Talk:Kwanzaa/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

(untitled)

There was a comment about "Kwanzaa" in a Futurama Christmas Special. During the Episode, Fry meets a Kwanzaa Santa-type robot, and asks him something like: (Not an exact quote)

-: Could you explain to me this Kwanzaa deal? I don't understand anything about it... -: Sadly, no-one does.

Maybe we could add this tidbit to a (short?) "Kwanzaa in the Media" section.

About the concern over the article:

Why should anyone use facts about Kwanzaa and then decidely refuse information about the one person that created this holiday? You can't just post information about Kwanzaa without an understanding of its fallacies.

Kwanzaa has nothing to do with African roots other than its focus on African American people - it originated in America dating back to 1966. The terms comes from the Swahili language which is of Arabic descent. One of Kwanzaa's principle symbols is CORN which is not indigenous to Africa.

Read the information about Ron Karenga, Kwanzaa's creator

24.165.102.68

I don't know enough about the subject to really contribute to this article, but this anonymous user, who clearly has some kind of axe to grind with Ron Karenga, is making extremely dubious changes to the article. His latest edit, which I have reverted, inserts such bizarre things as "(Kwanzaa is collectively referred with Maoism)" (what does "collectively referred with" even mean?). I'd like to request that this user provide individual citations for changes he or she wishes to make to the article, particularly controversial ones such as this. RadicalSubversiv E 07:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I think the edit was an attempt to revert my changes - I attempted to copyedit for sense, removing some material which was irrelevant and duplicated in the Ron Karenga article and adding extra wiki. Warofdreams 10:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the concerns over this article influenced by people whom do not understand the beginnings of Kwanzaa? Or is the reality of this holiday 'too harsh' and unnecessary for a festive occasion?

You want to focus on the positivity of Kwanzaa without acknowledging its racist roots?

Even defining the holiday of Thanksgiving, one is allowed the evidence that it's creators massacred 700 Native Americans. That the 'First Thanksgiving' was actually a secular event that was not repeated and although the date of the First Thanksgiving is not precisely known, historians believe it occured between September 21 and November 9, 1621.

The negativity of this holiday's roots do not reflect the use of it in today's society. It is simply accurate information. 24.165.102.68 09:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Karenga; never have been. But there's nothing negative or "racist" about Kwanzaa. Get over yourselves and get a clue! deeceevoice 17:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV

I just encountered this article for the first time. It's highly POV, not well written and arguably racist. I've reverted to the last version with DreamGuy's name on it, and I've made a few minor copy-editing changes, but it probably needs a re-write.

I also removed the paragraph that said: "In an interview with the Washington Post, Karenga said, "People think it's African, but it's not. I came up with Kwanzaa because Black people wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of Bloods are partying." This needs a date and preferably a link to the article. Slim 03:30, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

There is a great deal of effort behind the article I wrote, the research and studies took a length of time which did not need to be deleted by someone who doesn't realize the information was sound.

Would you mind signing your comments? It makes it easier to keep track. I don't agree that the information was sound. It was not referenced and was written in a way that was POV, unencyclopedic and, at points, arguably racist. It sounded a little as though the author had an axe to grind. I am sorry if you put a lot of work into obtaining the information, but perhaps all it needs is a different presentation, using neutral words, a neutral tone, and with references to reputable publishers (newspapers, books etc) so that readers can check the veracity of it. You might want to take a look at some policy pages for ideas, for example, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability Slim 04:24, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I continually re-add the references and links that are being deleted.


Hello again. If you revert this again, I will request page protection, because it cannot be left up as it is. You are inserting your own opinions. Here are some examples of the problems with your article.

Racist and offensive: "The fact is, there is no Ur-African culture. The continent remains stubbornly tribal. Hutus and Tutsis still slaughter one another for sport."

POV and arguably racist: "Now, the point : There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent. Nobody ever ennobled a people with a lie or restored stolen dignity through fraud. Kwanzaa is the ultimate chump holiday."

Unencylopedic: "This year, President Clinton signed his fourth Kwanzaa proclamation. He crooned . . . "

POV and/or needs reference: "The inventors of Kwanzaa weren't promoting a return to roots; they were shilling for Marxism. They even appropriated the term "ujima," which Julius Nyerere cited when he uprooted tens of thousands of Tanzanians and shipped them forcibly to collective farms, where they proved more adept at cultivating misery than banishing hunger. "

Needs date and, if there is one, a link to the article: "In an interview with the Washington Post , Karenga said, "People think it's African, but it's not. I came up with Kwanzaa because Black people wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of Bloods are partying (see external links & references).

These are just examples. Slim 04:36, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Racist? These are not my opinions - it is from an article on the Official Martin Luther King Jr website. I cited quotes from the Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere. I refered to books written by Karenga. I myself am an African American! So how is this racist?

