Talk:African American history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.) |
[edit] Hyphen usage
This might seem to be a dumb concern, but shouldn't "African American history" actually be written as "African-American history"? I ask because I'm a complete grammar nazi and because I believe when "African American" is used as an adjective, it is supposed to be hyphenated. 129.2.217.166 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to check Civil Rights Movement and see if we need a merge, cross-ref, and/or delete here. Quill 22:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was thinking why is Colin Powell always listed as being a Black American when of Jamaican not American slave descent? -Eurytus
Updated the page some. -Eurytus
[edit] This article needs some serious attention
The status of subheads needs some attention. I've changed only a few. The business about the "ideals of the American Revolution" and slavery was hogwash. I changed it to reflect reality. The business about blacks fighting for the Confederacy (which I barely even skimmed) probably needs some serious attention, as well. I don't think (I didn't actually read it) it even mentions the business of class interests playing a role in free southern blacks fighting for the Confederacy, or that there is no way to tell how many southern blacks fighting for the CSA were slaves pressed into service by their masters. Without mention of such issues, this smacks of disingenuous, historical revisionism at its worst. Also, throughout, "southern" should be lower cased. "South" as a distinct region of the nation is capitalized, but its adjectival form is always lower-cased. Again, I haven't really read any of this, but it seems that some of this could be broken off into treated as a separate article (one or more). deeceevoice 12:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The number of about 13,000 I listed was out of a bigger number of Black Confederates. The 13,000 were the ones who served. Also Southern should be captialized just like American. The hog wash of the American Rev was no different then the North's claims of freedom. The Confderacy paid their Black troops as much as the Whites and servants more then White counterparts. Vital Component 5:49 AM
I notice you didn't change my revisions regarding the "ideals of the American Revolution." Why? Because they are on point. Slaves repeatedly petitioned for their freedom based on the hypocritical rhetoric of whites who likened their colonial status to "slavery" -- all the while buying and selling human chattel and beating and working them like beasts. Likewise, you are incorrect in capitalizing the adjective "southern" when it is not part of a formal title. In this use, it is no different from windows having "northern exposure" or someone having a "southern accent." And the elements I mentioned regarding black service in the Confederacy should, and will be, included for accuracy. deeceevoice 13:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vfd
On 28 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/African American history for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 02:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
- That it even came up is something akin to incredible. No wonder people lose it from time to time. At least it was 'no contest'--we live in hope.... Quill 04:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
r==Re: the caption and the whipping of slaves==
Pharlap, stop reverting the caption. You clearly don't know what the hell you're writing about. This practice is widely and well known by anyone who has read virtually anything about slavery. If you're so abysmally ignorant on a particular topic, at least do some research before repeatedly reverting the truth and then inserting such ill-informed opinions. The viciousness and brutality of slave masters and the sinister cruelty with which they treated their human chattle are well-documented facts. It is patently ridiculous to think that anyone cruel enough to use a bullwhip or a cat-o-nine tails on a human being would give a damn about their physical well-being. Slaves frequently were whipped to death -- or left to die in the dirt, with other slaves forbidden to render assistance. The cross-hatch effect on this black man's back was produced deliberately -- by artful, practiced use of a bullwhip, cutting first in one direction and then another --so the skin and flesh would lift off in square patches or chunks -- a documented practice. A google -- which took all of five seconds -- yielded this passage about the cruelty of a particular slaveowner:
After he had finished with his cruel lash, he would rub salt and pepper into the gashes. The tree to which were tied so many of these bleeding forms of living humans, still stands. It is a huge and spreading white oak. (The author has seen it.) It stands near the old camp and the Lowery front yard.
Hoad Lowery, when a very small child, came upon the scene one day when Dr. Lowery had his mother tied to the tree and was whipping her. He watched his mother endure the agony as long as he could stand it. He was small and weak, of course; but his courage was not lacking. He rushed in to his mother's assistance with his fighting blood up. He was ready and willing to take whatever might come if he could relieve his mother. But with one mighty kick, the Doctor sent him whirling through the air. He hit the ground several feet away and was unable to renew the fight in his mother's behalf.
