Latter-day Saints there found the topic of racial exclusion very interesting and noteworthy and discussed it at length, presumably because it reinforced their own opinions that blacks should be kept separate from whites.
• I have also heard reports from North Carolina that no such nonsense exists among the members. All the hardcore racists left the Church in 1978, so the congregations there are the most integrated anywhere.
• While "Western" Saints are the most likely to keep their children home from camping trips if there is any chance they might share a tent with a black child.
• I also heard a story about a white high school student dating a black student. A fellow ward member asked another how she felt about that: she replied: "Fine, he's a member of the Church after all."

In short, I believe the answer to your question is an interesting one, well worth the time and energy of research, but I'm not aware of any research that has been done. I have only anecdotal hearsay, but if you find any comparative study of LDS racial opinions, I totally think that we should include it somehow.--ErinHowarth 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation

I would like to see more citation. I am reading Rough Stone Rolling, and there is a ton of great information there. I would like to see Joseph Smith's history with blacks cited and fleshed out more, particularly with their issues with local government, and how the church was basically neutral, and then had to present themselves as not supporting freedom for slaves, more for their own survival and peace with their neighbors. Remember, they were being forced out of their homes and their very survival depended on good ties with their non-mormon neighbors. Bytebear 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wherever you would like to see a citation, place a '''{{fact}}''' tag. The section on Joseph Smith is at Blacks and Mormonism. I think you've found it already. It's a mess. I think it has had many contributors and it needs a lot of clean up. It's completely disjointed. I started on such a project once, but I became overwhelmed. I, for one, would appreciate you're input. On the other hand, I reject the theory that the Saints adopted a racist policy in order to get along with their neighbors, in part, because it didn't work. They were not racists enough to get along with Missourians. I believe they remained true to their own feelings against slavery while simultaneously remaining true to their feelings of racial superiority. In other words, they didn't think that blacks should be slaves, but they were obviously inferior, very complicated, but there is good evidence to suggest that Joseph began maturing away from this position while he lived in Nauvoo. Also remember that a person could oppose both slavery and abolition at the same time. Abolition called for the immediate release of all slaves. This terrified many people who called for granting freedom to the slaves in a more orderly and gradual manner. -ErinHowarth 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I Removed the First Sentence

African Americans have long suffered from racist laws and policies in the United States.

I'm removing this sentence because it makes an unfounded and inappropriate connection between the United States and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No evidence is given that the church's policy was determined by popular policies in the United States or polices or laws of the United States government. Furthermore, the church's policy had a wider application than just the United States.

The connection is simply that fact the policy was established by citizens of the United States. Policy makers were victims of their own cultural upbringing. Although the policy was applied to persons outside the United States, they were a tiny minority. It was the growth of this minority which directly lead to the appeal of this policy. -ErinHowarth 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the sentence that has been removed is valuable and does make an appropriate connection between the US socio-political climate and the LDS, a point repeated made by Mormons commenting on their former anti-black position. It makes very clear the 1978 decision as being part of the evolution of the church in keeping up with the times and society at large and actually places the LDS in the mainstream of American culture and religious thought. Doghouse Reilly 15 January 2007

Joseph Smith

I'll tell you where this all stems from. Joseph Smith was given a revelation to not let the "Blacks" have the priesthood. He then told the Church this and gave no supporting explanation other than "thus saith the Lord." The general membership and many of the leadership have tried over the years to back it up with some scriptural reference giving rise to the lame Cain & Ham theories. The truth is the people were weak and could not handle the higher law and God gave them a lesser law. When the people as a whole could handle the higher law the lesser law was repealed. --Evan Davis 23:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I quite disagree. The evidence that Joseph Smith ever taught anything concerning restricting blacks from the priesthood is highly suspect. Many people claimed to have learned the doctrine from Joseph, but none of their recollections are contemporary. In contrast, we know that Joseph personally laid his hands on the head of Elijah Abel (a black man and former slave) and ordained him to the office of Elder. I firmly believe this all came from Brigham, from his own understanding of the scriptures, without any revelation at all.-ErinHowarth 07:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalists is the wrong term

Fundamentalist is a term used for a particular kind of biblical exegesis, and is rooted heavily in the debate with modernism, it is absolutely the wrong word to use for the "Southern fundamentalists", as it is for any group that existed before the 1920s. I suggest finding another, more accurate word. Demagogues? Conservatives? Anyway, "Fundamentalism" didn't exist yet. Also, if you're tempted to use evangelical, I would also guess that is again absolutely the wrong word (and they are not nearly synonymous).

