Talk:African Americans/Archive 6

message: Why is this talk page on this site?  There is no white american talk page, no white talk page, no european american talk page.  Makes me sick.  sundance 09:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of this page 

message: I just edited some cut-and-paste garble out of the third paragraph and it struck me:  Just what term do those who criticize "African-American" as "political correctness" propose to replace it?  And what claim to the right to do so are they asserting?  Is it those who disdain "colored people" and favor "people of color"?  Or it those who . . . who what?  Are racists, perhaps.  
To me it is a matter of respect for the fact that African-Americans put up with a boatload of stupidity and worse every day of their lives.  As Colin Powell says, "When you're black, you're black all day."  So what possible objection can there be to respecting their wishes as to their preferred designation?  Ortolan88 06:19 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)
:I'm not sure what's up with that, but it might be a resistance to any categorization. I've repeatedly heard complaints from various advocates that terminology denoting a certain group was demeaning in that it "labeled" them. These objections may stem from a desire to avoid unfavorable stereotyping. Anyway, as time goes by the usage of terms shifts, and it would be nice if the Wikipedia could chronicle these shifts. --Ed Poor
:: Precisely, Ortolan!  It's not like we're asking for a white stamp of approval about what to call ourselves -- or that we recognize others' (especially white folks') reaction to it is of any importance or merit.  It doesn't matter to us in the least.  So, what's all this crap?  A "boatload of stupidity," indeed! :-p deeceevoice 06:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminolgy, again

message: "The African American race is the most punished race in North America. African American males are more likely to be imprisoned than any other demographic group, especially between the ages of 20 and 39. African American public school students are most likely to be assigned to special-education classes."
I find this statement very POV, coming as it does, under the rubric of "Slavery and Oppression".  One could just as well say "the African American race is the most criminal race" or "the African American race is the most criminally victimised race".  All these facts are true, and their significance can only be determined by a deeper analysis.  According to a Federal Report [Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Does Race Matter?] "Mearly all of the aggregate differences among sentences for whites, blacks, and Hispanics during 1989-90 can be attributed to characteristics of offenses and offenders that current law and sentencing guidelines establish as legitimate considerations in sentencing decisions." -- Daran 00:22, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: "...the most punished race"

message: Removed  Since then it has become a definition accepted by the Western World.
This is clearly not the case in the UK. I find it very strange when US people say "I didn't know he was black", when seeing a picture of someone's grand-parents. -- Chris Q 09:36, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. vs. UK usage

message: The latest edit made (by Karukera) was changing this:
or even a European nation
to this:
or even an European nation
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't go around saying "an Errr-uh-pe-an". Should not the /j/ sound take the word "a"? I don't say "an yam" or "an year" or "an Yugoslavian", do you? And we don't say "an unicorn" or "an uniform" or "an urinal" either, with what sound like they begin with Y. So, forget the "E" at the beginning for a moment . . . what about "(a|an) European" or "(a|an) eucalyptus"? Should we leave this spelling correction in, or revert it? Thoughts? Wiwaxia 02:13, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: "a European" or "an European"?

message: Someone removed the fact that Af-Ams have lower average IQ (~80) than white or asian (~100). This is not in itself a racist comment. It seems to be politically correct to say that all races have equal intelligence, but this is simply not true. Consider dogs, for instance. There are many "races" of dogs, but some races are smarter than others. There is debate that IQ does not measure intelligence. Given this valid contention, it should be stated in the article that "Although African Americans have a lower average IQ compared to whites and Asians, it should also be mentioned that IQ tests have been criticized as being invalid measures of intelligence".  Acornlord 10:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Acornlord, you're an ass. The fact that such a discussion ever even made it into print in this context is blatantly racist. That crap should have been deleted.deeceevoice 09:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind the discussion of whether the purported differences arise from cultural irrelevancy of the questions or the test format, the unconscious bias of the testers, or other factors.  Hrm....  Note to self (or interested others):  Has anyone tried a comparison using the sorts of non-verbal/pre-lingual tests used with children who have language or cognitive impairments?  I'm guessing those would come out with much closer averages, but don't know... and also wonder what happens when you normalize across economic, environmental (think "lead-based paint"), and other factors...  I'd do a Google search here and now, but it's waaaaaaay past my bedtime.  "Race in America" is a topic I've been slowly developing an interest in.  pgdudda 06:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: IQ

