Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 3

message: I've made several edits to the text, which I believe are improvements.  Doubtless, there will be some disagreement, but I've tried to provide an explanation with each change.
One rather large, wholesale edit is with regard to the following paragraphs:
It its simplest form, black supremacy is the belief in the inherent superiority of the "black race." Historically it has manifested itself among various religions or cults.
I've deleted the reference to "religions" or "cults," because it black supremacy is not, by far, limited to religious groups or cults.  It's my experience that the majority of blacks in this nation who believe in the inherent superiority of blacks are not members of what might be commonly called the "lunatic fringe," do not belong to any cult or similar organization, and are either mainstream Christians or are irreligious.  (I do, however, mention the word "cult" in a later reference to the Nation of Islam, where it does apply.)
Unlike many "white supremacists," who generally embrace the label, most "black supremacists" reject the term because of its implicit meaning. They do not regard their belief in black superiority as an equivalent opposite of white supremacy, rather, they claim they are advocating the love of their own people, self-acceptance and black pride and see themselves as a kind of self-empowerment for the historically marginalized and oppressed peoples.
This is not the heart of the issue.  The rejection of the term is not to disguise their contempt for whites; many (usually on the fringe) are quite vocal about that.  The distinction, the reason they reject the term is because of the implicit parallel to white supremacy and the way white supremacy functions in the world.  Further, the section is poorly worded in an attempt to incorporate my earlier wording regarding the notion of "self-empowerment for historically marginalized oppressed peoples."  And it is inaccurate.  Again, there are lots of black supremacists who do not express this belief through organizations or cults targeted at the poor and dispossessed; they are everyday people.  In this way, they are no different from lots of whites and Asians folks who believe black people are inherently inferior.  It is misleading to pigeonhole black supremacists as though they are all loud, outspoken, militant, on-the-fringe nut cases "down for the cause."
Black supremacy as a core belief in the inherent superiority of indigenous peoples of Africa has been a thriving, if marginal, notion among blacks since the 1920s.
Black supremacy is certainly far, far older than that.  Native Americans considered whites poor, stupid and pathetic when they first came into contact with them.  Asians considered them "barbarians."  Muslims considered them "infidels."  Many West Africans' first impressions of Europeans were that they were low-minded; godless; ignorant and, of course, brutal, having no respect for their religious traditions, no respect for village elders or the virtue of their women.  It's probably as old as black-white contact.  It is in the unfortunate nature of civilizations/peoples to regard outsiders/"the other" through lenses colored by their own indigenous values and by historical precedent.  That is why, when I wrote the original language, I used "the modern era" -- which is particularly relevant here because this article deals only with black supremacy from the Rastafari onwards.
Further, I have restored (again) some of the comparative information on black and white supremacy, because it is important.  It is not an "apology" as the racist Wareware claims.  In fact, I was not the one who originally included the quote from celebrated author bell hooks; someone else thoughtfully included it.  She's a highly respected writer, and the quote is directly on point.
I also reverted (again) the change in order of the paragraphs.  As an editor, I definitely would put the basic information about and elucidation of black supremacy before the examples of black supremacist organizations.  People should understand the fundamentals of the concept before they find out who espouses it -- a strictly journalistic decision, which I think serves the article far better.  (Though I admit it would be more striking to see the colorful image accompanying the info on Rastafari earlier on.) deeceevoice 15:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point isn't what you think if black supremacy is connected with or similar to liberation theology, but if scholars generally apply this theology to black supremacy. Otherwise, you're doing original research again. It might make sense to you to make the connection but if it isn't backed up by sources, it shouldn't be here. A google search  shows only 37 results and that liberation theology and black supremacy aren't even mention in the same paragraph and there are no relations, even though you claim that one can describe another. That's original research. Can you show us a source where it says liberation theology is applicable to black supremacy? Otherwise I'd just stick with something similar "therapeutic self-empowerment."  Wareware 19:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Again you're the one making the connection between the rhetorics. Repeating it twice in greater extent doesnt make it any more legitimate. Can you give us a source, like from a book or even a website, that claims black supremacy as a kind of liberation theology? Another thing, in the context that you've written, liberation theology applies to black nationalism or black separatism, not black supremacy, especially in the way you described NOI. But the sentence reads Historically, however, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed, so there's definitely something wrong with that. You seem to support that NOI is not a supremacist group, but a separatist one, so why meld supremacy and liberation theology together now?  Wareware 03:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: You're not answering the question. The sentence highlighted clearly states that "black supremacy has manifested itself...as some kind of liberation theology." Can you read? If anything, liberation theology as you described it should go into black separatism or black nationalism, not black supremacy. The sentence would be okay if it were changed from black supremacy to black separatism. But as it stands, you're pretty much contradicting yourself again.  Wareware 02:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: This is getting stupid. Can you even read? From your quote it says black supremacy is an idelogical tool in framing somekind of liberation theology. It should be black nationalism/separatism, NOT supremacy. And from you pretty long post on the NOI anyone can see that you're contradicting yourself. From the activities of NOI you posted it should be separatism, as some sort of economic independence from white people, so can you tell me what's supremacist about it?  Wareware 06:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Just dropped in to check the melanin page, and followed a link over here. I've got no special enthusiasm for Deeceevoice: I think she's got strong social convictions and prejudices and uses her intelligence to clumsily plumb the natural sciences for data to adduce in support of her ideas/fantasies. The results are usually predictably amateurish and ill-informed. But having said that, Deeceevoice is dead right in saying that Wareware's transparent race-baiting and 19th century insults about primates and jungles were wildly unacceptable, and it's outrageous that sysops haven't stepped in. Shame on everyone else for not coming to Deecee's support in their exchanges. She's certainly got a strong committment to Wikipedia if she's willing to truck on through that kind of ugly garbage.  Babajobu
Hello, Baba.  Well, thanks for your support -- kind of.  You will note that a lot of the information regarding the research into melanin and its properties which I have brought to this discussion page is, indeed, accurate -- contrary to the earlier assertions of some participants.  So, don't be so quick to dismiss (or to make certain assumptions about what I do or do not believe.)  Check your e-mail.  deeceevoice 13:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Most recent round of edits

message: I have removed this paragraph, as it has no citations.
:Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the first early human beings evolved in Africa.  In the context of comparative religious study, the "Doctrine of Yakub" has been viewed as simply an allegory for the evolution of whites from blacks as a result of climatic differences as humanity migrated out of Africa and populated other areas of the globe. Such colorful storytelling, argue some NOI adherents, is little different from the Bible's account of God creating Eve from Adam's rib, or the creation of heaven and earth in six days.
Please provide evidence that some significant percentage of NOI adherents explicitly rejects the literal teachings of Louis Farrakhan and Elijah Muhahmmed, and have reinterpreted them in this allegorical fashion. RK 03:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
:With regard to the opinion of writers on comparative religion that the Doctrine of Yakub is an allegory similar in nature to the two cited in the Bible, I've searched online and cannot find documentation.  I read this years ago -- where I cannot recall.  I can do a check of my personal library to see if I can find something, but I don't think the specific reference(s) I'm recalling were in my possession at the time.
:With regard to the second matter, those who have followed the NOI in its various permutations over the years and who know and have spoken with NOI adherents are well-acquainted with this fact.  Whether there is readily available documentation of it, however, I cannot say.  Over the years, there has been a demographic shift in black religious denominations in this nation as blacks have become more upwardly mobile educationally and economically.  This phenomenon is apparent in not only such denominations as the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) and other pentecostal/fundamentalist denominations, but also in the Nation.  Generations who were, say, marginally literate domestics and menial laborers have now raised college-educated physicians, attorneys, educators, etc.  They are more sophisticated, better educated, more worldly than their parents and grandparents and may no longer believe precisely as their parents believe.
:In the case of the NOI, many no longer strictly adhere to some of the more controversial tenets of the NOI as enunciated by Elijah Muhammad, and some have explored more mainstream Islamic religious tenets beyond simply keeping the Five Pillars of the Faith.  Much like some "lapsed Catholics" who disagree with the Church's stand on women clergy, abortion, homosexuality, or birth control, they still identify with the faith in which they have been raised, though they may reject even key religious tenets.  They attend NOI mosques because they are comfortable there; they are black nationalists by tradition and in their fundamental orientation.  My knowledge, though accurate, is entirely anecdotal; I have no statistics.  Such is often the case with matters treating African-American life and culture; this is not the sort of thing that is generally studied by the white majority society.  There is a tendency among whites to see the NOI as outsiders often tend to view cultures, governments, religions, etc., that are foreign to them:  monolitically.  But in this regard, NOI adherents are certainly no different from— and, perhaps, no less diverse in their beliefs regarding specific precepts than— believers of other religious traditions with which you and others may be more familiar.  Not every NOI adherent is a black supremacist or even a black separatist.  And, for that matter, black supremacists can be found in every walk of life, in virtually every religious tradition -- just as can white supremacists. 
:And, yes, I know this is an encyclopedia where references are required.  You've deleted the relevant passage(s?).  Fine 'n' dandy.  Be that as it may, that does not change the objective reality of the situation. deeceevoice 08:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your response. I have no doubt that there are individuals with such beliefs. But I am asking for references because we need to find out if their beliefs are representative of any significant fraction of NOI adherents, or are representative of what any significant fraction of NOI ministers or leaders teach. When asking for references, I do not mean to place a high bar in your (or anyone's) way.  But having never come across some views, and finding them in contradiction to what I have read thus far, I hope you understand why I am asking for some sort of sources. In fact, over the next few months you or I may find some, especially if you get a chance to visit a university library and do some article searches in their journals on sociology and religion. (I have spent some time in libraries searching for academic references on articles for science and religion topics.) RK 21:25, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I for my part dispute "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the first early human beings evolved in Africa.". See single-origin hypothesis and multiregional hypothesis, neither are particularly conclusive at this point. I think we've discussed this before, havn't we DC? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a very good point. Given the difficulty of finding hominid remains, and the rate at which we are making new discoveries, I (and many scientists) think that it would be foolish to assume that we can make a firm conclusion on this issue at the present. We hominids have so many recent branches on our family tree, and our ancestors were so adept at moving around, that this won't be a quick and easy question to answer. Frankly, it might take another century's worth of fossil finding to accurately flesh out the origin of modern humans. RK 16:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, it is foolish to try taking a firm stand on such a substantive issue when the evidence is currently so very thin and the opinions of experts are so diverse. Best to leave out that portion. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please provide citations

message: ===Black supremacy vs. white supremacy===
1. Restored as a critical, defining factor of such groups:  "Historically, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed."  This is a critical point.  Both Rastafari and the NOI, as well as Marcus Garvey's UNIA, took root among the poorest, least educated, most marginalized blacks.  Mainstream, successful, upper- and middle-class black folks were not, and generally have not been, attracted to such movements.
2. Restored: "In neither its intellectual nor its political context, however, is black supremacy -- as many nonblacks are inclined to believe -- mere sophistry; it is a strongly held notion."  Important to state that black supremacists actually believe in black supremacy.  Yes, as the ideologies of these organizations is formulated, black supremacy is, indeed, a tool for their upliftment.  But for the believers, the notion of black superiority is not an artifice or a deception; they strongly believe that blacks are inherently superior to whites; it's not just rhetoric.  The same can be said for black supremacists who, like a lot of white supremacists, don't belong to any official organization or group.  It's simply part of what the believe.
Further, the comment that it "is little more than an intellectual construct" leads into/speaks to bell hooks' comment about the lack of institutional infrastructure of black supremacy; it has little impact beyond the confines of its believer community.  If I understand the objection raised about "documentation," this fact is readily apparent.  There is no network of black supremacist institutions capable of denying significant numbers of whites:  access to equal education, employment, housing, healthcare; capable of segregating or otherwise oppressing whites.
3. White supremacy is and has been, indeed, far more widespread.  And the fact that it "historically has been reinforced and sustained worldwide by instruments of Western economic, political and military power" is not debatable.  It is not an opinion of black supremacists as the rather clumsy rewrite suggests; it is simple historical fact:  the conquest of the New World and the subjugation of Native Americans in North and South America by European powers, the trans-Atlantic slave trade & slavery, Manifest Destiny, European colonialism and neocolonialism around the world -- in Africa, Asia, India,  Australia, the Americas (including the Caribbean), etc.  These were not simply military conquests with economic motives; there was an assumption of white superiority and a systematic disenfranchisement and oppression of subject peoples amplified and in many cases justified by the notion of white supremacy and enforced by European/neo-European political, economic and military might.
4.  The lower casing of bell hooks' name is not an oversight; it's the way she writes it. deeceevoice 19:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some subtle issues w point 3, but she is overall correct. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of recent edits

