Talk:African Americans/Archive 9

message: The only reference for this is aluke is cool!!!!, this section gives the impression that there is much evidence for this.  BYU has more evidence that hebrews visited the Americas.  This theory is a stretch (to put it lightly). 209.250.215.32 17:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-columbian visit?? 

message: This article has some excellent sections and seems to be right on track for peer review, good article and featured article status. I'm wondering if it's time for all of the hard-working editors to step back and look at the forest (the entire article) rather than the trees (each section). I'm posting this topic for macro-level discussion... Here's what I posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups:
Here are some further thoughts:
* Some sections under the heading "Historical Controversies" seem to me to be both extremely speculative and largely drawn from a single source. It's exactly because they are controversial that they need to meet a higher standard of documentation (citations & references) than other sections. While I respect other editors' contributions,  think we should be bold in dealing with sections that may hinder the Good Articles/Featured Articles process. I think objectively that if African American is on the Featured Articles track, we should either bulk these subsections up with a high standard of documentation, or consider deleting/moving them off to a separate page. I realize that some editors may have strong feelings  about the inclusion of these sections. But there's a saying among authors (attributed to Stephen King): "Don't be afraid to kill your darlings." Besides, moving a topic off to its own page isn't killing it; it's just finding it a new home.
* The Quotations section is really good... but doesn't it seem to be a separate topic from African Americans per se? I really think this section should be moved to its own article.
* So I suggest creation of African American (Historical Controversies) and African American (Quotations). I would put two links to each page on the African American page: one in-text, and one in the See Also section at the bottom of the article.
* Finally, for an article with this much outstanding content, no one person can document an entire section. I suggest a Section Documentation Project with a volunteer list to add cites & references to the various sections (noting that some sections are already very well cited; you may want to simply double-check for links to disambiguation pages or other small errors):
 Section Documentation Project
Nomenclature       	yourname yourname yourname
Demographics       	yourname yourname yourname
History            	yourname yourname yourname
Impact ...         	yourname yourname yourname
Political legacy   	yourname yourname yourname
The term ...       	yourname yourname yourname
Political ...      	yourname yourname yourname
Who is ...?        	yourname yourname yourname
Terms no longer ...	yourname yourname yourname
Criticisms         	yourname yourname yourname
--Ling.Nut 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trees and the forest 