Sound like someone who'd give a damn about mitigating the pain of a suffering slave to you?
http://www.tngenweb.org/records/henderson/history/ap-c5.htm
That anyone should have to spend time proving such an elementary fact of history is ridiculous. The very idea that anyone with any common sense would rub salt in a wound to "reduce the risk of infection" is in itself patently ludicrous. I mean haven't you ever heard the figurative expression "to rub salt in a wound"? What do you think that means? Salt is an irritant. If you doubt it, give yourself a nick, then spread the flesh wide and rub in some simple table salt. Gee. Doesn't that feel good? *x* deeceevoice 01:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
In response to your comment: "Slaves frequently were whipped to death -- or left to die in the dirt"
Slaves were valuable property, and eventhough medical care was almost nonexistent and inadequate, it was in the slave owners interest to keep the slave alive and to return him to the fields as soon as possible.
Ida B. Wells wrote 1895:
"During the slave regime, the Southern white man owned the Negro body and soul. It was to his interest to dwarf the soul and preserve the body. Vested with unlimited power over his slave, to subject him to any and all kinds of physical punishment, the white man was still restrained from such punishment as tended to injure the slave by abating his physical powers and thereby reducing his financial worth. While slaves were scourged mercilessly, and in countless cases inhumanly treated in other respects, still the white owner rarely permitted his anger to go so far as to take a life, which would entail upon him a loss of several hundred dollars. The slave was rarely killed, he was too valuable; it was easier and quite as effective, for discipline or revenge, to sell him "Down South.""
In response to your comment: "The very idea that anyone with any common sense would rub salt in a wound to "reduce the risk of infection" is in itself patently ludicrous."
A slave that developed an illness or infection could die, which would decrease the planter’s labor supply and wealth. Salt was used as an antiseptic wound healer, and, when applied to open wounds inflicted in dirty, dusty and unhygienic environments, a saver of life.
Salt, Slavery and Other Hauntings [1]
Her use of salt thus invokes salt's healing and protective properties. Salt does not only remind us of the tragedy of the slave trade but it also reminds us of our resilience as black peoples, to survive and thrive. Salt was used by slaves in the American south during funeral ritual to absorb evil spirits. It was the briny solution, thrown on the backs of slaves who were whipped, that prevented infection and helped close open wounds.
THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER Part 3 of 4 [2] By The American Anti-Slavery Society 1839 PERSONAL NARRATIVES, PART II. TESTIMONY OF MRS. NANCY LOWRY, A NATIVE OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Long would tie them up by the wrist, so high that their toes would just touch the ground, and then with a cow-hide lay the lash upon the naked back, until he was exhausted, when he would sit down and rest. As soon as he had rested sufficiently, he would ply the cow-hide again, thus he would continue until the whole back of the poor victim was lacerated into one uniform coat of blood. Yet he was a strict professor of the Christian religion, in the southern church. I frequently washed the wounds of John, with salt water, to prevent putrefaction. This was the usual course pursued after a severe flogging.
INTERVIEW OF EX-SLAVE FROM VIRGINIA [3]
Reported by Rev. Edward Knox Jun. 9, 1937
Topic: Ex-slaves Guernsey County, District #2 JENNIE SMALL Ex-slave, over 80 years of age
Our master's way of punishment was the use of the whipping post. When we received cuts from the whip he put soft soap and salt into our wounds to prevent scars.
NARRATIVE OF JAMES WILLIAMS AN AMERICAN SLAVE [4] WHO WAS FOR SEVERAL YEARS A DRIVER ON A COTTON PLANTATION IN ALABAMA
Flincher then volunteered to whip him on one side of his legs and Goldsby on the other. I had, in the mean time, been ordered to prepare a wash of salt and pepper, and wash his wounds with it. The poor fellow groaned, and his flesh shrunk and quivered as the burning solution was applied to it. This wash, while it adds to the immediate torment of the sufferer, facilitates the cure of the wounded parts.