message: 1. Restored as a critical, defining factor of such groups:  "Historically, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed."  This is a critical point.  Both Rastafari and the NOI, as well as Marcus Garvey's UNIA, took root among the poorest, least educated, most marginalized blacks.  Mainstream, successful, upper- and middle-class black folks were not, and generally have not been, attracted to such movements.
2. Restored: "In neither its intellectual nor its political context, however, is black supremacy -- as many nonblacks are inclined to believe -- mere sophistry; it is a strongly held notion."  Important to state that black supremacists actually believe in black supremacy.  Yes, as the ideologies of these organizations is formulated, black supremacy is, indeed, a tool for their upliftment.  But for the believers, the notion of black superiority is not an artifice or a deception; they strongly believe that blacks are inherently superior to whites; it's not just rhetoric.  The same can be said for black supremacists who, like a lot of white supremacists, don't belong to any official organization or group.  It's simply part of what the believe.
Further, the comment that it "is little more than an intellectual construct" leads into/speaks to bell hooks' comment about the lack of institutional infrastructure of black supremacy; it has little impact beyond the confines of its believer community.  If I understand the objection raised about "documentation," this fact is readily apparent.  There is no network of black supremacist institutions capable of denying significant numbers of whites:  access to equal education, employment, housing, healthcare; capable of segregating or otherwise oppressing whites.
3. White supremacy is and has been, indeed, far more widespread.  And the fact that it "historically has been reinforced and sustained worldwide by instruments of Western economic, political and military power" is not debatable.  It is not an opinion of black supremacists as the rather clumsy rewrite suggests; it is simple historical fact:  the conquest of the New World and the subjugation of Native Americans in North and South America by European powers, the trans-Atlantic slave trade & slavery, Manifest Destiny, European colonialism and neocolonialism around the world -- in Africa, Asia, India,  Australia, the Americas (including the Caribbean), etc.  These were not simply military conquests with economic motives; there was an assumption of white superiority and a systematic disenfranchisement and oppression of subject peoples amplified and in many cases justified by the notion of white supremacy and enforced by European/neo-European political, economic and military might.
4.  The lower casing of bell hooks' name is not an oversight; it's the way she writes it. deeceevoice 19:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some subtle issues w point 3, but she is overall correct. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Black supremacy vs. white supremacy

message: I was hoping Pharlap would be able to produce something more authoritative -- as was done with the NOI -- than what was presented earlier, and something more persuasive than what I was able to find on my own.  (What I've read just isn't convincing.)  I am in general agreement.  I'd been thinking about how to insert qualified information about groups with a range of ideological bents or splinter groups, and to mention the considerable grey areas in this matter, and it seems to me that an annotated list is the answer.  A good deal of the information Pharlap has provided speaks to the quirkiness/outright (to borrow a phrase from someone else) "bat-shit insaneness" of the theology of one or two of these groups, but, IMO, has no bearing on whether the group is or is not supremacist in nature.  But it is useful insofar as it can be the start of new articles on these various groups, with links back to Black supremacy, where applicable.
I must say I think there are profound problems with the objectivity of the Apologetics website, which is a source Pharlap quotes.  I was immediately suspicious of the objectivity of the information it provided and checked into it.  It is a hardline, doctrinaire, Evangelical Christian website which is profoundly judgmental about certain religious persuasions.  It also provides little or no justification for some judgments. 
Apologetics Index website on Islam
On Mainstream Islam:
Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?  The Quran states that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God (Sura 29:46)....
When compared with the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the teachings of Quran show that Allah is not the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians.
In November, 2003, evangelical Christian leaders took George Bush - who indentifies himself as a Christian - to task for his assertion that "Muslims worship the same Almighty" that he does....
The entry then goes on to list a number of references for articles where Evangelicals excoriate Bush for having the temerity to suggest that the god of Islam, one of the three Abrahamic religions (alongside Judaism and Christianity) is the same god recognized by its sister faiths.  
On the Bahai faith:
According to the critics, the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA), which oversees the American Baha'i movement, is dominated by a tight-knit group of authoritarian officials who keep the lid on free expression by threatening dissidents with excommunication and by manipulating the process by which NSA members are elected.
On Roman Catholicism:
Again, if we were to examine each of the above doctrines in detail, examining what the Bible teaches about them on the one hand and what Catholic tradition/doctrine teaching about them on the other, we would discover that Roman Catholicism has denied, altered, or confused all but one or two.  ....Again, this is not to deny that many Catholics, individually speaking, are saved individuals because they have placed true faith in Jesus Christ and trust in Him alone for salvation....  The problem arises when we say that all those committed to the traditional orthodox doctrines of the Catholic Church are saved individuals just as much as the simple believer in Jesus Christ.  ...the Catholic approach to biblical doctrine is characteristically colored in a nonbiblical fashion.
The source for such judgments on Catholicism is a book co-authored by John Ankerberg, of the Ankerberg Theological Institute.  A visit to the website reveals Ankerberg to be a classic, right-wing Christian evangelist.  The site features such things as "HOW DO POPULAR ANGELS SUPPORT THE WORLD OF THE OCCULT?" a segment on the John Ankerberg Radio Show titled "Former Muslims Testify about Islam; a link titled "Would you consider making a gift
to the ministry at this time?" and a link to the ATRI, the Ankerberg Theological Research Center, which, among other things, features a book questioning evolution and advancing Creationism.  This is hardly an objective source of information.  Of the book, Apologetics says:  "Apologetics Index highly recommends this book. It can be purchased at Amazon.com," and provides a direct link for those wishing to purchase the book. 
Yes, research is critical when seeking to provide authoritative information; but it is also important to consider the source and that source's motivations, inherent biases.  A web presence does not automatically confer credibility.  And speaking of inherent biases, keep in mind the explicit and implicit qualifications in the information provided in the single FBI report cited.  It was a threat assessment of possible violence by millennialist groups as 2000 approached.  Again, it did not formally classify BHI as a "black supremacist" organization, but spoke of it as being "generally" supremacist in nature -- possibly, again, because of the apparently difficulty in pinning down just who believes precisely what.  But such vagueness is an important thing to note -- as well, the repeated claim in the FBI document that the "violent" fringe that it believes to be "generally" supremacist in nature is not the "vast majority" of BHI adherents.
For anyone wishing to do research into Yahweh ben Yahweh and other black religious cults, here's a promising-looking title:  "Bring Me The Head," subtitled "Bloodsucking, headhunting, and other racial myths about New York's reputed black separatist cults," Village Voice (Feb. 3, 1999).  It may provide a more objective perspective, or at least a counterbalancing view, on the subject under discussion.  deeceevoice 09:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreed -- generally.  On the Apologetics Index and objectivity 