message: Please, when you archive: you can archive part of a talk page without archiving all of it. Some archived comments appear to be less than 2 days old at the time they were archived. This basically prevents people's comments by being seen by much of anyone except the person who archived. If they even bothered looking. - Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I recently found myself reverting wholesale some edits by User:Dynamicknowledge24 (after he/she reverted my wholesale and also made quite a few other edits), so I feel I should explain myself.
None of my recent edits removed significant content from the article. My only deliberate removal was of "While all human life on earth originated in Africa, it is quite true that every human on earth's ancestors originated and were indigenous to the african continent." This has no more place here than in an article on any other particular ethnicity: it's like saying in the article on German people that anthropologists believe that humans are descended from anthropoid apes.
What I mainly did change was to move the lengthy section about who is and who is not an African American into the first section following the lead (moved intact, and still preceding the content of the earlier nomenclature section to create Definition and nomenclature), then wrote a new lead that is much more typical of how articles on ethnic groups in particular countries begin: quickly summarizing the demographics, cultural contributions, and status of African Americans in America.
Dynamicknowledge24 did not simply revert me. His/her edit, commented as "Restored original heading which possessed important info regarding this culture and is a good lead in to the rest of the topics addressed. Also, removed unnec, info box and did some editing," did not "restore" anything except the one sentence I had deliberately removed. It:
# moved the old content (all of which I had preserved) back into the lead
# completely deleted everything I wrote
# completely removed the infobox that is the single most standard element of articles on ethnic groups
# shrunk the passage about nomenclature (which might bear some trimming)
# removed the paragraph that begins "During the Progressive Era, black members of the middle class attempted improving the conditions of their ethnicity" 
# removed the section Historical controversies (which perhaps should be removed or highly abridged, but not without relevant comment) 
# added a picture of Halle Berry with a caption that seems to argue with itself as to whether she is really an African American "… the first African American woman to win the prestigious Academy Award for Best Actress, is of biracial African American and Caucasian descent." (As remarked elsewhere in the article, most African Americans have some Caucasian ancestry; I have no idea how Berry identifies, but, this being an article on African Americans, if she doesn't identify as one then her picture doesn't really belong, and if she does, then that caption doesn't really belong.)
If I've missed anything, my apologies. It's not like I had an edit summary to guide me through this.
As I say, a few of these edits might be right (though even those merit discussion, or at least a meaningful edit summary). I strongly advocate: if you are making several unrelated, obviously contentious edits in a controversial article, you should make each separately and write a clear summary for each. But taken as a whole, this was a drastic, nearly uncommented edit to a controversial article, and in some respects was headed in an absolutely wrong direction, so I have reverted it wholesale, pending discussion of individual items.
End of rant. - Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, this article is a real minefield, isn't it? The very next edit (anonymous, no edit summary) eliminates much of what User:Dynamicknowledge24 wants in the lead and I moved down a section and adds things like "The average Black American is 80% African descended, raping of African women by White men during slavery was common." I have no idea where the 80% comes from; and while raping of African women by White men during slavery was, indeed, common the way it is placed here suggests that it is the only reason for mixed black-white ancestry in America, which would come as news to a dozen or more of my African American friends who have 20th century whites (parent or grandparent) in their ancestry and none of whom, to the best of my knowledge, is the product of a rape. Is there any citable evidence for this number (or, elsewhere in the added material, "40% of Black Americans also have some Native American ancestry")? And is there anything citable for the implication (which should either be stated explicitly or removed) that rape of slaves accounts for the overwhelming proportion of white ancestry in the African American population? (Conversely, prior to this there was only one passing mention of the rape of slaves as a factor in ancestry, and that in the somewhat cryptic context of black ancestry of people who are considered white, rather than vice versa. Certainly the topic deserves some mention, which is part of why I am not reverting.) - Jmabel | Talk 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead, and other contentious matters 

message: I would not use the term "African American" in referring to the slaves: they were enslaved Africans. I suppose it is an OK (if anachronistic) term for free blacks even in slavery times. But I don't have anything citable on this. Does someone have a source that says roughly this? I would imagine it is out there. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article discusses, "Black" has been pretty universally acceptable in the U.S. since circa 1970. Before that it was more of a slavery term, but it was very successfully reclaimed by the Black Pride movement. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery and nomenclature 

message: Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.
:-->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at  Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also  enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit  :Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

message: Jmabel, the sentence should be removed; it makes no sense.  It's either vandalism or the result of an incomplete edit.  deeceevoice 06:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I was about to repose the original question when I saw that you'd actually answered. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Africans who came to the US don't look at themselves the same way a black American would. If someone is from Nigeria and came to this country, they are Nigerian-American, not necessarily black. Can a South African white qualify as African American??? Think about it, they are white but from Africa. Will an European of black color/African parents come to America be an "African... European...American?" I don't know where we're headed, but I don't like this hyphenation if it's used to demonstrate who's better off or who we need to give a pass to. I like to see a white rapper or hip-hop artist become "black" while his skin color didn't change a tone. I wonder he can get away shouting the N word, probably not unless he introduces himself a white N****r (LoL... who wants to?) Oh yeah, why is every bad word or foul word acceptable to say in public, esp. by school children in this age? Only racial slurs are taboo or name-calling people who are gay, women, other religions, handicaps, etc. is also taboo. It's wrong to cuss, swear or use dirty words around people... but it's tolerated and no one really gets in trouble anymore for it. I can't take anymore of black children call each other that awful word, or black men in rap songs refer to black women in disrespectful ways (I won't repeat what the rap artists say...women shouldn't be called B*ches, sl*ts or h*res.) Are we teaching children the right way like whites can dress or act like ghetto rappers, but well-to-do blacks don't cut it in the African American culture? I hate it when a fellow black person tells me, an African American man that it's not "black" to succeed. I graduated high school then attended a good college and to land a job that pays well. It's not about being "black" that defers me away from personal achievement, but the rap music some children listen to are (if are black, got self-hate ideas...or if are white, racial messages on another culture). 207.200.116.14 10:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So much for a ''totally'' off-point discussion