Salt, salt water solutions and salted meat was also a common "medical" device in rural african american communities:
I heard it through the Grapevine: Oral Tradition in a Rural African American Community in Brazoria, Texas [5]
"For thrush, you’d rinse it out with salt and water. In them days you only had warm salt and water. People used them old home remedies. Not much taking children to the doctors. You had to try everything at home first."
"Then you had salt pork if you had a nail in your foot. That would draw the impurities out. Before a wound was going to close up, they’d put a piece of fat meat on it and put a rag around it. That and some turpentine."
African-American Archaeology [6] Newsletter of the African-American Archaeology Network
While patent medicines were found archaeologically, so were traditional treatments. The informant recalled her grandmother using salted meat and cobwebs to treat cuts and puncture wounds
Slaves and Africans Americans were not the only ones who had to endure this harsh painful treatment:
Discipline and punishment in the Royal Navy [7]
After flogging a man would be taken to the ship's surgeon to have his wounds treated. Salt could be rubbed into the wounds or the man washed down with salt water (brine). Although this may seem cruel and to make the punishment worse it was done for a very good reason. Salt and salt water are good for cleaning wounds and acted as an antiseptic to help the wounds heal cleanly. Salt was also the cheapest antiseptic available and you must remember the men had to pay for their own medicine and treatment.
Methods used by the VAD nurses in Russia [8]
I was surprised and not a little perturbed when I saw that tiny bags, containing pure salt, are sometimes deposited into the open wound and bandaged tightly into place. It is probably a new method; I wonder if it has been tried out on the Allied Front.
These bags of salt - small though they are - must inflict excruciating pain; no wonder the soldiers kick and yell; the salt must burn fiercely into the lacerated flesh. It is certainly a purifier, but surely a very harsh one! At an operation, performed by the lady-doctor, at which I was called upon to help, the man had a large open wound in his left thigh. All went well until two tiny bags of salt was placed within it, and then the uproar began. I thought the man's cries would lift the roof off; even the lady doctor looked discomforted. "Silly fellow," she ejaculated. "It's only a momentary pain. Foolish fellow! He doesn't know what is good for him."
SALT: A WORLD HISTORY [9]
As generals from George Washington to Napoleon discovered, war without salt was a desperate situation. In Napoleon's retreat from Russia, thousands died from minor wounds because the army lacked salt for disinfectants.
Even today, cleaning wounds with salt is still recommended by some as a first aid treatment:
Survival and preparedness [10]
Irrigation has been proven to be a superior method of cleansing wounds than soaking and scrubbing. Irrigate the wound by mechanical irrigation using a stream of saline or iodine-saline solution. Cleaning the Wound Using a syringe, irrigate the wound with one of the above solutions. The irrigation stream should be forceful enough to cleanse the wound of debris. Repeat until at least one-half liter/quart is used. Packing a wound: Dampen a sterile gauze with saline and squeeze out any excess. Unfold the gauze and gently pack it into the wound. Change this packing twice a day
Domestic Medicine - Chapters 44-46 [11]
As these and most other medicines, taken singly, have frequently been found to fail, we shall recommend the following course: IF a person be bit in a fleshy part, where there is no hazard of hurting any large blood-vessel, the parts adjacent to the wound may be cut away. But if this be not done soon after the bite has been received, it will be better to omit it. THE wound may be washed with salt and water, or a pickle made of vinegar and salt, and afterwards dressed twice a-day with yellow basilicon mixed with the red precipitate of mercury.
And about the origin of the figurative expression "to rub salt in a wound":
Terms And Their Origin [12]
Rubbing Salt in a Wound Roman sailors were paid a quantity of salt as part of their salarium (from the Latin sal meaning salt). These sailors did not take kindly to losing part of their salary when having to rub salt into wounds after battles.
