Talk:Civil rights movements

message: While I was really happy to see that a section on the Chicano Movement was included in the section on civil rights in the U.S., it doesn't say anything about civil rights leader Cesar E. Chavez and the UFW farmworkers' movement (which was more than a labor movement--it was a fight for civil rights).  
I also noticed that this article is in need of a write up on the Young Lords, who set up a lot of programs and fought for civil rights primarily in New York City and Chicago.  I hope that someone can do this faster than I'm able to.  Thanks. 
Revolition (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Topics and Themes

message: Hi. 
There's a grammer error in this page. Under the section 'Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland' on the 5th line down at the far right of the page, it reads 'better housing and committed itself to end discrimination in employment'. The 'end' of that phrase should be changed to 'ending'
Thanks
Raalu (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Bility (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 30 April 2012 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Current sentence:
The civil rights movement in the United States includes noted legislation and organized efforts to abolish public and private acts of racial discrimination African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States.
Fixed sentence:
The civil rights movement in the United States includes noted legislation and organized efforts to abolish public and private acts of racial discrimination *against* African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States. Gunfulker (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 27 March 2013

message: You may be interested in this deletion discussion for the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches. Diego (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion - List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches 

message: The references to Quebec's Quiet Revolution and October Crisis are well made, but off-topic, as they do not refer to segregated groups fighting for equality (essence of the civil rights movement). 
As for Quebec's sovereign movement, it is literally the opposite of a civil rights movement, for it seeks to separate the Quebecois from the Canadian as distinct citizens whereas a civil rights movement would try to integrate them better.
I suggest the removal of the whole Canadian section from this article.
Xachar (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 3 May 2013 / Canadian reference off-topic 

message: ::
* Support – It's plural either way; might as well use the more common phrasing.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 
*Support Adjectives before nouns is the standard in clear, concise English.  GregKaye 20:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 
*Support per rationale of the nom. & GregKaye.--JayJasper (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Please see my responses to each point the nominator presented as a rational.  Thank you.  Mitchumch (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

text: *Request for clarification:  You've said "oppose", but have not addressed the question posed by the RM, of word order. You've only suggested the  of another word. Do you actually propose, and have a rationale for, using the longer "movements for civil rights" phrasing, whether we add an adjective or not?  Below, you provide 7 examples that actually lend support to the proposal for the shorter name, so I'm confused about what your actual opinion/intent is. As for the suggested addition, I have to observe that adding "global" (or "worldwide" or some other synonym) would change and limit the scope of the article itself to covering only civil rights movements that are global in nature, which depending upon one's definitions might even be none of them.  This is a rename discussion, not a re-scoping discussion.  Please suggest an actual title, if you disagree with both the current one and the proposed one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 
*Support - Should be moved based on recognizability alone which is an indicator of the common use of the name. It is more concise than the current title and its what a reader will naturally look for. The new name is also consistent with other articles. For example you would not name the article, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954), to African-American Movement for Civil rights. Mbcap (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In your own words. If the CRM was made up of individual movements, why wouldn't CRMs be an appropriate redirect there? --BDD (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Yes, I agree. By 'individual' movements I mean that the overall American Civil Rights Movement was a progression of events which have come to be called movements. From the Sit-ins, to the Freedom Rides, to the Open Theater actions, to Mississppi, Birmingham, Selma, Chicago, etc. the CRM leaders chose various venues for their next organized steps in the full overturning of legal desegregation laws and the related legally-induced cultural restrictions. They were all part of the same large movement, although they each have individual names (much as individual battles in a war are included as part of the overall war). Randy Kryn 12:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Nothing currently links to  in article-space. That redirect originally went to  in February 2006, then, three days later, to , then, a year later, to . So, it's danced around in the grey zone between the Proper Name for the African-American movements and the generic "bill of rights" usage.  was primarily attributed to the 1950s and 60s on 08:46, 31 July 2006, when  moved page African-American Civil Rights Movement to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1965-1968) (Additional time frame). Making "Civil rights movements" plural may be sufficient to mean the reader is looking for more than just the 50s–60s era article. What we are lacking is a broad overview of African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95), African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). "Civil rights movements" should redirect to such an overview, which might even make room for a small section about other movements such as in Northern Ireland – not a comprehensive discussion of other movements, only a discussion of how they were inspired by or inspired the African American movement. I can even see making "Civil rights movements" a simple set-index list article. The current "Movements for civil rights" just seems too far off-base regarding weight and POV to be called "Civil rights movements" in its current form: too much emphasis is on the 1960s. Maybe if it were re-titled 1960s civil rights movements, and gave priority to the African-American movement over the others, we would have a good compromise. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Mike Cline, would you mind explaining why you've decided to relist the discussion, please? Thank you! Red Slash 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe will benefit from further discussion. Final answer --Mike Cline (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Relisted?