message: 4 different people NPOV-edited your version 7 times, everytime you reverted the edits. Please point out who agreed (and when) with your version. Pharlap 14:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black supremacy vs. white supremacy 

message: The whole "it's not as bad as white supremacy because it's a liberation viewpoint" doesn't really take into account that actual white supremacy, as it stands, is basically lunatic-fringe. Yeah, the people in power are still generally whites, but they're not in power AS whites. No white politician in the US or in Canada could have any sort of real success on a platform of white supremacy. They'd be destroyed. They might get a sizeable minority of the votes in Butt Crack County though, but they'd get nowhere. 
I mean, it's quite easy to explain why black supremacy exists: Claiming a right to power is hardly uncommon among those without it. But what evidence, exactly, does any of it stand on? The whole "Black Egypt" thing is full of wholes, melanin theory is basically groundless and relies on appealing emotionally to people who want to believe it, and all of this sort of thing actually holds people back, by spending time and money and effort talking about how great things used to be, or how great things should be, instead of making an effort to change how things are now. --Edward Wakelin 23:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, white countries have generally dominated in the economic/military realm, because they had better factors of production.  However, let's say that the tables turned, and blacks were in charge.  Would you, DCV, denounce black supremacy as harshly as you denounce white supremacy today?--Urthogie 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As it stands now

message: The diffrence between black supremacy and white supremacy is a real diffrence,not just the color of the people,its a fact that the white culture and its succeses historically is through the oppression and minipulation of people of color,the entire culture of whites worldwide is to raise themselves above others in their minds and then consequestially socioeconomically,it is the basic core of and behind all european endevors,supposedly bringing "civilization" to "savages". However there is no people on earth more violent or savage and with more of a track record of violence than the european culture,And actually most innovations of european culture is a result of the desire to oppress and do violence to other people,i.e.world war 1 world war 2 and the internal european strife predating euopean colonialism.Of course their is more to european culture than this and many advances are attributed to many brilliant european descents,the general population  however of whites falsly assume that the accomplishments of the few are a result of their skin color as opposed to the reality that all cultures produce genius and innovation.Now all peoples possess the capacity for violence however europeans culture  generally associates the color of their skin as a pass to export their penchant for violence to people that dont look like them,this is the heritage of the european.Black supremacy is actually a defensive tactic developed to protect its population from european exploitation an actual and nescessary posture adopted to protect oneself against a dedicated and belligerent group of people,The crimes against europeans from africans pales in comparison to the crimes perportrated by the european against all other cultures beginning with the  greek and roman empires and peaking with the nazi party in the middle of the 20th century,where european culture was forced to face its darkest enemy, ironically it was its own virulent tactic of organized rascism in its purest form that threatend the modern western cultures very existance,Black supremacy is a tactic designed not to oppress the european but to rebuke the false claims of white supremacy ,it is essentially a tool of protection a way to fight the lies of a cultural machine designed to devour other cultures.Black supremacy is tantamount to throwing a wrench in the works. (unsigned post)
:Yeah.  Like I said.  I pretty much agree with that.  African Luddites unite! :p deeceevoice 13:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Black supremacy is a tactic."  So basically, you give up on rational thought because you're so angry at white supremacists.  Basically, you fight lies with more lies.  Great idea.  If you actually wanted to through a wrench into the logic of white supremacy, you might try doing it through actual thinking, instead of imitating whiteys racism.--Urthogie 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Diffrence 

message: Hello. Just looked over the article and talk pages and thought I'd chime in with my two cents:
This paragraph is way POV:
"In neither its intellectual nor its political context, however, is black supremacy—as many are inclined to believe—mere sophistry; it is a strongly held notion. Even so, black supremacy is little more than an intellectual construct; black supremacy, per se, as a corollary of white supremacy, does not exist. In Killing Rage: Ending Racism, noted author and social commentator bell hooks writes however"
I think this, and the hooks quote that follows, is very good if it is presented as an opinion. I don't think it can be stated that ALL black supremacy is not "mere sophistry." Nor can you state as a bald fact the idea that black supremacy "per se" does not exist. You can present the argument (as the hooks quote does very well), but surely there is an opposing view, and that should be presented in the next paragraph.
In general, there is a lack of refutation or opposing views in the theories section. A lack of opposing views can only mean two things to me: either the arguments are so weak that refutation isn't needed, or the opinions are so weak that people are afraid to even state the other side. (I'm not saying that it is true, but that's my assumption if both sides are not presented).
My other critique, a little more broad-based, is that while the top of the article says that black supremacy places the black race above all other races, the article is very focused on the relationship between blacks and whites. I know that this is the main issue, but I would imagine that there must be race issues between Asians and blacks, Latinos and blacks. There's also the anti-semitism angle.
Anyway, good luck hammering out the controversy. I'll watch with eager eyes.
Jordoh 16:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: fresh eyes opinion