message: You still don't get it, do you? If a black person comes from Nigeria to the U.S., he is Nigerian-American. Learn your geography. If a person, albeit a white person, comes from Ireland to the U.S., he is Irish-American. He is not European American. Europe is a continent made up of these countries along with their nationallities: Ireland-Irish, Italy-Italian, Germany-German, France-French, Norway-Norwegian, Spain-Spanish, England-English, Portugal-Portuguese, Greece-Greek and Finland-Finnish. There are others, but I don't have time to name them all. These, and other nations make up the continent Europe. If a person from any of these nations and becomes a citizen of the U.S., they take the nationality of their country of birth, not continent of birth, and connect it to their adopted nationality, American, like the example I just gave. Africa is a continent made up of these countries along with their nationalities: Nigeria-Nigerian, Uganda-Ugandan, South Africa-South African, Namibia-Namibian, Ethiopia-Ethiopian, Zimbabwe-Zimbabwean, Ghana-Ghanaian, Mali-Malian, Somalia-Somali and Senegal-Senegalese. I could name others, but I don't have the time. If a person comes from any of these nations and becomes a citizen of the U.S., they take the nationality of their country of birth, not continent of birth, and connect it to their adopted nationality, American. Please learn about geography. I already explained the AA term. If you don't understand, it's your fault. Now, profiling. Suggesting that Arabs and Muslims should be stopped and be victims of harassment just because the terrorists nowadays are Arabs and Muslims is profiling. Police officers who stop, question and harass a young black man just because he's black is profiling. Filling out an application that has the question, "What is your ethnicity?", is not profiling. Blacks whose ethnicity are different from the ethnicity of black Americans check "Other". I know a guy from the Virgin Islands who does that.20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cclass, you make the honest mistake of misunderstanding the roots of "African American" and "European American".   They are not logically thought out terms that are equal or make real sense that can be used in analogies.  "African American" is a political term.   It sounds nicer than "Black" (which was an insult until it was turned on its head), shows history and ancestors, and shows an ounce of patriotism.   "European American" is rarely used.  Americans of all shades have such mixed ancestry after a few generations it is impractical to keep a certainy country attached to their identities, and, Americans typically find it quaint to still be harping about the motherland 100 years on.  J jackson 17:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It all depends on how the person viewed his/her national origin. Mexicans for example remain closely tied to their homeland south of the US border. They are treated as a "racial" group, despite most of them are "white" and American Indian. The African-American identity was nourished by a racist and hostile society around them, but this was shared by Latinos, American Indians and Asians for what "race" they came from. We must focus less on ones' color and ensure this country accepts all people, whatever their color is. Do we need to measure ourselves by...hair color, eye color or minor tone of skin color? I thought America and the free world learned this lesson on "racial science" when the Nazis in Germany made their own citizens, Jewish-Germans, an "alien race". The results of blaming someone because of they aren't right to the Nazis followed by the Holocaust. Did we as human beings learn this stuff is dangerous when we begin to divide ourselves into racial designations if they ain't real differences at all? The Jews are identified by religion, but still an idiotic fringe (like racists or neo-Nazis) would harp on it. Same goes to sexism, homophobia and classism, not exactly based on racial differences, but who/what the person is ("oh...she's female, he's a 'homo' or they are 'poor'...let's treat them less or deny them their civil rights"). It's gotten to a point only a certain segment of people in the US gets away in racial identity: can't be white people. (unallowed for Americans with light skin or European origin to make an issue on their race in "proper society"). Black people are a separate culture, but members of society to had build America, then let's be Americans. Race is political, not biological fact...a dare reality in a world where people fight over what tribe, creed, faith, class or color the other guy is (not only America it's everywhere, look at Israel-Palestine)...but thank god in America where whites, blacks or whoever don't blow up each other on a daily basis. 207.200.116.14 10:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any racial identifier term is "valid" if a person wishes to use it to identify themselves and it's factually correct. The term "European-American" isn't invalid simply because they are the majority. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That may be why it's not commonly used, but the fact that it isn't commonly used doesn't make it invalid. People can identify themselves in whatever way they wish, and we should respect that. If someone wants to be identified as "European-American" it's a valid, if odd, choice. XINOPH | TALK  17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another discussion