message: *I will address each point [of the RM nomination] in order of appearance:
::*"Present article name fails WP:NC, as it is not common"
:::First, WP:NC or "Deciding on an article title" states, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject."  Furthermore, subsection "Use commonly recognizable names" states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.
:::Secondly, this claim contradicts the point "That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC." If this point is true, then how can the plural form of the term "civil rights movement" become the WP:COMMONNAME for this article?
:::Lastly, please provide a list of WP:COMMONNAME terms from reliable English-language sources that are used to refer to the content in the article "Movements for civil rights."  Also, please cite the sources of those terms.
::*"Present article name fails WP:NC, as it is not ... concise or particularly recognizable"
:::First, WP:NC or "Deciding on an article title" states, "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."
:::Secondly, to address the phrase "is no longer than necessary" the term "Movements for civil rights" is 26 characters long, including spaces.  The term "Civil rights movements" is 22 characters long, including spaces.  A difference of 4 characters.  The length of the term "Movements for civil rights" is concise.
:::Thirdly, to address the phrase "distinguish it from other subjects" the term "Movements for civil rights," has no other comparable term that is similar to it when searched on Wikipedia.  The term "Civil rights movements" and the term "Civil rights movement" are distinguished by 1 character.  The term "Civil rights movements" is not synonymous with the term "Civil rights movement."  The term "Civil rights movements" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "Movements for civil rights."  The term "Civil rights movement" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)."  Also, the meaning as stated in the article lede can not be verified through reliable English-language sources.  If there are reliable sources that claim the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s," then please cite them. 
:::Lastly, WP:NC also states, "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." The article "Movements for civil rights" has been viewed on average 205 times per day as of March 23, 2015.  This article has three terms that serve as redirects to it.  Those redirect terms are "Civil rights movements," "Rights movement," and "Civil rights in the United States." The term "Civil rights movements" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015.  The term "Rights movement" contributes an average of 0.4 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015.  The term "Civil rights in the United States" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015.  Of the four terms that directs users and readers to this page, the term "Movements for civil rights" is particularly recognizable.  The term "Civil rights movements" is not particularly recognizable.
::*"Present article name fails WP:NC, ... is not a phrase many would search for"
:::WP:NC or "Deciding on an article title" states, "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." The article "Movements for civil rights" has been viewed on average 205 times per day as of March 23, 2015.  This article has three terms that serve as redirects to it.  Those redirect terms are "Civil rights movements," "Rights movement," and "Civil rights in the United States." The term "Civil rights movements" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015.  The term "Rights movement" contributes an average of 0.4 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015.  The term "Civil rights in the United States" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015.  Of the four terms that directs users and readers to this page, the term "Movements for civil rights" is particularly recognizable.  The term "Movements for civil rights" is a phrase many search for.  The term "Civil rights movements" is a phrase many do not search for.
::*"It was arrived at in a unilateral move that was not advertised via RM (see immediately above on this article's talk page)"
:::WP:RM or "Wikipedia:Requested moves" states, "Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page."  I am an autoconfirmed user.  On 12 October 2013, I posted on the article talk page an inquiry titled "Propose name change to article title" without a response for seven days.  This article had and continues to have a large number of page watchers.  Given the number of page watchers, a seven day wait for a response, and the lack of response I then reached the conclusion "there was no reason to expect a dispute concerning" this move. After I performed the move using the Move function and no one reverted the move, no one contacted me to dispute the move, no one posted anything on the article talk page to discuss the move, I again came to the conclusion that the move was not controversial.  No one reverted the move and/or disputed the move for 15 months. 
::*"It was arrived at in a unilateral move ... to usurp the titles Civil Rights Movement and Civil rights movement"
:::First, this claim contradicts the point "That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC."
:::Secondly, the term "Civil rights movements" and the term "Civil rights movement" are distinguished by 1 character.  The term "Civil rights movements" is not synonymous with the term "Civil rights movement."  The term "Civil rights movements" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "Movements for civil rights."  The term "Civil rights movement" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)."  Also, the meaning as stated in the article lede can not be verified through reliable English-language sources.  If there are reliable sources that claim the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s," then please cite them. 
:::By contrast, the term "civil rights movement" is well defined by Scholarship (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) or News organizations (WP:NEWSORG).  That claim is well established by an abundance of reliable English-language sources.  The term is also the WP:COMMONNAME for the social movement in the United States.
::::For a list of sources, please see:
::::*Google Books Ngram Viewer - here, listed below as "Search in Google Books" or here
::::*Google Scholar (journals) - over 200,000 sources
::::*Google News - over 90,000 articles
::::*Google Web Search - over 11 million hits
::*"It was arrived at in a unilateral move that ... redirect them to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)"
:::First, WP:RM or "Wikipedia:Requested moves" states, "Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page."  I am an autoconfirmed user.  On 12 October 2013, I posted on the article talk page an inquiry titled "Propose name change to article title" without a response for seven days.  This article had and continues to have a large number of page watchers.  Given the number of page watchers, a seven day wait for a response, and the lack of response I then reached the conclusion "there was no reason to expect a dispute concerning" this move. After I performed the move using the Move function and no one reverted the move, no one contacted me to dispute the move, no one posted anything on the article talk page to discuss the move, I again came to the conclusion that the move was not controversial.  No one reverted the move and/or disputed the move for 15 months. 
:::Secondly, this claim contradicts the point "That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC."  The point affirms that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "civil rights movement" is African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).
:::Lastly, the term "civil rights movement" is well defined by Scholarship (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) or News organizations (WP:NEWSORG).  That claim is well established by an abundance of reliable English-language sources.  The term is also the WP:COMMONNAME for the social movement in the United States.  Please see sources cited for point "It was arrived at in a unilateral move ... to usurp the titles Civil Rights Movement and Civil rights movement."
::*"which may raise WP:NPOV issues, since different audiences use this phrase differently."
:::First, please cite the reliable English-language sources for the claim "different audiences use this phrase differently."
:::Secondly, please provide a list of WP:COMMONNAME terms from reliable English-language sources that are used to refer to the content in the article "Movements for civil rights."  Also, please cite the sources of those terms.
::*"That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC"
:::First, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC from "Wikipedia:Disambiguation" states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
:::Secondly, it states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."
:::Lastly, this claim contradicts the point "which may raise WP:NPOV issues, since different audiences use this phrase differently."
::*"the subject of this article is intrinsically plural in a way that satisfies WP:NCPLURAL (and its present name is plural, so that aspect of the name wouldn't change)."
:::First, WP:NCPLURAL or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) states, "In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles—for example, our article on everyone's favorite canine is located at dog, not dogs. This rule exists to promote consistency in our article titles and generally leads to slightly more concise titles as well."  WP:NCPLURAL also states, "There are two main types of exceptions to this rule:
::::* Articles on groups or classes of specific things.
::::* Cases where the title only exists in the plural."
:::Secondly, the term "Civil rights movements" and the term "Civil rights movement" are distinguished by 1 character.  The term "Civil rights movements" is not synonymous with the term "Civil rights movement."  The term "Civil rights movements" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "Movements for civil rights."  The term "Civil rights movement" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)."  Also, the meaning as stated in the article lede can not be verified through reliable English-language sources.  If there are reliable sources that claim the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s," then please cite them. 
:::Thirdly, please provide a list of WP:COMMONNAME terms from reliable English-language sources that are used to refer to the content in the article "Movements for civil rights."  Also, please cite the sources of those terms.
:::Lastly, by contrast, the term "civil rights movement" is well defined by Scholarship (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) or News organizations (WP:NEWSORG).  That claim is well established by an abundance of reliable English-language sources.  The term is also the WP:COMMONNAME for the social movement in the United States.
::::For a list of sources, please see:
::::*Google Books Ngram Viewer - here, listed below as "Search in Google Books" or here
::::*Google Scholar (journals) - over 200,000 sources
::::*Google News - over 90,000 articles
::::*Google Web Search - over 11 million hits
::*"It's essentially an expanded-prose list article in form."
:::No thoughts on this point.
::*"Using the title Civil rights movements (lower case per WP:NCCAPS) seems most appropriate."
:::No thoughts on this point.
::*"The editor who moved it made similar undiscussed changes of "civil rights movement[s]" to the awkward and unsourced "movement[s] for civil rights" in the text, which should be put back the way they were."
:::First, to address the point, "made similar undiscussed changes of "civil rights movement[s]"" I made those edits 15 months ago.  To my knowledge, no one reverted the edits nor engaged in a discussion surrounding the edits.  Therefore, the response to those edits did not require me to engage in a discussion.
:::Secondly, to address the term "awkward" this is a personal opinion.  I have no comment.
:::Thirdly, to address the term "unsourced" the term "movements for civil rights" when placed within a sentence describes the subject in the sentence and functioned like an adjective.  The term "Movements for civil rights" when placed within a subheading in the article allowed for a broader discussion for all movements for civil rights within the respective country.  Why do I need to provide a citation for those instances?
:::Fourthly, to address the phrase "which should be put back the way they were." First, that would make some of the sentences a false claim.  The German student movement was not a civil rights movement.  The wikipedia article does not make that claim.  A cursory examination of Google Book entries do not appear to make that claim.  Secondly, that would create disambiguation issues for sentences if an editor chooses to wikilink the term "civil rights movement."  There is no disambiguation page on Wikipedia for the term "civil rights movement."
:::Lastly, the following search terms entered on wikipedia illuminates the reason why there is no disambiguation page for the term "civil rights movement:
::::*"native american civil rights movement" → Native american civil rights movement
::::*"indian civil rights movement" → Indian civil rights movement
::::*"gay civil rights movement" → Gay civil rights movement
::::*"lesbian civil rights movement" → Lesbian civil rights movement
::::*"gay and lesbian civil rights movement" → Gay and lesbian civil rights movement
::::*"lesbian and gay civil rights movement" → Lesbian and gay civil rights movement
::::*"lgbt civil rights movement" → Lgbt civil rights movement
::::*"hispanic civil rights movement" → Hispanic civil rights movement
::::*"chicano civil rights movement" → Chicano Civil Rights Movement redirects to Chicano Movement
::::*"mexican american civil rights movement" → Mexican American Civil Rights Movement redirects to Chicano Movement
::::*"women civil rights movement" → Women civil rights movement
::::*"asian american civil rights movement" → Asian american civil rights movement
::::*"disabled civil rights movement" → Disabled civil rights movement
::*"This article's existence, at a proper title, would probably also obviate any need for a Civil rights movement (disambiguation) page, as was under some discussion at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)."
:::First, there is no need for a disambiguation page.  The article "Movements for civil rights" is not a disambiguation page.  The presence or non-presence of this article is not a factor in the need for a disambiguation page.  As stated in a point, the article "Movements for civil rights" ... "It's essentially an expanded-prose list article in form."
:::Secondly, the following search terms entered on wikipedia illuminates the reason why there is no disambiguation page for the term "civil rights movement:
::::*"native american civil rights movement" → Native american civil rights movement
::::*"indian civil rights movement" → Indian civil rights movement
::::*"gay civil rights movement" → Gay civil rights movement
::::*"lesbian civil rights movement" → Lesbian civil rights movement
::::*"gay and lesbian civil rights movement" → Gay and lesbian civil rights movement
::::*"lesbian and gay civil rights movement" → Lesbian and gay civil rights movement
::::*"lgbt civil rights movement" → Lgbt civil rights movement
::::*"hispanic civil rights movement" → Hispanic civil rights movement
::::*"chicano civil rights movement" → Chicano Civil Rights Movement redirects to Chicano Movement
::::*"mexican american civil rights movement" → Mexican American Civil Rights Movement redirects to Chicano Movement
::::*"women civil rights movement" → Women civil rights movement
::::*"asian american civil rights movement" → Asian american civil rights movement
::::*"disabled civil rights movement" → Disabled civil rights movement
:::If I have misunderstood any of your points, then please correct me.  Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitchumch and SMcCandlish discussion

message: Under gender equality section, final sentence, sexuality is listed twice. Remove one instance.
Formatting of the page is inconsistent. Most movements are listed by nationality (civil rights in northern Ireland, Canada's quiet movement, etc.) then it lists LGBT movements, and then goes back to listing by nation. This can be remedied by reorganizing the page by topic then by nation (race rights [in northern Ireland, in Canada, in Russia,] LGBT rights [in germany, USA, Austrailia, New Zealand] ) This would also allow the inclusion of other issues beyond race and LGBT. The current article appears to imply that these are the only areas where civil rights are at issue.
Nostagar (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: The redundancy has been cut; however, with all due respect you will want to seek consensus (before you use the  template) for the rest.  Stick to sources! Paine  02:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016 

message: Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to describe the Emmett Till case in the lead sentence of the [[Emmett Till]] article 

message: There are currently some remaining groups of people that are not given equal rights under the law - for example, people under 18, unauthorized migrants, and the homeless. The article should focus on future liberation or potential liberation movements, not simply past ones, or else there should be another article called "Groups Not Having Equal Rights" or the like. 129.2.106.82 (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current and future movements for more equality 

message: Hi I would like to make an addition to the introduction of this page. After the following: "The process has been long and tenuous in many countries, and many of these movements did not, or have yet to, fully achieve their goals, although the efforts of these movements have led to improvements in the legal rights of some previously oppressed groups of people, in some places", I would like to include information on the philosophical origin of Civil Right Movements. My edit is as a follows: " Many civil rights movements and their ideologies have stemmed from philosophical thought such as the mid-17th Century philosopher John Locke and his theory of a Lockean Right. Locke inspired many to rebel against the government in order to obtain "natural rights" for all, regardless of their station in society. As a result of his writings, society began to question the intentions of their government and demanded a greater say in their entitlements. Such thought has hence became the backbone for many of the civil rights movements occurring today. JustChillOut (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the text  is sourced. You've provided a source to Locke's writing itself but does that confirm the claim that he was a major inspiration for these sorts of rebellions? Without a source, we won't really be able to add this since it's pretty contentious. See WP:RS and, to a lesser extent, WP:PRIMARY. CityOfSilver 20:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2017 

message: Change Chicano to Chicanx 131.252.140.111 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Why? DannyS712 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018 

message: This is a particularly interesting topic that has not been included in this article. It certainly warrants attention and discussion. Major figures of the civil rights movement in the US including Martin Luther King, Harry Belafonte, Jackie Robinson and Malcolm X were directly involved in anti-colonial movements in Africa. Liberation leaders in Africa such as Tom Mboya and Pio Gama Pinto from Kenya were in active correspondence with these figures. Tom Mboya gave a speech at a civil rights rally in DC, sharing the podium with Martin Luther KingTom Mboya & Dr. Martin L King at a Civil Rights Rally in DC Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0B60s5NiJw. Their collaboration bore fruits for example in the Kennedy Airlift scholarship program and the first Kenyan constitution. Thurgood Marshall was instrumental in drafting the first constitution. Tom Shachtman discusses this in his book Airlift to America. How Barack Obama, Sr., John F. Kennedy, Tom Mboya, and 800 East African Students Changed Their World and Ours. Barack Obama's father got his scholarship to study in the Hawaii because of these collaborative efforts. Unfortunately, mainstream historians discuss these two pivotal movements in the 1950s-60s as though they were unrelated. The writings and speeches of these key figures suggest otherwise. Surely this is worth inclusion. Cheers!Lilac breasted roller (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good topic. Take a look at Krenn, Michael L., ed. The African American Voice in US Foreign Policy Since World War II (1999); Ledwidge, Mark. Race and US foreign policy: The African-American foreign affairs network (Routledge, 2011); Grant, Nicholas. Winning Our Freedoms Together: African Americans and Apartheid, 1945–1960 (U North Carolina Press 2017).. Also Vinson, Robert Trent. "Up from Slavery and Down with Apartheid! African Americans and Black South Africans against the Global Color Line." Journal of American Studies 52.2 (2018): 297 online here Rjensen (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossover and collaboration between the US civil rights movement and the anti-colonial movement in Africa 

message: pls 2409:40E6:24:C2ED:D829:C3E0:F8DF:ED46 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Write a short note on civil rights movement