message: Doesn't the term Afro American (Afro-American) refer to people of direct or indirect African decent? (e.g. an American whose parents are Cuban and Jamican would be an Afro American as would someone straight from Africa) Dustin Asby 15:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afro American 

message: Ortolan, I didn't mention Tulsa or Bowley, Oklahoma, because neither occurred during the Red Summer.  Yep, I could've mentioned both, as well as Rosewood and a whole lo-oong list of others, but that's not the focus of this article.  I don't see any point in reciting the litany of atrocities committed against black folks in this entry.  In my extensive rewriting of this piece I've made a conscious effort not to dwell on the depravity of racist whites or on blacks as victims.  Again, IMO, that's not the central point of this piece.  However, if you'd like to mention Tulsa or any of the other cities where white folks savaged blacks in mob violence, be my guest.  Throw it up against the wall, and we'll see what sticks.  :-p deeceevoice 00:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess maybe it should go in race riot, an article currently not much good at all, an incomplete list with no serious information.  For instance,   it make no distinction between the mass lynching riots you're talking about here -- attacks by whites on black communities -- and the riots of the 60s -- which were quite different. I don't really know much about the subject, but as a reporter I covered the Chicago and Detroit riots in the 60s.  Ortolan88 02:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's what I was thinking -- that such info would be more appropriate there, which is why I made passing reference to one notable summer.  But I didn't bother to even check if there was an article on race riots.  I almost hate reading anything on Wikipedia that deals with black folks.  The abysmal ignorance, arrogance and sometimes outright racism are ridiculous.  Virtually every article I've visited on this site dealing with black folks is just terribly written, with all kinds of idiotic, erroneous notions or just mind-numbing naivete.  And I don't have the time or the patience -- or, frankly, the will -- to deal with it.  Wikipedia needs to somehow attract more knowledgeable people of color; because, clearly, it is greatly lacking in this regard. deeceevoice 18:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Maybe I can do some preliminary work on the article, clear the ground a little, but you obviously know more about it than I do.  I will put in what I know or can put together, perhaps move or copy a little of what's here over there.  Ortolan88 22:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ortolan, without a talk link on your personal page, how do I contact you?  Sent you an e-mail via the link provided, but it bounced back.deeceevoice 09:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Race Riots

message: This is outrageous.  I was checking that a link I used in another article went to a pertinent page; all I can say is that I will not be linking here in a hurry.
Although there is some good writing and interesting information here, the general feel is that the article is cluttered, difficult to follow and full of tangents and incorrect statements.  As for the comments on this discussion page--I'm flabbergasted.  I can't even follow who's saying what--or when.  I certainly will not engage in debate with anyone who is not willing to 'sign' their statements.
I would suggest that, at the very least, this entry be drastically shortened and some of the concepts moved to their own articles.  At least then people could fight away about specific subjects.
Quill 10:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly Appalling 

message: I don't know if its too late to be posting this but the topic looked interesting and being Black myself i couldn't resist.
Is it possible for race to be so entrenched in a society like America which has stressed the differences between Blacks and Whites so far that race in this country at least is equivalent to an ethnic group? Cultural Blacks are very different from Whites and history shows this. Whites see this country from one perspective and the experience of Blacks in this country has showed their view of this country and the world.
I personally believe that Black, Black-American, Afro-American, African-American, or even New Afrikan are all acceptable regardless of political correctness. These are far more up to dates and not nearly as deterogatory as Nigger, Nergo, Colored, and Anglo-African.
Black-Americans are different from other members of the African diaspora because we share a Native-American, European, as well as African hertitage and that separates us. We are our own ethnic group though it is an ethnic group without a name it is one nonetheless. African-American is generic and the afrocentricity of the term makes me think its an attempt to drown out everything else and only acknowledge the African aspects.
-Eurytus
:The fact that blacks are a separate ethnic group in the U.S. has little to do with how "far [America] has stressed the differences between Blacks and Whites."  Ethnicity has certain intrinsic characteristics related to culture and, yes, shared history that exist outside of external factors.  Our African-ness is something that has been with us since the beginning -- and, in fact, persists in great part despite white efforts to the contrary.  And what do you mean we are an "ethnic group without a name"?  "African-American" is meant to speak to our origins and the very seminal point that it was our African ancestors who survived the Middle Passage -- a truly "defining" moment in our history as a people.  What?  Would you rather we do some ridiculous Tiger Woods thing and call ourselves "Cablanasians"?  deeceevoice 10:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is BLACK a Race or Ethnic Group in America? 