Medicine Chapter [13]
Salus She is the Roman goddess of health and healing who corresponds to the greek goddess Hygeia. "Salt" may have been named after her; as a woman who found layers of salt in their environments probably first used it for medical purposes. Salt has a salutary effect on wounds and infections.
Pharlap 15:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Response
Well, well. I'm glad you took the time to do your research! :) Yes, in most cases it was in the interest of slaveholders to preserve their property. But, there are numerous, well-documented instances where slaves were whipped mercilessly, as I described earlier, to set an example for the rest of the slave population. And depending upon the severity of the perceived offense and the temperament of the slaveholder directing the punishment (or the overseer who meted it out), slaves were spared or killed. A badly mutilated or disfigued slave was worth considerably less on the market -- but that didn't stop slaveholders from having ears, feet or other limbs/appendages chopped off as punishment. It didn't stop slaves from being drawn and quartered or torn apart by hounds. Nor did it spare them from the lash and the disfiguring scars of whipping and the salting the wounds.
Is salt a disinfectant? Certainly. Who hasn't, as a child upon losing a tooth, been directed to rinse one's mouth with saltwater?
But the practice under discussion here is of rubbing salt into the wounds to cause pain. And in the source cited above, a combination of salt and pepper was even used -- a well-documented and common practice used as a means of further torturing an already debilitated slave). If the purpose were solely to prevent infection, then why dry salt -- and then the pepper, too?
The fact is humane treatment of such wounds, when there was nothing else available, was saltwater/brine -- not the dry salt itself. When administered alone, the effect on the gaping wounds caused by whipping with an instrument so vicious most stockmen hesitated to apply directly to even the tough hides of their cattle (they cracked it overhead) is that of an intense irritant which aggravates pain to an almost unbearable level. It does in no way mitigate suffering. If the purpose alone were to prevent infection, then the slave was administered to with a solution of brine and/or often herbal poultices. I suppose it could be argued that flat-out salting of wounds was, for a cruel slavemaster, a twofer: added pain and suffering for the slave who's just been whipped like some mongrel, and they get to keep him/her alive to work from can't see to can't see later. But in no way was the practice humane, as your misleading edit implies.
I've reverted the text and added pepper. IMO, my edit is imminently more accurate. deeceevoice 22:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Went back and added the infection bit -- but preserved an understanding of the brutality of the practice, which is the central, important point. deeceevoice 22:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
It is critical to understand that due diligence research is an essential part of editing an encyclopedia. Those who do not have any intention of doing their own research could at least read the talk page more carefully.
Nobody argues the fact that slaves were whipped mercilessly and had to endure all kinds of physical punishments, nevertheless, as you can read above, a slave was rarely killed, and, as you can read above, it was in his owners interest that he recovered quickly so he could return him to the fields as soon as possible.
As you can read above, nobody argues that inserting salt into an open wound was a painful treatment, nevertheless, as you can read above, the application of pure dry salt was most effective and common practice, not only on plantations but also in hospitals, army, navy, etc. and done for a very good reason: to help the wounds heal cleanly (read paragraphs above: "Terms And Their Origin", "Methods used by the VAD nurses in Russia" and "Discipline and punishment in the Royal Navy")
Pepper is NOT an irritant, applied externally it is a counter-irritant and it is considered a natural, herbal remedy that relieves pain and deep tissue inflammation, stops the bleeding and kickstarts the healing process.
Lemon juice and vinegar, sometimes applied as well, are also considered herbal or natural remedies with antiseptic, antibacterial and antibiotic properties and also assist in healing deep and open wounds.
Salt, pepper, lemon juice and vinegar helped to heal wounds and injuries more quickly and without infection, therefore shortened the suffering.
I'm going to edit the caption one more time and will submit a RfC if you choose to revert it again. Pharlap 05:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Response
About keeping slaves alive:
- "In 1860 it was calculated that about 88 per cent of America's slave-owners owned twenty slaves or less. However, large landowners would usually own well over 100 slaves and relied heavily on overseers to run their plantations. These overseers were under considerable pressure from the plantation owners to maximize profits. They did this by bullying the slaves into increasing productivity. The punishments used against slaves judged to be under-performing included the use of the cart-whip. Not surprisingly the mortality-rate amongst the slaves was high. Studies have shown that over a four-year period, up to 30 per cent of the slave population in America died." http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASoverseers.htm
About the use of salt (and pepper) to increase the pain
- Moses Grandy, wrote about his overseer in his autobiography, Life of a Slave (1843): "MacPherson gave the same task to each slave; of course the weak ones often failed to do it. I have often seen him tie up persons and flog them in the morning, only because they were unable to get the previous day's task done: after they were flogged, pork or beef brine was put on their bleeding backs, to increase the pain; he sitting by resting himself, and seeing it done. After being thus flogged and pickled, the sufferers often remained tied up all day, the feet just touching the ground, the legs tied, and pieces of wood put between the legs. All the motion allowed was a slight turn of the neck. Thus exposed and helpless, the yellow flies and mosquitoes in great numbers would settle on the bleeding and smarting back, and put the sufferer to extreme torture. This continued all day, for they were not taken down till night."
If the purpose were to heal, then why were victims often left to writhe in agony, with no further medical attention (as above) -- no wrapping of the wounds to prevent flies from feasting upon or laying eggs in the gaping wounds, resulting in maggots and putrefaction? As this instance clearly states, this was about torture and cruelty.
- Federal Writers' Project, Florida Slave Narratives: Coates, "Father" Charles account, 1936: "On the Hall plantation there was a contraption, similar to a gallows, where the slaves were suspended and whipped. At the top of this device were blocks of wood with chains run through holes and high enough that a slave when tied to the chains by his fingers would barely touch the ground with his toes. This was done so that the slave could not shout or twist his body while being whipped. The whipping was prolonged until the body of the slave covered with welts and blood trickled down his naked body. Women were treated in the same manner, and a pregnant woman received no more leniency than did a man. Very often after a severe flogging a slave's body was treated to a bath of water containing salt and pepper so that the pain would be more lasting and aggravated. The whipping was done with sticks and a whip called the 'cat o' nine tails,' meaning every lick meant nine. The "cat o' nine tails" was a whip of nine straps attached to a stick; the straps were perforated so that everywhere the hole in the strap fell on the flesh a blister was left."
- "HOW LAWS AFFECTED THE EVERYDAY LIVES OF SLAVES": "Although some laws were not strictly adhered to, some were and the punishments varied. One of the most common forms of punishment was whipping. The number of lashes a slave received was usually written in the law. However, most laws did not allow for more than 39 lashes for a 'petty' crime and up to 100 for a more serious crime. Some masters made the whippings more painful by pouring salt or vinegar into the open wounds." Source: Robert Shaw A History of Slavery, (New York: Northern), 1991, 164. http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mgagnon/students/Walthour.htm
- "Black Loyalists: Our History, Our People" (a Canada web site): "Slaves had no right to education, health care, or religious instruction. They could be beaten any way their master saw fit. It was common for them to be whipped until their skin was raw and have salt rubbed into their wounds. Some developed other methods of torture, and a few thought that slaves could be made more docile and co-operative by treating them gently. Slaves had no right to traditional family ties, as their spouses and kin could be sold to another owner at any time.
Reverted. deeceevoice 09:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Salt is, indeed, an irritant. And so is hot pepper. I've already invited you to cut yourself and rub salt into the wound. Now try this: slice open a jalapeño or scotch bonnet pepper. Rub it all over your fingers. Now rub your eye. Feel good? :p
Again, for me, the important/central point here is the brutality of slavery, of this particular process. Would a wealthy white man who was apprehended by a white mob, stripped and whipped later have salt rubbed into his wounds by solicitous caregivers to fight the infection? Hell, no. Why? Because it is crude, cruel medical "treatment" at best; at its worst, an instrument of torture as it was most often practiced during slavery. Black people were regarded as more akin to dogs than human beings. As one white southerner said in an infamous CBS white paper on racism back in the 1960s: "We thought of them as superior pets."