message: I read up on them and although there are some things in the 60-80's that sugeest black supriecye they as a group have seem to renounce black supremcy and there leaders have denounced racsim.  I don't think it is appropriate to further contniue to classify them as a black suprmist group if there leaders and adherants don't agree with it.  I'm sure there are some  instances recently but none that would suggest these are the mainstreams views of this group.
I also removed the New Black Panther Party.  Although they did make comments which were inappropriate this is not black suprmist.  The groups that say black are better than whites or whites are the devil should be classified as that.  Groups or leaders of parties who make one inaapropriate not even necessarily racist comment should not be consider black suprmist.  You would call the whole usa senate racist for that time when that senator said we would be better off with segraegation.  The New Black Panther Party said that jews never showed up to work and that israel was behind the wtc bombing.  Well a cnn poll said 95% of the arab world believes that israel and not osama was behind the wtc bombings but we don't call them all racist.  It would also ignore that there are black jews.  If they said all christians or muslims didn't show up to work it wouldn't be considered racist.  They maybe not be love to jews but they have not said anything that shows they believe black are better than whites.
:I asked repeatedly for definitive info about those individuals/entities included in the list, because I thought it inaccurate.  I also wrote that I thought the list should be annotated.  I had no luck.  I agree with the removal of both groups from the list.  Also, note that the article has been vandalized with deliberate mis/disinformation inserted into the paragraph which contrasts black supremacy and white supremacy.  I cannot edit the piece to correct it because of a(nother) collateral-damage block.  The paragraph should read:  "In its simplest form, black supremacy is the racist belief in the inherent superiority of the 'black race.' Unlike many white supremacists, black supremacists generally do not regard their belief in black superiority as equivalent to white supremacy. Historically, white supremacy has been reinforced and sustained worldwide by instruments of Western economic, political, and military power. During the last several centuries, white supremacy has been a motive force in the oppression, subjugation and commission of atrocities against non-whites worldwide; however, what is described as black supremacist ideology has not had a similar impact."  deeceevoice 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so basically they're talking out of their asses, and if they ever did come to power (which they wouldn't, because they're crazies) they'd be just as bad as the Klan.  Being weak because of an oppressive system is no excuse to be a fool.--Urthogie 20:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nation of Yahweh  

message: Please do not block revert edits.  I have made the following changes:
From: "In its simplest form, black supremacy is the belief in the inherent superiority of the 'black race', and is viewed by human rights organisations as equivalent to the white supremacy movement. Even though black supremacists espouse racist ideologies and bigotry towards non-black people, black supremacy has not been seen to be reinforced and sustained by instruments of Western economic, political, and military power."
To: "Historically, white supremacy has been reinforced and sustained worldwide by instruments of Western economic, political, and military power and, as a result, it has been a central ideology in the shaping of world history. Black supremacist ideology, however, has not had a similar impact because of a lack of institutional power."
Rationale:
*I deleted the first sentence.  It is virtually a verbatim restatement of the article's opening sentence just one paragraph above:  "Black supremacy is the racist ("racist" which I inserted and you deleted) belief that blacks are superior to members of other races."
*I deleted "is viewed by human righs organisations as equivalent to the white supremacy movement."  First, it is not cited.  It is vague and misleading.  "Equivalent in what way(s)?"  (Certainly, not in its impacts.)
*I deleted "has not been seen to be," because it's terribly awkward grammatically.  Secondly, it is passive voice.  Most importantly, this is an objective fact of history and does not need to be stated in a mealy-mouthed fashion.  It is succinct and combines more economically and connects this fact directly to a thought expressed later in this section in an earlier draft, the fact that it "has not had a similar impact because of a lack of institutional power."
*I have deleted the "intellectual construct" and "sophistry" text (language which I wrote, but which has been vandalized over time  to say the opposite of what it was originally intended), because it is superfluous, and moved up the quote by bell hooks -- which used to appear after the quote by West, because it directly supports the preceding text regarding lack of an institutional structure.
The previous version incorporated this thought after the West quote and read: "Some black supremacists claim that black supremacy is little more than an intellectual construct and that black supremacy, as a corollary of white supremacy, does not exist due to a lack of institutional power."
Rationale:
*It is not "black supremacists" who make this claim.  Again, the lack of an effective, pervasive institutional framework to support black supremacy (e.g., military and economic might) is an objective fact.  To use the quote by bell hooks after such a statement as written implies -- absurdly -- that hooks is a black supremacist.
I have reverted the following paragraph to something close to its original wording.  Was: "In modern history, black supremacy has been a reactionary phenomenon most evident among various religions or cults and is seen by proponents as an ideological tool in framing a kind of racist liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed. Scholar and philosopher Cornel West comments in his essay Malcolm X and Black Rage:"
My changes:  "In modern history, black supremacy has been a reactionary phenomenon most evident among various religions or cults. In this context, it has been used as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed. Scholar and philosopher Cornel West comments in his essay Malcolm X and Black Rage:"
Rationale:
*Again, there is the use of the passive in an attempt to avoid the need for citation: "... is seen by proponents as an ideological tool...."  The definition of liberation theology -- theology in the service of ideology,  uplifting the poor and dispossessed and a challenging of the status quo -- very clearly fits here.  The appropriateness of the term to both black supremacist movements is legitimate -- and not because one may or may not be a "proponent" of any one organization or movement.  deeceevoice 06:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: I have made substantial edits to the article. There is a lot of information about the Rastafarian movement adn NOI which does not qoute its sources and as such should not be included, especially since they are so extensive. It should be remembered that this is a information database and not a place for people to intergrate their political opinions. Until such time as this editors can substantiate their points they should not be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.250.155 (talk • contribs) 
:As the one who added the no-sources tags, I agree with your edits to the article.  Thanks for making them.  You also deleted a lot of discussion from the talk page, though, which might have been an accident.  I restored it.  --Allen 01:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; it probably had not been long enough between my addition of the "sources" tags and the deletion of the sections.  But I do think outright deletion of these sections will eventually be reasonable unless sources are found.  I don't know enough about the topics to say for sure, but to me the Rastafari and Nation of Islam sections (especially in the context of the title of this article) read like attacks on these groups, rather than genuine attempts at NPOV coverage.  I'll re-add the sources tags for now.  (P.S.: Re-reading the two sections, the Rastafari text doesn't look so bad.  It's mainly the NOI text that seems POV.)  --Allen 15:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't.  When I added the source tag, there were no sources.  Thank you for adding some, although I haven't had time to look at them yet.  --Allen 15:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: I'm not an expert on this subject, but out of curiousity I followed the link on the Zebra killings, and the wikipedia entry says that only 14 killings were confirmed, and that the figure of 71 was only hypothetical. Also, the phrase "men, women and children" has emotional overtones, is it necessary? Could someone please look into it.
Maronz 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zebra killings exaggerated? 

