Talk:Africans of European Descent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Big Problem with the statistic of CIA.
A french can be black or brown...so when you read 20.000 french people in Gabon, it does'nt mean 20.000 White, but 20.000 french people...
Sorry you are wrong, when they say French it means White French in this context, not people of French nationality.
No, it's doesn't mean that, i live in Congo, and i m mixed, for the statistic, i m french, cause i ve the nationality, cause my father is french, so you are totally wrong.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephabradshaw (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No Arabs?
===>No Arabs? Why aren't Arabs included in this article, as they are Semites, and consequently white people? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Beacause Arabs are not white!!! Arabs = people from Arabia or most muslims in the Middel East. Christains in the Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, and most of the Middel East excluding Arabia would be included as they have no Arab blood because Arabs were killed if they turned to Christianity because of Islamic law. Arabs may be of the Caucasian race but they are not accepted as white. Unless you confusingly were to count the christians as Arabs, which they are NOT!!!
The arab question is a very relative matter. In the U.S., Arabs are legally defined as white people, but this may differ from country to country.
WTF? Now even the Arabs want to pass as white!!! In Southern Europe, where the whites have dark hair, tanned skin and are considered by some Nordicists as non whites, the white people there called the Arabs and Berbers Moros/Mouros from the Latin, meaning black.
Arabs were never white and you will never be! Also, it is difficult to classify any muslim as white. White does not equal Caucasian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] To the poster above
Are you dumb? The idea of Arabs being called White clearly stirred a nerve in you. You typed it like a junior high girl types gossip over e-mail. I'm not Arab and even I think you're an idiot. Caucasian is sufficient enough to be called white. People who call themselves Arabs, run a range of blonde hair (ever seen the picture of the blonde haired, blue eyed crying Palestinian girl?) to essentially black (the Arabs of Sudan for example). It's a matter of what to call each sub-group. Second - Christianity is older than Islam, there were Arab Christian tribes before there were Arab Muslim tribes. Sure Arabs nowadays may be killed for converting, but you happily neglect Arab Christians who have been Christians for centuries. (More Arab Christians were killed in the Crusades than Arab Muslims because the genius crusaders - of your similar low intellect level - thought skin color was an indication of religion.)
And yeah, Arabs and Turks are technically categorized as White in the United States.
" * Beacause Arabs are not white!!! Arabs = people from Arabia or most muslims in the Middel East. Christains in the Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, and most of the Middel East excluding Arabia would be included as they have no Arab blood because Arabs were killed if they turned to Christianity because of Islamic law. Arabs may be of the Caucasian race but they are not accepted as white. Unless you confusingly were to count the christians as Arabs, which they are NOT!!!"
- thats a dumb answer, to put it simply. Another way to put it would be bigoted.
It is a good question and one which should be examined further I think. Perhaps one should refer to the debate on the Wiki entry for 'white person' for some insight into an answer. For the time being it seems to mean White Europeans, although many African countries do have small Lebanese populations which are often referred to as white, largely because they have assimilated into larger white society in countries like South Africa. In country without a significant white community, I can't say. Either way, asking why Arabs aren't included is a good question. --Discott 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
To the guy who said that Arabs are white because they are Caucasian: Are you stupid or what!!! Etihopians and Indians are Caucasian too! And the vast majority f Indans are not white! They are essencially Dravidian peoples. Only a tiny minority of Indians who have their Indo European blood relativeley pure can be considered as white. Concearning Ethiopians, yes they are white, no doubt! Also, you speak of a Palestinian blond girl. Ok, one!!! So, don't you know that there were many Europeans or Indo European groups in that region? Mmany Christian Lebanese and some costal Syrians would pass as white. Few Palestinians would. Also, blond hair is a childish trait, it goes way wth age. According to antropologists, 98% of German(ic) children have blond hair when they are young. Even in Southern Europe, in oplacs like the Iberian Peninsula where blond hair in adulthood is rare (some 10%), 25% of the children have blond hair when they are young. Also, being white is belonging to a cultural sphere as much as to a biological sphere and Palestinians don't belong to neither of them. The same to Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] uhmSzyeah<3
this article is cute and all, but why isn't there a Black African one i wonder?
There is one about Black people in Europe.
- Well, there isn't a "White European" article either. -LtNOWIS 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
I added the infobox today, with population figures from the individual countries' articles and the CIA World Factbook. Since many of the figures differ, I put down the upper and lower ranges given. DBQer 02:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- They are not an ethnic group or a nation. Get rid of it. michael talk 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is WP:OR, which verges on White supremacism (as if pieds-noirs belonged to the same "ethnic group" as Boers - this is ridiculous!). Lapaz 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, White supremacism? An infobox? How, exactly? I merely put the numbers that were listed later on in the article into an infobox, checking their agreement with the individual articles and the CIA factbook. If you look at different ethnic groups, they all use the infobox format. I am putting the infobox back in until someone can give some sort of justification as to why it should be removed. Also the "French people in Africa" section was removed w/o discussion. I am returning that as well. DBQer 02:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Despite the Boers and the Pied Noirs are not the same ethnic group, they have more in common with each other than with any other Afric group. Whites meingle to form a European ethnicity, the White Africans, independent of their European differences. It is what happened in America too, you moron!
[edit] Black African Bias
This article, despite what has been said earlier on in this talk page, is bordering on a Black African bias, the most insulting example of which is the new title. Last time I checked, this was located at the page White African. Unfortunately, some politically incorrect idiot moved it to "European African". As a White Zimbabwean (living in America, unwillingly and unfortunately), this is highly insulting and both factually and politically incorrect. We are called "White Africans", not "European Africans".
My own ancestry, while admittedly is ultimately drawn from Europe (Britain and the Netherlands), is directly linked to two places: South Africa and Australia. At the first post-majority rule census, my family and I marked out where they had defined us as "White" and put "African". We have been in Africa for hundreds of years (my own family can trace our ancesry in Africa since 1652). I've only been to Europe once, but you're labelling me as a European simply because of the colour of my skin. It's outrageous and racist!
Actually, I agree. William Reynolds 20:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The community decendend from South Asia in Southern Africa are classified as Indian Africans not Brown Africans so I don't see the problem with European African. It is merely stating an African of European origin just as Indian African is African of Indian Origin. In that case is the term African American offensive and racist to some people ?172.200.118.54 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You stupid white Africans! Have you already wonder why you are white? Maybe it is because you are of European descent and thus you are not Africans, you are Europeans living in Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"You stupid white Africans! Have you already wonder why you are white? Maybe it is because you are of European descent and thus you are not Africans, you are Europeans living in Africa." Firstly, there is no need for the insults, they only act to reduce peoples respect for you and your argument (as well as needlessly annoy people). Secondly, not all "White Africans" come from Europe, some people who are considered White Africans also come from Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Albania. None of these countries, except perhaps Turkey, are in Europe. --Discott (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disgusting, shame on you, grow up
I'm not black or white...but look at the disgusting White African bias here "tens of thousands driven off their lands and property"
You're either evil, out of your mind, or both. It was never their property - how dare colonizers, imperialists, murderers, thieves, rapists, and racists refer to that as "their property" and "their lands"? Sure the killings were unnecessary and rather tragic, but then again, they reaped what they sowed, and I guess you could say the native Africans learned by the superb EUROPEAN example.
Consider it stolen property being confiscated from the thieves.
Cecil Rhodes' "vision" came to an end? What was his vision? "I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race."
That was his vision? A vision of inequality and slavery. Whoever wrote this, and whoever agrees with this, shame on you, you're disgusting, you deserved whatever you got, boohoo your family had their illegally occupied farm taken away? Cry me a river.
May God have mercy on your butchering, thieving souls, the lot of you! (Or your ancestors souls I guess?) (The Bible teaches equality doesn't it?)
^ Many you are stupid. If thats what you perceive you have some problems, man.
Where on earth did the above bigoted comment come from? I fail to see how this entry is relevant to this article in any way. Please remove it or explain how it is relevant or I will remove it my self. --Discott 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe that me and my ancestors are being called Racist Bigots, While sadly I cannot say this of other European countries, Britain was the first country IN THE WORLD to abolish slavery, I believe that the blacks ruling Africa now have made a total mess of it, when Ian Smith was the Prime Minister of Rhodesia there was no poverty, the government wasn't demolishing peoples houses because they didn't like them, Mugabe is the devil incarnate (most of the white Rhodesians have had to flee to avoid his regime of opression) Life for the average African has not improved in any way, they might not have had a vote or freedom in some cases, but the same is true now, most of the 'Democratic' countries in Africa are as bent as a Nine-bob note. and when the British ran Kenya people didn't blow up churches full of children..... --User:GeorgeFormby1
- Comment on the preceding. From the tone of your comments, I can belive that people call YOU a racist bigot. But get your facts right: slavery was never abolished in Britain, because it was never legal in Britain in the first palce and didn't have to be abolished. (In 1722 Lord Chief Justice Mansfield had ruled that English law did not support slavery.) The Slave Trade Act 1807 abolished trade in slaves in the Empire. Emeraude (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's so much that every white person who ever walked in Africa was a racist bigot - I think it's more that the tone of some of this article (and certainly of many of the untoward edits that often appear on these pages) can be extremely one-sided and in some cases downright odd and yes, if you were of that frame of mind, offensive. People change the stats periodically to 'prove' points (I'm not talking here about the disputed CIA stats but just randomly adding 5 million people somewhere)...as if facts can't speak for themselves.
- Was tempted to put a couple of 'citation needed's into your comment above though and then thought better of it. There absolutely was poverty in Ian Smith's Rhodesia and people absolutely did despicable things in British Kenya. Admitted, there sure wasn't poverty then like there is now in Zimbabwe... I don't think the 'all or nothing' approach really supports the argument well, but it does do so much more civilly than many of the edits I've seen to this page. Kit Berg (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It is irrelevent whether white people can or can't run the place better. If I see a neighbour's disfunctional house and decide I could do a better job and enter the house without their permission and take it over it is still wrong. If they then chuck me out using excessive force or violence it is still wrong but it is useing the same means it was enterered in the 1st place. I believe white people do have a right to live in Africa but if you write thousands of white Africans people were killed and land taken from them then surely in the beginning it should say something like " white settlers fought, killed and displaced many of the Black African people of their land". 172.200.118.54 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This article does not and should not exist to discuss weather one action or another was moral or immoral. The article should be neutral in this respect and rather relay the facts and explain the history of this topic as accurately and with as little emotion as possible. So please try to avoid emotive language when writing an article like this one.--Discott (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Another Question
Why is this scene painted all peachy and rosy? The article speaks of settlements, blah blah blah. Where is the mention of the devastation and oppression caused by White Africans? How about the post-colonial boundaries designed to maximize war and internal conflict? Anybody? Or are you all still too busy wallowing in your indignation, "Gasp! How DARE our slaves demand the right of self-determination? Who do they think they are anyway, the rightful people of the land?" (Insert sarcasm here)
It was the colonial powers that established Africa's borders, not the White Africans. In fact the colonial powers used & abused White Africans just as they abused Black Africans.
For Example: Concentration Camps were invented by the British to exterminate White Africans -- during the Boer War.
In both of the Rhodesias, Kenya & Tanzania the British colonial goverment financed white settlement, gave them privaledged positions in adminstration of these colonies and encorouged them to believe that power would be handed over to them. Right up until independence!
I've never understood why the colonial powers rushed. In 1955 the British Goverment declared that no african state (apart for Ghana) would achieve independence before 1970. France's policy was make their colonies overseas departments, electing MPs to Paris.
Then 1960 and a rush to independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This article should be renamed
This article should be removed to "European African" as "White African" could also count Arabs. Luka Jačov 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
White African not only count arabs but berbers, that is most of the population of North Africa. I agree, the article should be changed to "European African". --Bentaguayre 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You make a good argument here, however it does not resolve the issue that many people who one would consider "European African" had/have ancestors who also came from the Middle East (such as Lebanon, Armenia and Syria).--Discott (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Other ethnicities in Africa
Somewhere needs to be mention of the substantial populations of people living in Africa who are neither white nor black. Aside from the debatable example of the Lebanese (mainly traders), I am thinking of those from the Indian subcontinent, who came in some cases in the C19 as coolie labour to build the railways etc, and who most spectacularly were kicked out of Uganda by Idi Amin. A short paragraph somewhere would be welcome. BrainyBabe 13:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NORTHERN AFRICANS ARE WHITES TOO
Please someone fix the article, anthropologists consider Arabs as whites, even if you like it or not. Recently I watched a documental on National Geograpic about the people who live in Northern Mauritania and they said that there is considered by anthropology science the border between the "black and the white world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.170.69.210 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Most of arabs are white and light skinned, in their countries there are some admixture but most of them are as white as spanish or italians.
In Morocco and Algeria there are even berbers who are blue eyed and blonde haired.
This article should be re-edited removing racism.
Bye byeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.83.185 (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
i agree and i believe egypt is in north africa and should be included under the accepted definition of caucasian which includes north africa and egypt is in north africa--Mikmik2953 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The way the US government defines White (having ancestry from Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa), as Well as the way that it has widely been defined by science (North Africa (which is actually technicall part of the Middle East), Middle East, Europe, and even India, would all be White, my brother in law is Egyptian by birth, and I'm not about to say he's not White, my recently deceased niece was not "Half White half Arab",considering my sister is of mixed White/American Indian ancestry, as am I, by she was still White, by virtue of a partially White mother, and a White father (although, he has admitted to some black ancestry), I'm sure most North Africans are aware what race they are. Although, in some instances, many Blacks from Northern Africa, in the United States, are sometimes defined as Whites (ALL Egyptians, for instance, are defined as being White), the same problem exists for many Indians from Latin American countries (12 % of Mexico's population is American Indian (60% Mixed White and Indian), however, since most Mexicans are not enrolled in a federally reconized tribe, so they may not be considered Indian by the census. So, to put it lightly, yes, many North Africans, and Arabs in General, are in fact, White. Iamanadam (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This really should be moved to "People of European origin in Africa". North Africans are considered "white" by most anthropologists, most governments, and most importantly in the definition of such a subjective and cultural classification as that of race: north africans self identify as white! If you deny them the white identity they self profess, you should at least mention credible sources that classify them in other races. Jewish people are also Semites, and Arabs have been proven, in several genetic studies, to be very similar ethnically to Jewish people. Anyone denying that Jewish people are not white would be with good reason strongly censured. Just because Arabs are Muslims and there appears to be a certain hostility against them due to tragic recent events does not justify such racialist, offensive and unacceptable prejudice. Just when did wikipedia become an aryan-supremacist propaganda site? 84.90.16.244 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
anyway, just to add something. An entry should be made concerning the populations in the Indian ocean islands where a large portion of the population are of white origin ( mostly french).Im talking of reunion, seychelles, chagos , mauritius and rodrigues culturaly and linguisticaly their culture is dominant. However none consider themselves as European and speak creole. most were living there since the 17th century ( most of these islands were unihabited). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.123.111 (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
North African are mixed peoples. If they are to be white, then African-Americans might as well be called white. Almost every North African has some black blood in them despite the various appearances that came from 1,000's of year of mixing. You know who is "really" white by how they are treated by Europeans! That means by these peoples going into white countries and by how whites countries support them. In Europe, North Africans are NOT viewed as white. In the US, on paper they are white (as are Brazilians!), but in society they are not treated as such. Now, you have many Lebanese peoples who look white, think of themselves as such and are by and large regarded as such. To me that is fine because they are (many) or a clear European lineage which is the case in the so-called Arab world. Never forget that Romans had the place and some places they had more people than others.
The ones who look whiteter are usually white from Europe - just trapped in anothers culture much as white Europeans did to other peoples. THIS is one of the main reasons whites like to cal North Africans white because of the fact that whites or mulattoes are under the rule of an Asian culture and speak and Asian language. They do not want it ti be seen as whites having been conquered by others - including black Africans. Not to mention, the history of N. African is so great that they want to wipe away any thought of black blood flowing into Europe. Lying about facts do not change them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.91.23 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you people want so badly to be white? Well, I think you are confusing White with Caucasian. Ecen Etihopians are Caucasian! Also, someone said that North Africans and Arabs are as wite as Spaniards and Italians... so, can you please explain me why did Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians and others called Arabs and North Africans Moors? Is it because Moors derives from the Latin, meaning black or was just because they dressed themselves black! Nice to see how superior we, whites, are! Even Morocans and Arabs want to be White! Go see the Saudi football team, the Moroccan football team and the Tunisian football team and then see the Portuguese, Spaniard, Greek and Italian team! Just don't forget of cuting off the immigrants of those football teams. Grow the fuck up! Seeing the football game between Egypt and Angola, I didn't knew who were whichh but, at least two Angolan players (of Portuguese descent) were lighter than the lightest Egypcian.
[edit] Controversial
Since there seems to be alot of disagreement with the article, I am going to label it as controversial Iamanadam (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
[edit] Are all whites in Africa 'White Africans'?
While I'm on a roll, this was something that I wondered when first encountering this article. The article cites numbers of white people in various African countries with corresponding ranges - yet how many of these people are NOT in fact African to any degree? First generation settlers surely can't be 'African' any more than a black African with a green card could be 'American'? Or are these numbers so low that it makes no difference to the estimates? Any opinions on this welcome; it's something that I've been thinking about for a while but have no stats on either way. Kit Berg (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that those who identify as white are indeed white, with, at most, negligble African influences. Miscegenation with non European males were non existant untill the fifties. Men in Africa usually had black sexual slaves but also had their white Lady and only the legitimate sons would be considered as white, of course. The others would be blacks. It is just like America before the 60s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, that wasn't my question. My question was more about how a white person of European descent is also identified as African - i.e. how many generations were born in Africa, citizenship (or length of) of African nations, whether it's just self-identification. In other words, where is the line between a white person living in Africa who is identified/self-identifies as African and one who is still regarded as (presumably) European. I'd guess that a few generations ago people still self-identified as European to a large degree, especially recent immigrants...so just a point for my own interest perhaps.
- Not all whites in Africa today are African, I'd assume; I was interested to know if anyone knew if there were numbers corresponding to that and if it made any impact on the figures of 'white Africans'. Kit Berg (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Revert of deleting of my edit
someone removed my edit of "reversing a process that took place hundreds of years previously.". This makes the article neutral as it acknowledges past killings and land seizures as well as current ones. Leaving it out makes the article horribly biased towards the people who colonised it in th 1st place. The whole statemnet needs to be removed or some mention of what happened before —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.93.175 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] European African?
Why was this unilaterally moved without so much as a comment on the talk page? WP:NAME says to use "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." I, personally, have never heard the term "European African," and it is very misleading since many Afrikaners, for example, are hardly European, having lived in Africa for hundreds of years. It's hard to gauge how common this term is through Google due to tons of irrelevant results, but "european african people" produces only 4 hits. The edit summary explanation "misleading, as the article presents only European white peoples in Africa" is not entirely true - Afrikaners do not consider themselves European, and Armenians are also mentioned, who are only arguably European. This move was certainly inappropriate without any discussion beforehand. If the objection is the lack of inclusion of North African Arabs, which is not unreasonable, then that is a deeper issue than simply the title of the article (they're not on the table of "white Africans" for example) and should be discussed as such rather than just moving the article outright. -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and reversed the move. Please make some attempt to gather consensus before such actions in the future. I, for one, do not support the move, unless someone comes up with evidence that "European African" is actually a commonly-used term for white in Africa, comparable to "white African." I would not, however, oppose expanding the mention of North African Arabs a little further, beyond the one sentence in the into, perhaps focusing on the difficulties in categorizing them one way or the other. -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, I moved it because, as what I see from the talk page, most discussions fall on the exclusivity of Europeans (as the statistics table suggests). I cite the above section on "This article should be renamed" where the move was suggested. Either the article be improved to include Northern African white people and Arabs or let's put this issue of moving to European African to a vote. Jordz (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Major population locations map
What exactly makes the listed countries "major population locations?" Why is Namibia, which has the third-highest population according to the chart, omitted, yet the Ivory Coast, not even in the top ten, isn't? -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Percentages:
I think percentages of that country should be included , so they get a real picture of the ratio of black-white.and by the way, the white 'europeans' (as they were called back then) COLONIZED Southern africa , bring with them machines, inventions and civilization!upon arrival they brought land from the natives and when they continued to settle , the zulus tricked them in saying that they were free and then as they go them surrounded , pounced on them and killed the innocent. Yet still on blood river no whites were killed and all the blacks died. and what about the blacks in madagascar , what about the animals that are suffering as militans rage the country. I dont want anyone commenting about a country they havnt lived in for more than a year!!!! i lived in south africa and since the 'salvation' (new goverment) has been in place :
1)south africa has the highest rape in the word per person/
2)the enregy crisis
3)unemplyment has gone up by 20% to 25%!!!, poverty has gone UP!!!!!! despite blacks being given a 'better' life. And south africa's HDI (quality of living) has gone from 95th best in the world to 120th this year!!!!!! how do you explain that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezuidenhout (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rename article?
I think the article should be renamed to "European Africans" or some other title because of the broad and varying definition of the term "white". Does anyone object, or have a different title?--eskimospy (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, good idea, but you can't say eruopean because these people were born in africa and has tens of generations in africa, so they are african. The name maybe should be called 'white european ancestry africans' i know it's long , but still , its most convincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.69.85 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
European African sounds too made-up and unused, White African could be inaccurate depending on the definition of "White". A descriptive title would be best to avoid conflict and controversy, such as "Africans of European Ancestry" or "Africans of White-European Ancestry". If no one objects within the next day or so, I'm going to go ahead and change it.--eskimospy (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