message: Thanks, Eurytus, for your turnaround of this piece.  I was too lazy to do it comprehensively and made primarily reactionary comments to the crap written previously.  I eventually started on the historical stuff, but you've done an admirable job of writing an overview.  It's got some ways to go and a bit of correction, but this is head and shoulders above the previous incarnation -- a ridiculous discussion of the term "African American" instead of the people so named.  Will return with more info/edits/comments.  Again, thanks/peace. :-) deeceevoice 10:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now, THIS is an article.

message: Notes to self (or anyone else with time to contribute):  Noble Drew Ali's Moorish Scientists (religion), Juneteenth (holidays), Congressional Black Caucus (political empowerment), disparities in sentencing & sentencing guidelines--three strikes (issues), fleshing out of Culture to include mention of and links to jazz, rhythm & blues, etc. And subheads!deeceevoice 08:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: To be included

message: We should write about the fact that the American constitution set African-Americans as 3/5 of a person when counting representation. Bogdan | Talk 15:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Someone has spoken to this at African American history.  It's working already....Quill 19:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  3/5th of a person 

message: I had two good reasons for the edit:
1.  There was a Wikipedia warning about the size--in excess of 31 KB, recommended condensing and move.
2.  The article was becoming cumbersome again.  Notes of preachiness and bias were creeping in.  In my experience, Wikipedians tend to throw up their hands and walk away when the editing task seems to large.  This way, people with interest or expertise in a specific area can give energy to a specific topic.  This article should have a good definition and description of African Americans (which it does) and passing reference to other topics.
Quill 22:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If "notes of "preachniness and bias" were creeping in, then they should have been addressed.  So, hacking the article fixes your concerns?  Don't think so.  If "passing reference" is what you seek, then this is the venue in which to express such concerns BEFORE unilaterally deciding to truncate a piece, IMO making it a far less effective and comprehensive overview of a subject -- which is what one EXPECTS in an encyclopedia (note wikipedia treatments of other subjects like "jazz" and "race".  Interesting that no such criticisms of "preachiness" and "bias" resulted in the chopping up of the earlier version of this piece when it basically was a useless, ad nauseam examination of the history of the term "African American" instead of a treatment of the subject itself. deeceevoice 18:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Again, on this issue of "bias" and "preachiness," it would be useful if you (Quill) and others who believe any of the information presented is, indeed, biased, if you would direct people to the specific passages so that they can be examined further.  Blanket and vague allegations are not at all helpful.  Assuming that, Quill, you merely chopped up the piece and changed nothing else, presumably, the "bias" still exists.  What, in your view, needs to be changed?  If we hear nothing from you, we will assume you have reconsidered your comment and now think otherwise. deeceevoice 09:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I think that the Japan article might be a good model for the African American article. If you look at its history, it had a major problem before with having lots of poorly-organized (and often inaccurate) information crammed into one article. As it stands now, there's a brief summary of all the major points, and links to other articles that examine each area in much more depth. The African American experience is incredibly broad and there's no way to write it all up in 32 kilobytes; it might be a better idea to summarize it within 32 and then broaden the concepts in articles about African American history, African American music, African American society, African American literature, etc (which could all be subheadings under this article). - Sekicho 21:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Quill, who said anything about "within 24 hours"?  Certainly not I.  And "we" is anyone interested in the article.  If you make a claim about a problem, it's reasonable to expect some sort of substance to that claim.  If something about the article needs fixing, then it's helpful to know precisely what those problems are.  Otherwise, your opinion is useless; you give us absolutely nothing to work with.  