Question of objectivity?

The way much of the piece reads, it seems to be from the POV of believers in the Mormon faith. I wonder why it is segregated from the main article Blacks and Mormonism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doghouse Reilly, Esq. (talk • contribs) 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

P.S Didn't know you could sign your comments. And on a little reflection, I toned down my rhetoric as the article, written from a friendly, compassionate tone, did get me to thinking ahout the issues in a clearer way.-- Doghouse

You can sign and date stamp your signatures by typing four tildes like this ~~~~.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only one denomination of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. Other sects have had a very differing view of Blacks over time. Thus this article should provide a much broader view into the LDS church's views on blacks over their 180 year history. I think the article is supposed to read that there was a ban from about 1848-1978, but church leaders knew it was temporary. Most leaders taught that the ban would one day be lifted - whereas other denomoniations (baptist, penecostal, etc) that belived in the "curse of ham" or "curse of cain" believed that the curse was permannet. This is an imporant distinction as most would natually assume the permanency, not the temporary nature told by church leaders. The article no doubt needs work. -Visorstuff 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph is very POV. Someone should edit it to reflect that this is the Mormon philosophy on the previous stance regarding black priests so that it doesn't seem like Wikipedia is interpreting why God allowed these things etc. etc. 69.136.61.68 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I entered the second paragraph. It is the actual belief of the Church and fits with all established doctrine. I would like to leave it there, but I agree with your last statement and I am unsure at this point in how to best objectify it. I made a quick fix and would appreciate help. --Evan Davis 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No Mention of Genesis Group?

I wonder if it would be appropriate to mention the formation of the Genesis Group, as it was a response by the First Presidency to assess and address the needs of black members of the church? Nhansen 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't wonder. I know that it would be appropriate to mention the group. It seems this article is mostly about blacks and the priesthood, rather than blacks and the church. There is very little information about blacks in the church after the 1978 revelation, such as the growth in Africa, conversion of Gladys Knight, or how many blacks are in the church now.Joshuajohanson 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Another revelation account

It's interesting to me that the 1978 revelation accounts and McKay dealings keep get edited out of this article. Rather than introducing yet another version of the revelation that will undoubtedly get removed, i'll place it here.

On June 1, 1978, at a regular temple meeting of the general authorities, Kimball asked the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve to stay for a private conference. In a spirit of fasting and prayer, they formed a prayer circle. Kimball opened by saying he felt impressed to pray to the Lord and asked their permission to be “mouth.” He went to the altar. Those in attendance said that as he began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized it was not Kimball’s prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord’s. During that prayer some of the Twelve - at least two have said so publicly - were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former president of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. Others acknowledged the voice of the Lord coming, as with the prophet Elijah, “through the still, small voice.” The voice of the Spirit followed their earnest search for wisdom and understanding. At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the quorum members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God-an ineffable experience. Two of the apostles present described the experience as a “day of Pentecost” similar to the one in Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest singular event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God. (Adventures of a Church Historian. Leonard J Arrington Pages 176-177

-Visorstuff 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's great stuff. I've never read that before. I wonder if it would be appropriate to add it to WikiQuote. -ErinHowarth 07:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research