IMO, I've been more than accommodating by mentioning the infection-fighting properties of salt. You, on the other hand, seem hell-bent on lending such an unspeakably brutal practice an air of mercy/compassion. You wanna run to the RfC page? Hey, be my guest. deeceevoice 19:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 3/5 of a person
...The U.S. Constitution of 1787 said that slaves, who at no time had the right to vote in any state, should count as part of the population at the ratio of three persons counted per five slaves. Many African-American spokespersons have translated this into a belief that slaves counted as 3/5 of a person, which is a rough approximation of the truth of their status....
...Many African-American spokespersons have translated this into a belief...?
what els could the statement "should count as part of the population at the ratio of three persons counted per five" mean?
I think the use of the word "belief" indicates a lack of factual evidence; when the truth is and has always been dreadfully apparant....
[edit] Black History - African American only?
Why is "Black History" redirected to African American History? It seems ironic that a topic with equality at its heart should marginalise the experience of non American black people throughout the rest of the world.
- Agreed. I was looking specifically for the history of black people in Europe, and thought "Black History" would be a good place to start. Evidently not. Phil PH 11:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Complaint about "Early History"
As it stands, the "Early History" section is a history of U.S. slavery, not a history of African Americans. It collapses the lives of free African Americans during the 1619-1865 period (more than half of the nation's 1607-2005 history so far) to nil. Even a quick search of the article fails to turn up the names Prince Hall, Paul Cuffee, Richard Allen, Martin Garvey, even Frederick Douglass!
It was in the Jacksonian North that today's African-American ethnicity, with most of its customs (such as the importance of the community church, the involuntary isolation from White society, and even the term "African American") was born. It was among the Black Yankees (free African Americans of the North) that the ongoing and apparently perpetual debate between separatism and integration was born. (The argument between having their own schools and churches to teach their children African culture versus joining and sharing in the benefits of U.S. society as full-fledged—not hyphenated—Americans who have been here longer than most other ethnic groups.) Many Black Yankees had no family history of slavery, their ancestors having landed as indentured servants before slavery (lifelong hereditary forced labor) was adopted in British North America, and yet it was among the Black Yankees of the Jacksonian era that De Tocqueville wrote, in 1830, "Race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known."
African-American history is not my field (my field is the history of the color line itself), so am seriously reluctant to take a whack at this. But someone should definitely tell the stories of those fascinating and historically important people. There is a great deal more to African-American history between 1619 and 1865 than slavery. -- FrankWSweet 15:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone erased the origins of African-American ethnic identity as being "original research" and so forbidden by WP. It is hard to know what to make of such an act. I added the account precisely because, far from being "original research," the story of the people who forged African-American ethnic identity is taught at every level of A-A history, from kindergarten through grad school. But the tale was mysteriously absent from the article. One can only suspect that its abrupt removal, with no discussion, and with an obviously false excuse, was ideologically motivated. I have put the story of the origins of the African American ethnic community back into the article. I have added footnotes to show that, far from being "original research," it comes from standard, peer-reviewed, easily available school texts. If you think that it is too long, shorten it. If you dislike the style, change it. But please do not totally erase it with the false claim that it is "original research" (which it is not), nor for advocating POV (which it does not) .To put it bluntly, without this section, the article claims to tell the history of the African-American ethnic community but omits all mention of Frederick Douglass, Martin Delany, Richard Allen, Prince Hall, Paul Cuffee, and the others who created that very community. Their deliberate omission by an act approaching vandalism renders the entire article into a sad ignorant little joke. Frank W Sweet 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging the American Civil Rights Movemnt (1896-1954) article into African American history article
There is some debate surrounding the beginning and ending of the Civil Rights Movement. A point of consideration is the growing and inevitable overlap between the African American history article and the three articles entitled, American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954), American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), and Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement, particularly any section that chronicles the period before 1954 and after 1968.
The article entitled, "African American history" parallels the article entitled, "American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954)" and, as can be expected, intersect during the Civil Rights era during 1954-1968. This parallel treatment in two separate articles appears to be due to a basic facet of African American history. The bulk of African American history involves the abolishment of discrimination aimed at African Americans (I include slavery in this claim). Since the Civil Rights Movement was a major assault upon all the forms of discrimination aimed at African Americans in the United States during the middle of the twentieth century, an attempt to chronicle the antecedents of that Movement before the 1950's has caused the point designated as the “beginning” of the Civil Rights Movement to recede further and further back into time. Hence, the two articles.
An agreed upon definition for the Civil Rights Movement and African American history needs to be reached in order to rectify this growing issue. Here is one such set of definitions:
If the term "Civil Rights Movement" means the unique combination of reform movements and events that led to the collapse of Jim Crow in the southern states and successfully challenged practices of racial discrimination nationwide during the middle of the twentieth century, then the article entitled American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) seems to be responsible for that coverage.
If the term "Civil Rights Movement" means the continuous struggle to abolish discrimination aimed at African Americans from the English, Spanish, Dutch, and French colonial settlements to the present in the United States, then the article entitled African American history seems to be responsible for that coverage.
If the term "Civil Rights Movement" means the legal case work, lobbying efforts, and public protest campaigns which produced many fruitful antecedents of the Civil Rights Movement – from (pick a date) to (pick another date), and the conditions that galvanized its founders and members to mobilize, then the article entitled (pick a name of any individual or organization that engaged in such work), seems to be responsible for that coverage.
The ultimate goal in this effort and discussion is to create a coherent presentation of related articles and reduce the redundant overlap in articles on the African American experience. - Mitchumch 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes there is overlap but that's OK. Wikipedia is not paper. It's good to keep it granular. The best thing to do, especially since the Afro American history article is long, is to shorten sections that seem overlapped here and advise readers to see this section (as well as the 1954-68 article) . I am de-merging it. If it becomes a live issue, add a debated merge tag. Avraham 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought. Since the article is structured chronologically overall, why not just split it into two pieces by date and merge the later part with the civil rights movement article? Any date chosen for the split (the turn of the 20th century, say, or the 1919 peak of the Jim Crow terror) is going to be arbitrary, of course, but it would be consistent between the articles. Like I said, just a thought. -- Frank W Sweet 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Black Laws existed
I am flagging the section called "The Black Yankees" because there were laws in some States which made it legally impossible for a Mulatto and/or a Negro to become a citizen. Superslum 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] more contrived nonsense
People are addicted to the writing of fabricated nonsense about slaves, calling them "Black Americans." Slaves were property, like a coat, a hat, or a pair pants. Wikipedia is saturated by contrived fabricated nonsense related to mysterious "African Americans" and "Black Americans" who had never existed. Many slaves were brought from Africa after 1807 after the slave trade was theoretically "outlawed" by the Federal government. Hundreds of slave ships existed between 1808 and 1858. The North Atlantic Ocean was covered with them. GhostofSuperslum 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Origins of the African American surnames claude and clark
I am an African American who is searching for my ancestory. All I really know is my grandmother is Mame Clark and she was born in Cleveland Mississippi. Later she moved and died in Ohio. I have been told that the Clark name used to be "Claude". I want to know anything that might help me trace my people with such small bits of information to work with. I have no money to pay for searches. M. Ivey
[edit] M. Ivey
looking for ancestry of Clark and Claude surnames in MI.
Contact at jnewbanks@wmconnect.com
[edit] Restored deleted text
After reading the opening paragraphs of this article (which I had skipped over previously) I immediately realized that something was very wrong: clearly it is not the case that "the majority of African-Americans" trace their ancestry to "Southeast Africa (Mozambique and Madagascar)". In hopes of restoring the correct wording (I assumed that one sentence had been altered), I went back through the edit history and finally (after 15-20 minutes) discovered that a large chunk of text was deleted 7 weeks ago (18:16, October 11, 2006) and had gone unnoticed for all of that time. The opening section of the article is now reconstituted as it read prior to the alteration.