Asking someone to specify (even a single example would be helpful) what they've stated in only the most general of terms is wrong with a piece is certainly not the same thing as expecting or demanding that the person offering the criticism fix it immediately.  If you see something wrong with the article, then tell us.  Perhaps others of us will see it also.  And those who have the time and inclination can set about correcting/rectifying it.  Assuming that because you don't have time to fix the entry it should remain as is -- with, by your account, "bias" and "preachiness" -- until you can get around to it makes no sense -- unless, of course, you believe you're the only one capable of approaching the subject matter with intelligence and fairness. :-p deeceevoice 23:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Deeceevoice, you came back to your same comment in less than 24 hours with another statement.  I took that as preremptory and demanding.  On re-reading, perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but it certainly sounded to me as though you were complaining that I hadn't responded to you.  And your last sentence, directly above, is unjustified, unworthy and unfair.  Please reread my fourth paragraph of Nov. 10.  Enough already. Quill 23:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: First you conclude that I'm branding you a racist.  Then you say I'm being demanding and threatening you!  I agree.  "Enough already." :-p deeceevoice 15:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: With regard to alleged "preachiness" and "bias," I went to the African American culture piece (Christianity and Language) and did some reading.  I found some things wrong with it myself (hadn't read the entire AA article completely before it was chopped up -- still haven't -- so my questions were genuine).  But I really don't see any "bias" or "preachiness" -- or that your "corrections" on that topic were substantial.  I made some additions, and tweaked it a bit and added a nod to historians -- in the event that is what you were referring to (the Muslim thing), if that's what concerned you.  But the piece is essentially the same.  I deleted that business about "some people even going so far as to suggest" (or whatever you wrote).  It's a well and widely known historical fact that songs were used as code. Slaves even used homemade quilts slung across fences or hung out to air with arrows (or geese -- anything) -- pointing the way to safehouses and freedom.  It's simply not in dispute. deeceevoice 15:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Move 

message: Thanks to GBleem for restoring a lot of what was useful in the first major revision (deleted by Eurytus) of the old article.  Good call.  After Quill's decision to break up the article into numerous smaller segments, a lot of that text seems to fit.  And, Quill, I'm warming to your decision to chop the article up.  I thought what remained of the original article looked (and read) like crap.  (And it kind of did.)  But with the restoration of some of the other information, hey, it's better.  Not perfect, but better.  And, more importantly, your edits allow for expanded treatment of some subjects that received merely passing mention in the second major revision of this piece.  Another good call. deeceevoice 07:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gbleem's restoration of much of old text and a reconsideration of Quill's "hack job" 

message: I've noticed that there is a lot of repitition in the introduction and definition sections of this article.  Also, if  the term is so disputed as to who is included, we should probably delete the census info in the opening paragraph, or explain who the census bureau considered African American.  But all in all the additions made in the article has made it a confusing and repetitive mess.Ramsquire 21:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's a mess.  I've been saying it's a mess.  Even the discussion is a mess.  No argument out of me, IMO it's a mess. Quill 22:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Lot's of the discussion on this page refers to things that are no longer in the article and sometimes people add to a comment about a resolved issue. I think that's one reason the talk page is so messy. I kinda wish the talk pages worked more like usenet. As for the article itself I think it's pretty good now. It's an understatement to say race in the United States is a mess and therefore I expect an article about anything having to do with race to look and feel messy. When I do any editing I try to pretend that I'm explaining it to someone from another country or that someone hundreds of years in the future is reading it. --Gbleem 04:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened here? 