message: I have deleted the slanderous comments on Marcus Garvey.  The link provided as a reference leads nowhere.  There is no documentation provided that can prove a claim of Supremacism.  The information included is not conclusive and appears only to have been included for malicious and anecdotal purposes.  Furthermore, at best it amounts to hearsay, since the mere fact that someone is supposedly reported to have called Garvey dangerous does not mean that he was a Supremacist.  What I have concluded is that Garvey appeared to have a great love and compassion for his people.  This is not a crime.  I have seen as much in Irish people.  On St. Patrick Day, for instance, no one accuses the Irish of being Supremacist for loving themselves and celebrating their ethnic, linguistic and national roots.  No one has faulted the Jewish people for founding a nation for themselves in which no other person can hold citizenship.  M. Garvey, who constantly witnessed his people being oppressed, excluded, killed and defeated was moved by compassion to help them better themselves.  There should be a clear distinction between the positive ideas of self-love or self-preservation and the negative idea of Racial Supremacism. 
I would like to add that due to the number of accomplishment achieved by Garvey during his lifetime, he is greatly respected by Black people throughout the world. Gratuitous slandering of his name is an extremely painful assault on Africans and the African Diasporic  community. Please consider carefully before brutalizing an international hero with no valid supporting documentation.  I also noticed the information was extremely unbalanced.  There was no mention made of the enormous good which Garvey accomplished, or the reverence and esteem that his people cherish for him.  Think twice before inflicting gratuitous pain.
Marcus Garvey was a segregationist.  He did believe that Blacks were better off living separately from Whites.  Yet this alone does not make him a Supremacist. He held very pragmatic views about social exclusion and racist practices of white society.  He knew that Blacks were freely discriminated against housing, education, employment, were lynched and raped despite the fact that some whites claimed to be their friends.  He concluded that friendly Whites were hypocritical, since their good wishes were meaningless. He preferred the Klansmen's honesty about the hatred and ill-intentions they had towards Blacks.  He made the following comment in Negro World (September, 1923):
"I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman, as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying about."
*Under Supremacism  Wikipedia has:
Supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.
While it is true that Garvey worked untiringly for his people, the article's author has not proved that Marcus Garvey systematically pushed the idea that his people were better than others.  He did try to help them improve their life conditions by founding the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and African Communities League (ACL).  If anyone will look in the yellow pages, under any ethnic or religious group, you will find any number of charitable organizations that have for sole purpose, self-betterment and self-uplifting. I do not see how Garvey's love of his people can indicate that he wished to dominate or control non-Blacks. Is it to be surmised that a self-loving Black person automatically becomes a Black Supremacist?  Don't Blacks have the right to love their people?  VaniNY 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcus Garvey - No Proof That He Was Supremacist 

message: :The entire section on hip-hop and rap as it is written is typical of the sort of POV twisting that has been done with this article.  Support of the Nation of Islam for most blacks has absolutely nothing to do with black supremacist dogma.  Stix, who has made a name for himself with his abrasive, ludicrously twisted viewpoints, crusading against so-called "black racists," is ridiculous in his assertions.  There's a big difference between supporting the NOI to being a black supremacist.  Stix preposterously conflates one to mean the other.
:Second, the twisted definition of black supremacy as presented in the lead paragraphs is simply the precise language regarding white supremacy (see the Wikipedia article "White supremacy, as with supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and a desire for hegemony. It contains varying degrees of racism and xenophobia. White supremacy is often associated with ethnic cleansing and racial separation.") applied to this subject, which is not supported by the facts.  Not even in the article on white supremacy is this information cited.  As is made plain in this article, black supremacy is not simply the flip side of white supremacy.  The language is deleted, with no citation having been provided in several weeks.
:Third, the language equating black supremacy to white supremacy is grotesquely misleading and blatantly disingenuous:
While black supremacism is viewed by human rights organisations [28] and black leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Roy Wilkins, as equivalent to the white supremacy movement[8]....  
The links to both sources say no such thing.  That information -- again -- is deleted.  deeceevoice 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Twisted, POV text

message: I do not see any reference to the black supremacist organization "nation of Israel" which holds that blacks are the true Jews of the bible and the true Israelites and the true Hebrews, not the people who call themselves Jewish and are currently living in the middle east in Palestine in a country wrongly named Israel. Is there any chance it could be?--Filll 13:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, it could be added. It's an offshoot from the non supremacist Black Hebrew Israelites. Paul B 13:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I was getting a bit mixed up there. Do you mean the Nation of Yahweh? AFAIK, the BHI are exclusivist but not rabidly supremacist. Paul B 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nation of Israel

message: This is be some ignorant white people's creation. Even if a black person or other minorities hold prejudice against white people, you cannot call them racist because racism is about POWER and oppression. White people hold the majority of the political, economical story throughout the history of racism in most parts of the world. I am not excusing anyone's prejudice, but minorities' prejudice against Whites is the reaction to the oppression they suffer.
*Black people are not powerless. Rbaish 15:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another... Zaku Two 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be Ethnocentrism. futurebird 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is ignorant 

message: After reading this whole article, I would say that this article has some very biased and POV sources. For instance, in the section on "Black Supremacy in Music", the only sources to prove the allegations of several rappers being linked to Black Supremacy are very conservative, far-right-wing sources. One being from the right-wing "MensDailyHealth" website, another being from Dinesh D'Souza (a Neoconservative), and another mentioning criticism from a Paleoconservative (another very right-wing source, some Paleocons support White Nativism and suspension of immigration). Unless some liberal, left-wing or moderate sources are put in along with the right-wing and far-right wing sources, this article should be given a "POV" label. Full Shunyata 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, when I looked again I saw that one of the sources is called "Liberal Prof Who Calls Jews A Race Of Skunks" and another source is from the crypto-fascist American Renaissance website. This article definitely has far-right-wing bias. Full Shunyata 18:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only is American Renaissance, Dinesh D'Souza and other right-wing sources cited, this website frequently cited seems to be of spurious and scholarly questionable origin: http://home.att.net/~phosphor/. There is nothing to verify the scholarship of this article, nor is there anyway to verify the scholarship of the author(s). The bias of this site is also questionable. This is shady and shoddy research at best, far-right and possibly White racist bias at worst. Full Shunyata 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking out these sources. futurebird 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Revert yourself, as you've violated, 3RR, which someone may report you for and get you blocked for 24 hours if you don't correct your mistake.--Urthogie 05:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I'm not even in that range.--Urthogie 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, no hard feelings, right. I still think this text must go. I'm requesting protection for this page. This is getting out of hand. futurebird 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow dude, nothing that bad has happened yet.  Just continue the discussion before requesting the page be freezed.--Urthogie 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you know how inappropriate that quote is. Maybe black supremacists and people fighting for civil rights all blend together in the eyes of a few people-- but, I assure you nothing could be further from the truth and I find the suggestion so extremist and so insulting that I am surprised that anyone can act so blithe about this. Please take this seriously. futurebird 06:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it.--Urthogie 06:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I replaced it with something much more encyclopedic.--Urthogie 06:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I think you are the first person here who I've disagreed with who has listened to me. Thanks. futurebird 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't want people to be stressed out :).  Also, I see the suggestion of removing the quote as completely rational, while removing the section, as you pointed out, ignores that nature of black supremacy.--Urthogie 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  futurebird: revert yourself 

message: The source I mention is source #53:
^ "[List of Black or Latino Artists Awarded GRAMMY's Who Put Out or Promoted Violent Racism http://home.att.net/~phosphor/grammys.html]". Violently Racist Music. 15 October 1999.
I read through a few of the articles on that source and fond some assertions to be distorted and taken out of context. Unless a better source can be found I believe the source and points in which it is used should be removed from this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcusvra (talk • contribs) 01:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This source fails to meet WP:CITE in any case. futurebird 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing Source 

message: I would just like to say everyone is colored, There is no blacks or whites, because they are not colors they are shades. So if black people are colored that means white people must be colored. Kind of like native americans, there not indians to all idiots who say there indian still. They are just simply americans and not from INDIA! White is the incorrect term for a "Caucasian"(note the asian part) person just so you know, white people aren't actually white. Secondly any kind of racial pride is just plain stupid because it all goes back to the Only race,the Inferior race, THE HUMAN RACE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.78.62 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone is colored 

message: Everyone agrees racial supremacy is racist, so why does one editor keep saying it is "racialist"?   Sadly twisted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people feel that "racism" is a term that only applies to the group with the economic political and violent power used to oppress. I don't think it is twisted at all. Although, in most main-stream discourse "racist" applies to any group that irrationally hates another race, oppressed or not. futurebird 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's basically a perfect description of the term right there.  However, let's keep in mind that Wikipedia:NPOV dictates that we should not give undue weight to the non-mainstream view.  Therefore, racism as in thinking someone's skin decides their feelings, thoughts, and character is the one we should go by.--Urthogie 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fair. And in that sense Black supremacy is racist. futurebird 04:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems to be the "might makes wrong" argument :P--Urthogie 14:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a neither thoughtful nor helpful response.  It fails to recognize that some peopole have a legitimate (thoughtful, reasoned) issue with the application of the term in this instance.  For those people, the term is inaccurate, and for that reason, "racialist" is the more appropriate term.  The article (the balanced version) itself goes on to delineate sufficiently the nature and parameters of black supremacy.  16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The key thing to note is that there is no difference in ideology between the two definitions-- only in the effects of ideology.  It's still the same exact individual failing on the part of the racist for believing that ideology.  The idea that black supremacy is a group "response" to white racism ignores the fact that most blacks aren't black supremacists, and that it's therefore merely an individual moral and intellectual failing.--Urthogie 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a racist doctrine 

message: I am changing the caption of the photograph of Stokley Carmichael in reference to Adam Clayton Powell.  Considering the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court case, "Corrupt Politician" is not an appropriate reference here especially since the incident is not mentioned anywhere in the text of this article. Pihanki 11:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is, why is the photo there at all?  The article isn't about Stokley and adds nothing -- except, in the highly POV version being pushed by Rbaish, to impugn his character.  deeceevoice 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the photo makes it seem like ACP was involved with black supremacy. That makes no sense. We should work on finding a better photo, like maybe those guys on 125th street who say that white people are evil. Something like that. futurebird 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The caption abstracts ACP from the protest. Rbaish 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it brings him in to an article where he doesn't belong.  I mean this guy fought for the anti-lynching law! futurebird 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ACP could be replaced with “black politician” if date and place were added to the caption.Rbaish 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an improvement untill we find a better photo. I don't like this photo because it shows him doing something that isn't "black supremacy." The protest wasn't a "black supremacist" protest, some black supremacists were there, but most of the people were just supporters of ACP. But, if we change the caption I'll put up with it for now, until we can find something a little more on topic for this article. futurebird 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption for Photo

message: I can easily see this page was not the creation of a black person.  There has never been any organization in the world, of black people that have preached quote "black supremacy".  Black pride, yes.  Black supremacy?  No.  KKK, neo-nazi groups etc. clearly state white supremacy in their speeches, books and websites.  But NO, and I mean NO black organization has stated "Black Supremacy".  This page is absolutely useless, does not state true facts, tarnishes several individuals,and will lead people looking for real information on Black people astray.  I say this entire page gets put in the trash right away. Chairman Sharif 13:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a few people I would like to introduce you to then, in that case. I am not sure where you live and what your experiences have been, but I suspect you have been sheltered somewhat.--Filll 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If this "black pride" is not supremacism, then neither is "white pride".  The sword cuts with both edges.Dogface 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think deleting the page is the solution. This idea must be placed in context. And there are a small number of black people who have said things like "all white people are evil" But this isn't the main thrust or idea of the majority nor should it be confused with "the civil rights movement" or other anti racist efforts. futurebird 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Censorship (page deletion) is always the solution to totalitarians.  Just as Klansmen wish to censor any mention of their dirty deeds, so would black supremacists.Dogface 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody was talking about affirmative action, dog. Chairman Sharif 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Supremacy?  Come on.. LET'S DELETE THIS ENTIRE PAGE RIGHT NOW.  

message: I said it before in an earlier discussion on this talk page and I'll say it again. This page has improved some, but it still has a lot of bias on it. Several figures are attributed with Black Supremacy by very questionable sources. There are still many far-right-wing sources on this page such as WorldDailyNet, FrontPageMagazine, Dinesh D'Souza and other spurious and semi-anonymous sources of questionable reputability. The far-right wing has always been known for it's opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and has always been known for questionable claims about various Civil Rights leaders. Such as claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr. had ties with the Soviet Union. One of the sources quoted as "neutral" information is the CONINTELPRO itself. That's like quoting Stormfront for information on the Holocaust. This page needs a serious clean-up. Either the right-wing sources and spurious accusations need to be gotten rid of, or there need to be left-wing, liberal, centrist and far-left-wing sources on here to balance things out. Full Shunyata 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable POV

message: I have attempted to add Alfred Sharpton, Jr. and Jesse Jackson to the list of "Noteable black supremacists" and they have twice been removed without explaination on the talk page.  My basis for adding them to this list is that like the others on the list by their well documented public speaches and by their actions their words and actions have been consistent with racism towards non-blacks.  In fact, their controvercial views and behaviors are documented within Wikipedia already.  Of course, like other black supremacists, they do not self-identify as such.  However, if we use similar inclusion criteria as we would for white supremacist leaders such as racist/hateful public rhetoric as well as behaviors targeted at in one way or another harming the targeted group it seems both Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson should be included.  They have self-appointed themselves as spokesmen for the "black community" as if american blacks are a heterogenous single minded group which is doing a great diservice to american blacks.  As such, it is important to point out that they are black supremacists and represent only one of many points of view towards other ethnic groups in the United States.
I will be adding both of the aforementioned leaders to the list.
Federal15 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to have a source that calls them "black supremacists". You can't just decide on your own. -Will Beback · † · 05:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharpton & Jackon

message: This section is completely ridiculous.  Mentioning the NOI or the 5 Percenters in their lyrics does not make a rapper a black supremacist.  In fact it does not even come close.  The notion that Lauryn Hill, Nas, PE, KRS-One, and Latifah advocate "black supremacy" is just absurd and shows that the person or people who wrote this don't know what they are talking about when it comes to hip-hop and black culture.  There's a difference between black supremacy and black empowerment (even X-Clan falls more into the latter category).  I'll wait a couple of days to see if anyone wants to discuss this, but then I'm going to remove this entire section (which is largely unsourced--the source for Lauryn Hill is literally one of the dumbest things I have ever read, it sounds like it was written by a racist church pastor who fears rap music).  There are some rappers who could be seen as advocating black supremacy, but to discuss that we would need to start from scratch and make a section along these lines much more nuanced.  The current version is, in my opinion, complete garbage.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the whole thing as unsourced and for the most part untrue. One could make an argument for particular songs or groups being "black supremacist" and if reliable, third party sources can be provided than this section can be re-created.  I don't see much of a need for it though, and quite frankly I think there is a confusion here between black supremacy and black power.  The kind of artists that were cited in this section fall much more in that latter category, not the former, and perhaps some of this stuff could be placed in the black power article (which, like this article, is pretty much a disaster. --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 02:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black supremacism in music

message: I again deleted the paragraph on Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison.  There is no rationale whatsoever offered for the inclusion of Keith Ellison in this article.  He has had some association (the exact nature of which is in dispute, see the article on him for some information) with the Nation of Islam in the past but during the 2006 campaign he denounced Louis Farrakhan and the NOI for anti-semitic comments and beliefs.  He was endorsed by a Jewish newspaper in the Twin Cities, which suggests that they were not particularly concerned that Ellison was a "black supremacist."  The paragraph contained the sentence "He is considered to be "Farrakhan's Candidate" and a "racist fascist" "Muslim radical" by the Frontpage Magazine and "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman" by The Weekly Standard."  This sentence seems nothing more than a means to smuggle in the right-wing view of Ellison.  In this instance, Frontpage and The Weekly Standard are not reliable sources for establishing the fact that Keith Ellison has black supremacist beliefs.  And anyway, the quotations provided do not even say anything about him being a "black supremacist"--they say he is a "racist fascist" and "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman" (what those phrases mean exactly, I have no idea).
Sticking Ellison in here without providing any valid sources which point to him as a "black supremacist" strikes me as little more than an effort to tar him with the tag of black racist.  If someone chooses to reinstate this material, I hope they provide a rationale for its inclusion and take the time to add reliable sources, though I don't think anyone will be able to find a reliable source that says the congressman from Minnesota's 5th congressional district is a black supremacist.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reply is underwhelming, to say the least.  I read the entire article, and I did not see any citations to mainstream sources which identified Ellison as a black supremacist in any way, shape, or form, so your comment that "everything checks out" is a bit bewildering.  Almost all of the citations are to right-wing blogs with an ax to grind.  The entire article is from a far-right web site with an ax to grind.  And again, even in the Frontpage article it does not specifically assert that Ellison is now a black supremacist.  He obviously had some association with the Nation of Islam in the past (that does not, however, automatically make one a black supremacist) but during his last campaign he denounced them (a really annoying fact for anyone who wants to stick Ellison in the black supremacy article).  The Frontpage mag does not even come close to cutting it as a source here, and Rbaish does not provide any mainstream, reliable sources that refer to Ellison as a black supremacist.  Until Rbaish or someone else does so, this material on Ellison cannot stay in this article.  For one thing, it is defamatory and probably violates WP:BLP which says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space" (emphasis in original).  I've removed it again, and will continue to do so until such time as legitimate sources are provided.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keith Ellison