message: The comparison of the African American unemployment rate to Western European rates is, at least, problematic. With a very different structure of benefits, being unemployed in the U.S. means far fewer benefits and far greater social marginalization. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly chosen comparison 

message: <<Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stealthound">>
oh come on.,my edits are relevant to the African American experience and gets deleted for breaking Wikipedia rules??? I happen to be a black man!!! Can you admins help me out "research" and "verificate" it? The US census themselves use the "official" but questionable stats on the African American population. Then the NAACP came out to say on the census stats are wrong and deceived millions of black Americans out of the census. Next is the number of black Americans in the west coast wasn't stated in the article, you find millions of black people like me in California. Why was it deleted too, it was right in the California article. The southern US still has half the black American population and 8 southern states are over 10 percent black. It's obvious to notice the heart of black America is the south, but the soul is thriving in the north and the west. I explained why the crime rate of urban blacks is true, but gave African Americans a bad name with a racial stereotype planted on us, and what the article states we black people commits the most crime. Police brutality and racial profiling hasn't corrected the problem, it was the drug epidemic and how the inner city was void of good-paying jobs and poor standard education. The inner cities are better today than 15 or 30 years ago, most black neighborhoods have more recreation to keep young blacks away from crime, drugs or gangs "for kicks" (sorry it was POV and I tried not to make it so divisive or offensive, since I'm an African American man). We gave colonel sanders most of his KFC recipe, but why is it nostalagic black movies or TV shows make fun of what we eat? White Americans eat this stuff too and KFC is a worldwide enterprise, thanks to you know what people? Rap, Rock, Jazz, Soul and disco has much to thank the African American music of gospel, rhythm and blues, and ragtime played for over a century. And the P-C libs want to tell me don't say negro, colored or black are "bad words" but they allowed us black people to say the "N word" to each other??? I won't use that word ever, but its a very corrupted version of "negro" or "colored". To say I'm African American is the current trend to self-title our people, but it's to make whites forget more of the civil rights struggle by a code word to make them closet racists "feel good", to ignore the suffering we endured. Whether you're liberal, conservative or moderate (myself), you're going to disagree about today's current status of African Americans by review of policy to advance or entrap my people. We're enjoying a better life and more freedom than my parents, grandparents and slave ancestors had. I'm fortunate to be born and alive in the US but can't deny racism and injustice happened. Wikipedia is an elitist self-corrective machine that deletes every edit worth while to look up. 207.200.116.12 09:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My Response from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stealthound". "Welcome, again. The edits were major, and were also coming fast and unsubstantiated. I would welcome  your input, but please check WP:MOS and WP:NPOV and try to put the information back in a neutral point of view, while giving references. It was just too much new information to ask others to just "look up". I understand that it is hard to figure out how to give references for the information you wish to put into the article. I am more than willing to help. Just post the references here and I will format them in a way that you can use. Again, I believe that you have something important to say, and would welcome your voice. Sincerely," Stealthound 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: from 207200116203

message: I want to dispute some of the claims made about Oprah Winfrey in this article. 1) How does Forbes list in 2006 cement Oprah as anything in the 20th century? It is clearly the 21st century.  2) It also seems to me that Robert L. Johnson was at one time twice as wealthy as Oprah has ever been, with a one-time net worth of $3 billion. Please see Forbes. --SVTCobra 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert L. Johnson 