message: Does "foodways" include agricultural methods. I vaguely remember reading about african rice and rice farming techniques in a book on South Carolina. Should you add "crops and agricultural methods" or something like that? --Gbleem 10:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  foodways 

message: Why was the section on white South Africans currently living in America excised?? I have known some of these people, and they personally take offense at Americans (and yes, Americans are not the only people in the world) use of the term, because (understandably) they see no reason why the term should not apply to them. After all, they are African and they are American. Moreover, they find it very strange and peculiar that most Americans don't understand their argument. Another thing, why was the section next to it moved, about Africans themselves? Here is what is missing from this article — any indication that the term "African American" as it is used in America is an American-specific terminology, and that the vast majority of the rest of the world does not recognise the commonly accepted usage as used in America. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. This section, by excising anything that doesn't subscribe to a particular conventional American wisdom, is highly POV and biased. I'm not asking that the conventional wisdom be excised, but certain people (I won't say who) need to recognise that African American is a contested term, and that this is true no matter how many people would like to think that their usage of the term constitutes the only accepted usage. Statements such as "African American and black American are often used interchangeably, although incorrectly" is a perfect example of this. This may be the case, but such a statement assumes there is a universally accepted "correct" usage of each term, which is not the case. I'm moving the NPOV header to the top of the article, because it seems not just to be this particular section that has a problem. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation did not legally free the slaves, if I remember correctly. Revolver 21:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  South African whites in America 

message: From my perspective the term “African-American” is someone who was born in Africa and moved to America gaining U.S citizenship. This could apply to ANYONE (Black, White, Asian, etc.) who was BORN in Africa. If I’m born in Japan and move to America am I a Japanese American? Yes, and in ignorance terms, no. Yes, if I’m born in Japan I’m a Japanese citizen. If you say Japanese means Asian then that is ignorance because all Asians are not from Japan. All Black people are not from Africa so in reality “African-American” only applies to a small group of people with citizenship in an African nation. Which would make them Nigerian-American, or Sudanese-American, etc. Unlike our light-bulb bright President, we all know that Africa is a continent and not a country. So what are we to do? Do we go with 1. (Continent of origin)-American, 2. (Country of origin)-American, or 3. (Race Group)-American? If we go with (1) then we need to have Wiki pages for South America, Europe, Asia, hell even Antarctican-Americans, regardless of race. We could “Native” Americans and just call “Indians” Americans since everyone else migrated (or were slave traded here). If we go with (2) then we have hundreds of (country of choice)-Americans regardless of race. Or we can go with (3) which would be calling all spades “spades” regardless of where you come from. 
	I can take this a little bit deeper since there are no literally “black” people, hell black isn’t even a color. So I think it’s up to “Brown” people to decide what “Black” people are going to call ourselves and quit letting “White (pink)” people give us these pacifying, hypocrisy filled labels.
:This point really has been discussed adequately.  Have you read the above discussions?  I really think the overwhelming majority understands the term 'African American' as being the latest and preferred term for persons of African descent born in the US.  Whether or not it should properly be applied to African citizens living or naturalized in the US is touched upon in the article, and could probably be expanded upon.  Quill 07:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title change?