If you are taking this information from reputable publications, you must provide references (citations) and quotations. But you must also use information that is relevant to Kwanzaa. It seems that you are inserting anything that you find insulting e.g. Africans killing each other for sport. That has nothing to do with Kwanzaa; it is offensive; and it is not expressed in a neutral tone i.e. it is unencylopedic. Please understand that you cannot simply insert your own views into an article; and you cannot formulate an argument. You can only report, in a very neutral way, what others have said. Please read the policy pages I linked to above before doing any more editing. Slim 04:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

YOU KEEP DELETING MY REFERENCES!!!

I've protected the article after reverting the most recent of the anon's reversions. I'll try to remember to unprotect it tomorrow. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is the problem with reporting on the criticisms? According to the Wikipedia NPOV policy, "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate." Including the Snow article seems to be a description of the debate, not an official advocation of that side of the debate. Putting, for example, that there "is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent" as the first sentence of the article would violate the policy, but including this as a description of the debate over Kwanzaa seems to be crucial to the intent of Wikipedia, not a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Am I misinterpreting Wikipedia's policies in my support of the inclusion of Snow's article - if not in its full text under a clearly-labeled "criticisms" header, at least as a link? Peoplesyak 14:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with reporting criticisms. But that's what it has to be: reporting. We can't insert our own opinions. We're meant to report facts and opinions that have already been published in reputable publications, then give those publications as references. But they do have to be reputable -- not neo-Nazi websites. If someone reputable has said: "There's no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent," that would have to be given as a quotation with a citation. The article has to be written in a neutral voice. It can't be an opinion piece. There would be nothing wrong with including quotations from the Snow article (depending on what it says: I haven't read it) so long as they're relevant and not needlessly offensive. The previous version was very offensive, including references to Africans "killing each other for sport." I'm moving your comment and my reply to the bottom of the page, so it's easier for others to follow the debate. Slim 14:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sources are important. Sure, Snow's opinion might be valuable; some of this little revert war that occurred could have been short-circuited if it had been pointed out that what the anon was posting was just a cut-and-paste. Sources are important. The so-called "offical MLK Jr" website is astounding in its duplicity, and I'd be inclined to distrust every word printed there. For example, under the header "Jews and Civil Rights: Who led the civil rights movement" is an excerpt from a book by David Duke. Under the heading "The Death of the Dream: The Day Martin Luther King Was Shot" is an allegation that King was brutally beating one of the three white women he was sleeping with. Et cetera. It's all hate pieces. I find it extremely hard to believe that the anon poster was not being disingenuous about the nature of the website he was quoting from: a Nazi filth pile. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two of the articles provided in the External Links section are quite biased. Mr. Billion 08:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Billion, if you feel those two articles are too OTT, by all means delete them. The only reason I left them in is that they discuss the criminal record of the founder, which is arguably relevant. On the other hand, they do take clear delight in describing it, so they do seem racist. All the other racist material that was in this article has been removed, so I'm personally hesitant to remove these two links as well. But if you want to do it, I wouldn't object. Slim 17:02, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've removed the links myself. If someone wants to tack them onto the Ron Karenga article, fine. But I think the last sentence in the "Criticisms" section suffices. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bullcrap "Criticisms"

DELETED:

  • "Another objection is the fact that Karenga's Marxist and Black-Separatist political beliefs are reflected in the principles, which are code words for elements of his advocacy. "Self-determination" denotes the shunning of non-African American society and commerce, and "cooperative economics" calls for a socialistic, collectivistic economic philosophy."

This is not relevant. There is nothing about Kwanzaa that speaks to black separatism. Self-determination is simply what it says. Cooperative economics is no different from, say, farmers' co-ops, rural or extremely local economies of scale that operate on the barter system or other in-kind transactions. It's also about blacks patronizing black businesses [gasp! what a concept!]. If you want to take this article into some ridiculous, overblown, comparative discussion of indigenous, African socialism versus Marxism, Karenga's personal affinity for Marxist ideology and Dr. Julius Nyerere's Arusha Declaration and their implications, then bring it on. But I do not believe this is the place. GET OVER IT! Go grind your freakin' axe elsewhere.

There is an ugly tendency on Wikipedia in articles dealing with African-Americans for people to pick and pick and pick and pick anything and everything ad nauseam. Often ill-informed and/or ridiculously pretentious criticisms, which, IMO, are a particularly perverse/rampant form of white arrogance, anti-black antipathy -- or of just hopelessly old-line knee-grow mind-sets. The first set of objections will have to suffice. This other stuff is more of the same -- pure bull (only even more extraneous) -- and it is disappeared.deeceevoice 10:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the Kwanzaaist "counterattack" toward the bottom is one of the stupidest points I've ever heard. Just like Indians complaining about Columbus Day. Maybe we shouldn't speak well of Woodrow Wilson because he was a racist. Shenanigans I say. J. Parker Stone 10:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, that section is suppose to be about critisisms. So having a rebuttal at the end of it which makes a ridiculous analogy does not make any sense. This comes off as a tit-for-tat remark aimed at Washington that is really irrelevant to the article. --64.30.11.107 15:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The remark is certainly no more irrelevant than the criticism of Karenga. Frankly, I think criticisms of the holiday ARE irrelevant, but if others feel compelled to register them, then others likewise will feel compelled to rebut. If someone is going to criticize a holiday based on the flawed behavior of its originator, then it's certainly more on-point to counter by pointing to the despicable lifestyle/choices of someone being honored by a holiday. If ya can't take it, then don't try to dish it. :-p deeceevoice 03:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • It's really unnecessary, though. The last sentences before the questioned material suffice; the additional material does not strengthen the argument in any way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, indeed it IS necessary. Misguided, pain-in-the-ass, often racist idiots who can do nothing but pick at anything related to African Americans and our African heritage want to criticize a holiday because its founder did time? Think: what other U.S. holiday is evaluated based on the life of the individual who originated it? It's patently ridiculuous. But if you insist on doing so, well, fine, then. Let's play that game. Based on the simple-minded ground rules established by the Karenga criticism, it is now perfectly legitimate to demonstrate the absurdity of it by pointing out, "Hell, that's nothing. YOU (white folks) celebrate a holiday named to honor a racist, slaveholding, slave trading crakkker."