message: If the US Census was mainly based on Nationality not Race/Ethnicity, would it be the second biggest nationality group after German Americans. --User:Caribbean1
:Race and ethnicity/ancestry are two different things. History shown us why African Americans haven't fully assimilated...because of a white majority marginalized them because their color and appearance. Any Irish, German, French, Swede, Dane, Dutch, etc. blended in for being white European people. They are simply American, but why black people are always black? Unfortunately, any proof of "blackness" and African racial ancestry singled out the second largest American "ethnic-ancestral group." I wonder if Latinos (of "any race" the census said) are now the largest ethnic group by ancestry? I guess the largest "race" ... er ethnic group are Mexicans, followed by Africans and Native Americans. There's no such thing as a single race of Africans or Asians or whoever...if you go by ethnic, national and regional variations in these "racial" groups. Europeans aren't one single prototype, because some Italians, Greeks and Mediteranean whites (would Arabs or Indians count?) are darker-shaded than light-skinned Argentines, Japanese and Maoris (I named a few "non-white" groups don't possess much skin color for living in certain climates.) "African-American" is an artificial invented term in the 1970s/80s to make white liberals look like they know it all, but most black people called themselves "black" (and American) a lot longer. We cannot keep ourselves obsessed over what color one is, then we can't operate as one society, the United States may end up a failure if we continue this "race baiting" and discrimination by racists or P-C activists. 207.200.116.14 09:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, since (as noted elsewhere here) a nationality would be, say, "Nigerian-American" and not "African-American". Just as "European Americans" wouldn't be identified if it were based on nationality, nor would African-Americans, or Asian-Americans, be thus identified. XINOPH | TALK  17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Biggest Nationality Group

message: In the infobox, under "Related ethnic groups" why do we specifically mention "some with Native American groups"? There is presumably more admixture of European ancestry than Native American ancestry. - Jmabel | Talk 09:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The source referenced in note #5 does not provide any information related to Oprah being the "richest black person on the planet".  Further, that claim is highly dubious. I would bet good money that Robert Mugabe has quite a bit more in his Swiss Bank account than Oprah could ever dream of. --216.75.93.110 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote #5 

message: "The term Negro, which was widely used until the 1960s, has become increasingly considered passé and inappropriate, or derogatory. It is still fairly commonly used by older individuals and in the Deep South."
Fairly commonly?  Though I don't live in the deep south, I still find that rather hard to believe.  Perhaps, if it were sourced, I could check on it.
: I believe it. Young black people continue to use the "N word" among themselves like it's no problem, then a (racist or ignorant) white person comes up and shouts the same word, this is "wrong" or "bad". Lots of P-C rich whites here in Cal. pressured every non-black person to avoid older terms, except if you're an elderly black person it's alright to say Negro or Colored. I may be black or the current title, African-American, but never is and never was a Negro or Colored person. From my experiences living in Los Angeles, the double-standard of who can say "black", "colored" and "negro" is unbelievably stupid. The "n word" is widely used in the Hispanic and Asian communities, also I notice white people are told not to say "oriental" or "yellow", and "spanish" or "mexican" anymore. After 9/11, the P-C wackos didn't want their own kind to say "terrorist" because it would offend Arab or Middle East people. Enough! I don't call people racist or ethnic slurs, because you consider them not as people, which the meaning of terms "Negro" and "colored" was somehow dehumanizing to blacks (er...African Americans) in a time prejudice was open and right at your face. The P-C movement costed us our freedom of speech (in good humor, a different standard is a black man is shouting racial slurs in front of a mostly black/mixed-race audience and they laugh not at him, but with him, on those pathetic words we never say in public). Same things with other taboo subjects: sex, drugs, sacrelige, death and political controversy, but why is it race the most dangerous issue to talk about in America today? The P-C elite, that's who. I never objected to the word "black" since my group long used the term between us and each other since the 1950s, but I won't care if any old black or old white person says "Colored" or "Negro", as long I'm addressed as "sir", "mr." and "man" not "boy" which is totally rude to address an adult like that (or "girl" for a woman, it's equally harmful to her based on sex/gender, just call her "ma'am" , "mrs." or "miss" instead, she'll love to hear it). Just have manners and respect to people who look different from you, whether they have a different color or creed or nationality. I never called Hispanics "brown' or Native Americans "red" either, but I would say "are you a Latin person" or an "american Indian"? Ok not really the right word, but acceptable to more people than a white person talk about me as an "African" or "dark person". I'm an American citizen, not from Africa and don't refer me dark, because I have an invisible light soul, so does inside every human being. 207.200.116.14 10:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dude...you aren't happy on this. Most people laugh or joke about going to the bathroom (one big taboo). But a whole other standard to make wisecracks on race segregated public restrooms (a bigger taboo). Its not funny to laugh at abuse and suffering of people persecuted for their race or such. Nobody in the world of comedy dares to make fun of Hitler, Nazis and the holocaust (the biggest taboo in history). good for you...on addressing women or ladies mean you teach them with respect. I'm with you unhappy the media glorifies black males treat sisters (black women) like sex objects under "pimp"s' control.63.3.14.1 16:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list on other "African communities" worldwide gets deleted, restored or changed without first discussing them in the talk page. I'm aware not only African-Americans, but Afro-Canadians and Afro-Europeans, Afro-Latinos and Afro-Arabs, and some persons of the African race live in Asia and Australia. But the point being is the African race is a major division of humanity and we should explore the proposed pages, as long it offered reliable sources and academic research. Now to respond to 20720011614...you never call an African-American a "dark" person, nor teach young black men to objectify women of any race. And yes, I think there's something wrong for a moral-societal agenda to accept young blacks to call each other "n*gg*r" or "nigga" like no offense comes out of that word. Hundreds of black/African-American actors, comedians and politicans complained the semi-acceptance among the black community on the "N word" has to be abandoned, because it furthers denigrate and indignify African-Americans when the "N word" is said out loud in rap music songs. 63.3.14.1 16:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term Negro 