message: For what may be construed as a NPOV:
I am a citizen of a Caribbean/ West Indian island, British colonial background, with two (black)(African) grandmothers, one white local grandfather and one white grandfather of US origin(he came and left!). No details of whether the two grandmothers came directly from african slave origins, free african, or via US slave origins. Local blacks are mostly of former British slave owners, especially Loyalists who fled US during War of Independence from Britain, and freed slaves released from intercepted ships (eg. Amistad and Creole) still engaged in slave trade with countries which had Emancipation after Britain. I am a (biracial)(half-breed)(mixed)(mulatto)who is often confused as hispanic ie. cuban, puerto rican or dominican when I travel to US by ALL in US. Locally, as the population is about 80%black, 10% white and 10% mixed, asian, east indian, etc., I am often called white boy, reds (=redbone) and a few other local appellations which you would not recognize. We have no indigenous amerindian population. The south Florida Hispanics? assume that I am one of them when I walk in, but opinions are visually apparent when my accent is heard. The US blacks (my usage) accept me a little more, but I am not black enough, etc. White Americans seem to treat me a little different I think, as a foreigner, meaning a little more positively than I feel they talk to African-Americans. I have family, friends, schoolmates in and from USA, and resided in various areas for school and temporary work assignments. Many African-Americans become upset at us in the Caribbean because we, decendants of a slave system, do not dwell on the topic as much, and sometimes appear indifferent. As majorities, we have taken over the politics of our countries, with some whites involved in appropriate percentages. Most would not vote for a white President or Prime Minister yet, but we are on the way. Mixed black/white with 'blacker' hair texture are black, whereas mixed with "softer" hair textures and "hispanic" features are white, red or local appellations. (See conchy-joe or redlegs). Most West Indians and Caribbean islanders are so engrossed in our our albeit newer cultures that we often do not know or care to know our African roots. We identify locally, and feel at home and at ease that we do not long for Mother Africa, or its identity. we definitely are not moving back. We are so laid back until we are horizontal. We still use the equivalent of racial slurs at each other in general mixed conversation, but everyone knows when and where. Yes, some get upset, but we are growing out of it, and sometimes it still hurts when it gets heated. We are on our way to some of the first world standards, and sometimes we wish some of the first world standards would slacken up a bit. Call me what you want, but do not call me Collect. 
Manowar
:Like practically all New World Africans, I'm a mongrel, too:  African (from possibly Angola or thereabouts, since I was born in Louisiana; Caddo; Cherokee; Irish).   In my multicultural, multi-ethnic, multilingual community, I'm often mistaken for Latina, myself -- especially when I speak Spanish.  Also, E. Indian/Bangladeshi; Ethiopian; Egyptian -- you name it.  But that's because many Latinos have African ancestors, and people of color look pretty much the same the world over.  I remember taking a trip to British Columbia as a young child (1960s), and as we were entering a restaurant, the local white folks started counting as we passed by.  When they got to one of my sisters, they exclaimed, "Look!  There's an Eskimo!"  But, IMO, black is black.  Such curiosity/cases of mistaken identity on the part of others are pretty much par for the course.
:I appreciate your contribution -- but are we supposed to do something with this, article-wise?  Serious question.  (You may want to take a look at black Canadian, if you haven't already done so.) deeceevoice 21:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Indian/ Caribbean input 

message: The sections you're trying to delete from African American -- U.S. Lexicon are a legitimate discussion of the history of black and white relations in the United States, and it's not appropriate to delete these valid paragraphs.  RickK 07:28, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
It is NOT legitimate for non-AA's to comment on slang used for a minority in an encyclopedia.  This is not scholarship, but bias dressed up.  When the European American page starts getting edited by Quill, RRick and the other biased, fanatically oriented watch-list based posters (not authors), then I'll believe you.  objective 07:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about?  Please do not simply chuck my name about out of context, particularly not slinging unfounded insults--what on earth does this mean "...biased, fanatically oriented watch-list based posters (not authors)...."?? Quill 01:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias dressed up 

message: I recently, and with great difficulty, cleaned up this talk page. About 2/3 of the sections were duplicated, in whole or in part, in no terribly obvious pattern. I some cases, one of the two versions of a section contained remarks not in the other. I've tried hard to preserve everything. Sincere apologies if anything got removed in the process, feel free to restore it. And I'm sure that the sections are no longer all in chronological order, but I'm pretty sure they haven't been in some time.
Anyway, it would be appreciated if someone would archive some of this. It might make sense to do archive a page just on the discussions of (1) whether African American is the most appropriate term and (2) whether recent white South African immigrants, Ethiopian immigrants, etc. are African American. Then when, inevitably, someone asks these questions again, we would have a single archive page to refer them to for the exhaustive, exhausting discussion. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, I was going to suggest an archive; you beat me to it.  I don't know how to do it myself.  I think a note at the top of the TALK page indicating what the consensus is and where the archived discussions can be found would do wonders.
:I also think it would be good to start this TALK page afresh from [date] and request that people sign and date their comments and use indenting, to keep that type of chaos from happening again.  Your cleanup efforts are appreciated.
:Quill 23:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This talk page