If you insist on including such an idiotic criticism of the holiday, then I shall insist on including the information on Washington. Further attempts to delete my comment on Washington will be met with simply deletion of the stupid criticism that initiated it. Whoever saw fit to include the idiotic Karenga criticism in the article opened the door to this discussion thread. Never forget: don't start no shyt, won't b none. :-p

Furthermore, since someone has raised the issue, IMO, Native Americans are perfectly correct in raising objections to the observance of Columbus Day -- for any number of reasons. But because that's another subject altogether, that's all I'll say about that. deeceevoice 12:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jpgordon has stated that the criticisms are irrelevant. Deeceevoice has stated that he would delete them. I also think that the section is irrelevant so I´m going to delete it and see what happens.

--Lupitaº 15:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kudos to Lupita. :-) (That was my next step.) If I'd simply deleted the criticisms without first illustrating their abject stupidity, they'd have been reinstated without discussion. Glad that crap is gone. They were totally unnecessary from the git-go. But some white folks just have to have their freakin' say on every goddamned thing black folks do. deeceevoice 15:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Lupita beat me too it; I was going to delete the entire section too. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Supplemental symbols

The article posts "The two supplemental symbols are" and yet lists exactly one symbol: the flag. I am mightily curious at this point to see what the other (second) symbol is. Someone more knowledgeable than I about this topic might be able to fill it in, or find it amongst the reversions, if it has gotten lost.

Feel free to delete this whoever corects it. Sim 23:27, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

According to this Baltimore City Paper article "The two supplemental symbols are Bendera (the flag) and Nguzo Saba (the poster of the seven principles)." Jonathunder 19:49, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
It seemed strange to me, too, that the article said there were two supplemental symbols but only listed one. So I researched, found a reference, and added a brief mention of the other supplemental symbol -- the poster. That reference to the poster was removed by another editor who called it "incidental" but I think it looks more odd not to at least mention it. So I've added it back. Jonathunder 00:50, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Statistics

I added the statistic that one sixth of African-Americans celebrate Kwanzaa because I think it adds context. (Anon)

[1] [2] [3]

To the anonymous editor above, does the one-sixth statistic have a reference? Also, is there a reference for the following sentence: "However, the cultural authenticity of Kwanzaa has been questioned, as it centers on East African customs (Swahili being an East African language) whereas most African-Americans are of West African descent." Slim 19:08, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I googled it and found two separate polls that asked all Americans what they celebrated and both said that 2% aswered Kwanzaa. Since African-Americans are 12% of the US population and I assumed these 2% were African-American, I wrote that one in six African-Americans celebrated Kwanzaa. The first source was Fox News and I can't find the second source I originally saw, so I'm pasting another one that says "1.7% of consumers" which is close enough.

I didn't write the sentence you quote.

Excuse me for not signing my last post; I'm new around here.

[4] [5] [6]

--Lupitaº 00:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a reason why many African Americans, like myself refuse to celebrate Kwanzaa - beyond the definitions it currently has - Kwanzaa was designed through Karenga's belief that Christianity & Judaism are myths. To celebrate Kwanzaa is to deny Jesus Christ as your saviour.

The source for all of this information can be found in Karenga's original writings; Every decade following the creation of Kwanzaa, Dr. Karenga had a new book about this celebration - but it is his 1988 book on Kwanzaa, The African American Holiday of Kwanzaa, where he reveals his hostility toward religions. (unsigned post)

What? U thumpin' your Bible up in here? Go on away with that. This isn't about religion. It's about culture. And, despite what you believe Karenga may or may not have said (if he's anti-religion, it doesn't surprise me), people celebrate Kwanzaa for their own reasons -- not his. There are lots of Christians who celebrate both Christmas and Kwanzaa. deeceevoice 22:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Please refrain from describing others as "thumpin' their Bibles". See WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

These stats are crap -- who is to say that no one else celebrates kwanzaa? Do the fools saying they celebrate it even know what it is all about (anti-Christianism, black nationalism, phoney-baloney 60s BS)

Fools? Anti-Christianism? Phoney-baloney? And you believe you can write an NPOV article?