In addition to only presenting one view as to why the blacks received the priesthood, this article makes other NPOV comments, like "Church policy was not arbitrarily racist but African Americans actually deserved this restricted status as a result of their lack of faithfulness before birth." It also makes many sweeping generalizations about "why" leaders made the choices they did. For example, it says "Church leaders needed something else to justify priesthood restriction", "Brigham Young saw no need to go beyond the cursed genealogies", and Joseph statements about blacks were made "in an attempt to correct the misunderstanding." How do we know why they did and said what they did? If some historians view those are the reasons, then it should be expressed as the historians viewpoint, especially when the church makes claims to the contrary. For example, it says "Joseph Smith was easily and repeatedly referred to as the author of many statements, which had actually been made by Brigham Young." If the church refers to Joseph Smith as the author, but another says it was made by Brigham Young, why do we assume the other source is right. Also, an inordinate amount of time is spent on the priesthood, and not enough on civil rights and current viewpoints.Joshuajohanson 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel you should be bold in deleting anything that resembles original research. We should not put words in the mouths of any church's leaders; rather we use quotes from qualified references. If there is a dispute providing quotes from various perspectives is desired. I would also say that I never favor looking at history through the perspective of today. IMHO, I have always found that to be hypocritical. In doing so we attempt to judge individuals by standards unheard of and/or unexpected in their day. Civil rights was not a topic of the 1830's and did not become a real issue in US society until the mid 1900's. Current standards mean nothing to history; it is a cloudy lense in which to review the actions of historical figures. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, in as far as I infer from the above that you are arguing for humility in the evaluation of the actions of others from a different place and time, I would agree with such a sentiment. However, your statement seems to imply that there is some neural lens from which to view history. But history's are themselves historical, and subject to revision so no clear vision is possible. If human history is the interaction between ideology, practice and consequences (whether divine or mundane) then we can and should as moral, rational beings, concern ourselves with the said history from the only perspective we have, which is the one we each occupy. This does not negate the need to also attempt to understand the perspective of others from another place and time, but we should not assume that we can ever do so accurately, and in fact we imagine their perspective from our own. It best we can edit this article in a way that minimizes the bias we each bring to it, in as far are we are able to be conscientious in our inevitable disagreements.--Betamod 07:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

In my humble opinion, this article (in today's version, at least) is probably as neutral in content as it would be possible to make it. I am a member of the LDS Church, so I see the issue from the inside, but I also have some experience outside Church circles on this topic, and the article seems to be reaching to both areas. Therefore (again IMHO) I have deleted the POV question (for now). I hope that is not too offensive for y'all Raymondwinn 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not yet . . .

I disagree with the above statement. The question of POV neutrality is always an open one, and there is no good reason to be satisfied about POV neutrality as this can only ever lead to POV bias. In my humble opinion I do not think this article reflects a neutral POV at all. Rather, it seems to reflect its authors’ lack of understanding of the issue of racism, and its historical and sociological consequences. It reads like a very long apology for the racist ideology and systematically racist practices present in the LDS Church from its infancy, and uses somewhat weasel-ly wording to obscure this.

In discussing the evolution of LDS theology, practices and relation to black people it does not make the article more POV neutral or balanced to show that some black LDS members accepted their inferior position to white members to one degree or another. The present article muddies a clear understanding of the theological and ideological foundations of church practices by constantly, and it would seem, defensively inserting anecdotes about how happy some black members were in the church despite the racism they experienced within it. The problem with anecdotal evidence, especially of such slim proportions, is that it can not but paint a biased picture since it gives no clear picture of the wider sociological dimension of the relationship between “Blacks and The Church” in general.

I would point out this article is not "Some blacks who liked being in the LDS church despite its history of racism", but "Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". That implies a relationship between black people in general and the LDS church in general the inserted anecdotes about happy black church members, at best, merely obfuscates.

For instance, this article does not address the impact that the LDS's racist policies had on conduct of church members towards black people within regions and institutions controlled or influenced by church members. It does not deal with how LDS ideology about race has impacted US domestic or foreign policy or the LDS's participation therein, which would be far more relevant to the topic of this article than anecdotes about a handful of black LDS members who did not mind being discriminated against by their own church brethren.

The anecdotes may have relevance but should perhaps be in a section about prominent or notable black LDS members of the church. However, as for dealing with LDS’ relationship to black people, in as far is its ideology and practices intertwined historically (i.e. where the rubber meats the road), this article is woefully inadequate, if not downright misleading in its present state. --Betamod 07:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article would, in theory, benefit by adding some information on many of the areas you identify, and it would be helpful if someone with some high-level knowledge of this topic could work on it. (Someone from the leadership of the Genesis Group, for example.) The problem is that adding some of the topics or areas of focus you suggest (and thereby going beyond mere anecdotes) will almost surely run afoul WP:OR, simply because there is a woeful lack of information about this topic that goes beyond the anecdotes that you revile. If anyone could prove otherwise, I'd be glad to see it, but I wouldn't hold your breath. WP can only reflect the material that is already available, and right now the material is heavy on anecdotes and short on analysis.