Yegads! How on earth was that missed for so long??? Especially considering that this chunk included the heading for the first section of the article, "Early history"-- as well as nearly two paragraphs of text. This is very discouraging. Even with lots of people keeping their eyes out for vandalism, somehow this got by everybody. We've got to do a better job. Given the number of vandalisms by anonymous users, I may put in a request for semi-protection (see Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy). Cgingold 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Black Yankees?
The section on Black Yankees is rather lengthy and unbalancing an over-long article. I suggest we split this off to its own article, something like "African-Americans in the North befor the Civil War", and say that the term "Black Yankees" is controversial". PatGallacher 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Gallacher is right that this section is way too lengthy. (Looks like someone just read a book and wants to share it.) But he's also overly generous. This section is terrible! It's highly POV and, apparently, based on the writing of a single author, who -- if the text is an accurate reflection of his views -- is tragically misled. Much of the text is comprised of wrong-headed blanket generalizations presented as fact and without citation. I'm deleting a chunk of it. And, frankly, the rest needs to go, too, with only a factual, balanced truncated version remaining. deeceevoice 11:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've just gone through the entire section, and I've decided to strike all of it. There are simply far too many problems with its factuality, lenghty block quotes, balance/objectivity and the unencyclopedic, POV manner in which it is written. It's just a mess. If the editor wishes to begin an article treating northern blacks, then he/she is welcome to do so, but only a short, factual, balanced, well-written section on the subject is warranted here.
- Apologies to the contributing editor. You obviously put a great deal of effort into the article -- but too much of your "information" is simply the viewpoint of authors (whom many would call flat-out wrong-headed/tragically misinformed), which you've presented as fact. And your writing style is often unencyclopedic and full of POV phrases and unsupported assertions. Finally and more
importantlyfundamentally, the lengthy treatment of the subject you've chosen to concentrate on simply is out of place here. deeceevoice 12:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- On the whole, I have to say that I agree with deeceevoice's assessment here. I unfortunately expended way too much time going through that last series of edits to the section, and just didn't have the time or energy to go through the entire section thoroughly. But the opening was so awful that I just couldn't bear to leave it "as-is" without at least trying to turn it into something "tolerable" (as a temporary measure).
-
- I rather suspect that I would have come to very much the same conclusion as deeceevoice about the unsalvagability of the section. In fact, I had told my spouse that I had the distinct impression that it was all written by one editor who was much too caught up in the "Black Yankee" paradigm -- and that I wasn't sure whether it could serve as a foundation for something better, or was simply too much of a mess to save. To be sure, there was some very interesting material in there -- the section on Cincinnati caught my eye -- but when all is said and done, I think it's probably better to have a fresh start. Cgingold 14:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I also went through and came upon some other suspect, highly POV information. All about how "mulatto" "Yankees" came from the North to essentially civilize southern blacks, etc., etc. This all seems to come from the same source -- this guy Frank(?)/Fred(?) (I don't recall his exact name at this point) Sweet, who clearly is pushing a very strange, POV agenda about mixed black folks. I've come across his contributions from time to time on Wikipedia and finally checked him out. He has one book published -- by a vanity press (Backintyme Press) devoted strictly to multiracial matters, which seems to be the only place his other stuff has been published. Oh, that and an apparently non-notable magazine (he's on the editorial board), Interracial Voice. He and his wife do historical reenactments, advertised on the Backintyme website.[14] This guy is an endless self-promoter. He's all over the place. I consider him neither a notable nor reliable source. His stuff just reads strange, and, for me, much of his "scholarship" just doesn't pass the smell test. Though, in all fairness, I have to say some of the info he presents is interesting, if highly POV. Used elsewhere in more finely focused articles, with balancing information and better, more NPOV writing, it could make for some informative and engaging reading. deeceevoice 13:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