message: Last I recall the USA had Free people of color in states prior to the Civil War. For example in New Orleans during the second quarter of the 19th century, Free People of Color owned over $2,000,000. worth of property in N. Orleans. Also every person that was free was not a mulatto.
--Margrave1206 18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free People of Color 

message: Why is there a reference to an "African American Civil Rights Movement?"  The Federal Congress was practically free of Negroes when the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was enacted.  GhostofSuperslum 15:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, because movements don't mostly take place in legislatures? There was rather a shortage of congressmen on the streets in Little Rock or Harlem. - Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time that I saw him on TV, President Eisenhower appeared to be a white man.  He was the fulcrum in the 1950s.  He sent the Army to Little Rock.  White men were in control of everything.  They still are in control, too.  After the Rev. M. L. King was slain in 1968, riots erupted when dismayed Negroes realized that all of them could be murdered whimsically.  Those riots were the closest thing to an "African American Civil Rights Movement."  (I was on the streets in 1968; therefore, I am not putting forth any second-hand comments.  I am relating what I observed "with my own two eyes").  GhostofSuperslum 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Caucasian race|Caucasians]] make [[United States|American]] laws

message: Would African Americans in Canada be considered African Americans, or African Canadians (or something along those lines)? What about STATES with significant populations of African Americans, such as Mississippi or Louisianna, REGIONS (as it reads) such as the South or the Northeast or Midwest, or even CITIES such as Gary, Chicago, Philidelphia, etc. A country doesn't give much information but the total population. And in a country as large as the United States, that doesn't give an idea of where they live, just in the country, somewhere. Be more specific! I tried doing some cleaning up in the article, such as moving the population chart of African Americans at the very bottom to the demographic section, where it belongs, but the other chart causes corruption. I am also adding to the demographic section, since it reads as if the American West has a sparse population, but for those of you don't know, California has the fifth largest African American population of any state. You wouldn't know that by reading this article though! It needs a lot of work, but it's possible.
DDavis092 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On your first question, I believe the prevailing term is "Afro-Canadians", but, of course, there aren't many; "Black Canadians" is broader, and can include dark-skinned people from South Asia. No, they are not generally considered African American, unless they are relatively recent immigrants (a generation or two) from the U.S. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see, though, that whoever edited this disagrees with me. Is there any basis for this other use of terminology? - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Look up the California article under the demographics paragraph and there is brief descriptions of the state's African-American population. In the 2000 US census, approximately 7 percent of the state's people are black, and a great majority live in urban areas, but more found to live in suburban cities in the Los Angeles metropolitian and san Francisco Bay Areas. The old black neighborhoods Watts of Los Angeles, Compton and Oakland remains a major center of California's black American culture. It's sad the Wiki admins won't allow an entry on California blacks and kept retooling the article to block further edits "without discussion, reliable sources, or article standards". 63.3.14.1 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YEAH ABOUT THE "REGIONS WITH SIGNIFICANT POPULATION" PART. . . 