Part of the problem is surely the strong POV of almost all available sources. Materials are almost always strongly apologetic or strongly anti-LDS Church. Neither view captures what WP looks for, leading to a real lack of quality sources we can use on this topic. –SESmith 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

SESmith, I think the personal faith of black LDS members is worthy of respect, empathy and understanding, like any complex human being. I do not so much revile the anecdotes as I think they are patronizing to African Americans, LDS members or otherwise and reveal an irresponsible naivety regarding the issue of racism in the less than neutral POV of the article. I mean to say that I wince when I read this article, as in "ooh yuck".

But anyway, If as you say, "the problem is surely the strong POV of almost all available sources" then at the very least this could be made explicit in the article. It is certainly implicitly clear to someone who is reading the article critically. However, though I do not pretend to be particularly knowledgeable about this subject, I am not sure that it is correct that there is no source material to support covering the topics I have pointed out as being relevant to the topic. One might for instance start by paying a bit more attention to legislative history within the state and municipalities of Utah, where LDS members were in the majority, as said law pertained to the treatment of African Americans. One might examine the record of LDS members who have held legislative seats. One might look at socioeconomic data. If you only look at church literature, then you only get church POV. I am sure that sociologists and pollsters have created a mountain of data and analysis that would be relevant here. Though I am not sure how much time I have to hunt for said material, I will keep this page on my watch list and maybe get back to you on it.--Betamod 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My part about you "reviling" the anecdotes probably didn't come out right. I understood what you were saying and I didn't mean to suggest that your views were wrong, as I basically agreed with your points. I too wish I could substantively improve the article but I just feel like I don't have the knowledge of where to look appropriate material. –SESmith 08:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be very surprised to learn that LDS ideology about race has impacted US domestic or foreign policy in the least. The LDS have elected a few senators, but they simply do not represent an influential political force. However, I completely agree with the criticism that the article emphasizes black members of the Church who made peace with the racist policy of priesthood restriction. Blacks who did not make peace with the policy did not become members, but their story is also significant to the scope of this article. Even more so, I think are the stories of all the white missionaries who went out into the world and focused all of their efforts on finding and teaching white families rather than black families. Sadly, many have noticed that this trend continues today. I suspect that it has more to do with negative media stereotypes than old church policies, but in the right setting, you can still hear young people attempt to explain the old policy with the same old racists rhetoric, and that's not okay. -ErinHowarth 07:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whuh?

This paragraph requires editing:

In his 'Journal of Discourses' [Young] even claims that "If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain (those with dark skin), the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." But this statement should be viewed in the appropriate context. It was given during a sermon in which Young was coming down on the political machine in Washington.

How in the world does the "proper context" that it was given during a sermon where Young was attacking the political machine in Washington mitigate the explicitly racist condemnation of miscegenation as being worthy of death? Obviously, the statements given later in which Young attacks slavery are relevant context, but I fail to see what attacking Washington has to do with this statement. john k 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what the paragraph is getting at. Whenever this quote is referred to as being used "out of context", the type of arguments made is more usually something along the lines outlined HERE. –SESmith 05:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes a lot more sense (although it is, of course, the Mormon POV on the matter, and should be taken as such, and not as the "correct" explanation of Young's statement). john k 06:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

John, it sounds like you are proposing that a scholar with a LDS background is not the ideal candidate to interpret what a Mormon believes. Do I understand your position accurately? If not a Mormon, who is best, qualified to state or clarify the beliefs of Mormons? This position is progressively getting on weaker ground. It almost sounds as if you are saying the "correct" version is what others, presumably non-LDS people, would say LDS believe. I cannot speak too strongly in this situation, but I reject completely any notion that a non-Mormon will always provide the "correct" interpretation of beliefs, context, or thought. I wonder if it is best that a Southern Baptist should always be the one to interpret beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church or that a Christian defines Islam or a Muslim to define Buddhism. If we are going to take snippets of statements out of the words of individuals throughout history, I suspect that we can make Hitler to sound like a saint, and St. Augustine to sound like a beast. Understanding context is the only method known to understanding both meaning and intent. Ignoring context is purposely seeking to not be bothered with facts because one's POV is of primary importance; we call this situation a closed mind. That is a scary position indeed. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think John was merely suggesting that what was written in the link I provided him was clearly an apologist position, which does carry a certain level of POV to it and would not be ideal information to include in WP as the necessarily "correct" interpretation of Young's statement. (It's from an apologist website, after all.) There is more than one way of interpreting the context of Young's speech, and Mormons—while they can believe what they choose and take any position they wish—they have no exclusivity to their history or to the interpretation of it. The very nature of NPOV is that there's two sides to every story, and only presenting one side would clearly by POV. I apologize to John for speaking for him if this is not what he meant. –SESmith 07:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more or less what I meant, yes. john k 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am reminded of the analogy that we do not learn to make bread by asking the butcher how it is done. Rather, we go to the baker, the woman who knows, and ask for an explanation. Apologists and critics all have a POV and I agree that this fact needs to be acknowledged. The victors often wrote history. NPOV, I believe, is often stretched to include all kinds of things. In religious articles it is the necessity of including the ideas of nonmembers of the respective religion. I have always found that to be a farce. In religion, it is a matter of faith; to say that others don't believe it is a given and is therefore redundant. I am not advocating that comparative religion topics are redundant, to the contrary I think they are vital, but other topics enter to religious conversation that simply parade as NPOV. There is a difference between an historical fact and interpretations of those same historical facts. I believe where the conflict arises in this situation is what was the LDS church's motivation for at one time ordaining blacks to priesthood and then ceasing to ordain blacks. Some leaders and individuals have proffered ideas, but that does not mean that their ideas were church doctrine. In this topic I see no problem including a reputable source that attempts to interpret the position of the LDS church and by calling it racist. I suspect that some LDS leaders were racist by today's standards. The difficulty seems to be able to distinguish between the church and its members. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes--is the article Blacks and the LDS Church or Blacks and Brigham Young? The articles might be very different. I'll shut up now and let JK speak for himself. –SESmith 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not, of course, whether non-Mormons believe Mormon doctrines. Obviously it is silly to waste time saying that they do not (although, of course, it is worthwhile to note ways in which Mormon beliefs differ from and are similar to beliefs of other religious groups). But Mormons' interpretation of their own history is a different matter entirely. When it comes to matters of history, however, while apologetic viewpoints should of course be explored if they are significant, the major basis should be from the work of nonsectarian, mainstream academic scholarship, insofar as this exists on the subjects. This is, in fact, one of wikipedia's great weaknesses, in that articles on religion tend to be written by the faithful, who often see little need for such sources. Anyway, my main concern here, for the moment, is still this very strange paragraph, which I'm going to try to edit. john k 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a miserable failure. I have no idea how to rewrite the paragraph in a sensible way. It seems to me that the key issues are as such: a) Young condemned miscegenation in a speech in which he also condemned slavery; b) condemnation of miscegenation was, in fact, at that time very commonly done in tandem with condemnations of slavery, because the slave system, where slave women were often raped by white men, was seen to condone and lead to miscegenation. That Young condemned miscegenation is hardly surprising - condemnation of miscegenation among whites was almost universal (except when they were actually practicing it). That he did so at the same time that he was attacking slavery is also not surprising - both opponents and supporters of slavery condemned miscegenation. The policy expressed by Young's statement would pretty clearly be seen as racist by today's standards, but it was not racist in any exceptional way - it was racist in the way pretty much every white person in the 19th century was racist. I'd like to basically say this in the article, but I'm not sure the best way. john k 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When I am going to make a controversial edit such as this one, I would do something like the following.

1. Quote the statement of interest (if it is too long, reference it, but summarize the event/statement)
2. Quote a reputable scholar/source that interprets the importance or meaning of the event/statement.
3. Add supporting statements from other scholars if necessary.
4. Add opposing positions or interpretations from other reputable sources.

John, you might also draft the proposal language you are looking for and add it to a discussion page. That is done quite often for new proposals in articles that have been around a while. Often times just working with other editor's yields better word choices. Try it here first and then I am sure several editors will be more than happy to assist you. As you gain more confidence you will find yourself being more comfortable editing the article and then just explaining your edit on the talk page. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation

What's the tag for "this whole article has few to no sources whatsoever, and needs some since none of the information in it is the official view of the Church nor of any BYU history professors...?"  ;) Naw, really, I'd like to see a million sources for precisely that reason--there are a lot of statements made here that really cannot be believed outside of their being heavily sourced. I mean, as far as I've always been taught all the arguments for why black people didn't get the priesthood were intellectual arguments made by secondary commentators, and need to be presented as such. And for that matter, wasn't it all people of African descent, not black people. I.e. didn't it include the 30% of Africans that are not black? --Mrcolj 13:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)