message: do most african americans live in the south? - signed by anon IP
(originally, the question was on the black percentage of Texas)
:Don't think so. Its mostly Mexican Americans there -- Chris Q 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you could be right. According to the 2000 US census, over half (55%) of all African-Americans lives in six Southern states (Ala., Fla., Geo., Lou., Miss. and So. Carolina), all of them are over a quarter black (the highest goes to Miss. at 35%) and four other states in the South (Ark., North Carolina, Tenn. and Vir.) have over a million blacks. But, five states with over a million blacks (New York, New Jer., Ill., Mich. and Cal.) aren't located in the Southeast. I don't know who stated there are more Mexicans or Latinos, (s)he probably meant Texas and the Southwest (Ariz, New Mex., Nev. and Colorado) is of course, these states' largest minority group. The west coast has millions of African-Americans, but compose a small fraction of the three states' population (Ore., Wash. and Cal.) most focused in urban areas (Seattle-Tacoma and Portland-Salem), and more Asian Americans than blacks live in that region. For future entries and edits, look up the US census web site: www.UScensus.gov and keep footnotes of that data on African-American percentages of all the 50 US states and Washington, DC, perhaps the most "black" (African-American) percentage major city (or some say the title goes to Atlanta, New Orleans or Detroit). 63.3.14.1 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Americans in US regions 

message: I really think we should protect this article so that racists and the like can't keep vandalizing it.  Just look at the history and see how bad it is already :P ScrapMetal 03:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll semi-protect it for a bit and see how that goes - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protect the article 

message: Most Caribbean people or "dark" skin will identify with black since it has no connotation of culture, but they will not identify with African-American. Most people in Latin American of African features and "dark" skin identify as black and are referred to as "black" until they encounter US census statistics that redefine their culture and racial categories to American standards. This continuous redefining and mixing of racial and ethnic categories as one form of identity in America (e.g. black and Caribbean as African-American, Indian in appearance and 3rd generation Caribbean as Asian) continue to dominate Americans' view of "bi-racial" and "multi-racial" but are not reflective of the views of those being classified of Caribbean or Latin American origins (birth).
I suppose most of this belongs in the article, but I really don't think it belongs in the lead. Any objections to moving it down (if the equivalent isn't already below, I didn't check)? Also, it needs rewording, some of this is pretty polemical: e.g. "until they encounter US census statistics" "continue to dominate Americans' view", uncited "not reflective of the views". - Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minutiae in lead

message: A gun symbolize violence, death, etc. Malcolm X is suppose to represent a hero who wanted peace and liberty for his people. I don't think using him with a gun as a portrait is fitting; to me, the picture makes him seem like he should be feared rather than admired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bélancourt (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the picture appears in a section dealing with the Black Power movement and the Black Panther Party, and since Malcolm X is commonly associated with these, I wouldn't say showing him with a gun is misrepresenting him.  It might be questionable if this were the first picture to appear on his article, but for the purposes of the African-American article it seems quite in context. G Rose (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malcolm X with a gun? 

message: Out of curiosity (I am not a native English speaker), how offensive is it when somebody reffers to an African American (or more broadly, any black skinned African) as 'a black'? The article seems to indicate it is not offensive at all, but I thought I read otherwise?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Black" isn't really considered an offensive term over here, like "white" isn't considered offensive to whites. But African-American is still considered the most "proper" term.--Jersey Devil 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black

message: A user asked why there were no women in the main image, so I updated it to show Rosa Parks and Oprah Winfrey. Is everyone ok with this? --DrBat 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: There's a wayward right-bracket (]) in the third paragraph of "Who is African American?"  I'd fix it but I haven't registered yet. 72.199.241.47 23:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small typo 

message: Substituted at 20:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment