Talk:Stokely Carmichael

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Parody of some interest

Not sure if this belongs in the article, but Mad magazine #111 June 1967 did a full-length parody of Porgy and Bess called "Stokely and Tess", commenting on then current African American politics and including a song "It Ain't Necessarily Stoke" in which a more moderate African American states rejects Carmichael's "Black Power" views. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

This Mad parody was recently discussed at some length by Gerald Early (The Great Black Hope, The Nation, posted March 9, 2006; March 27, 2006 issue). Early mentions something I'd forgotten: that this was part of Mad's "Special Racial Issue". He remarks, among other things, "It was probably the first time in American history when the political divisions among blacks mattered to whites… "Stokely and Tess" also marked the end of an era, in the sense that the assassination of King the following April made it virtually impossible for anyone to treat the movement or King with such gleeful irreverence."

Anyway, I'm not sure the article on Carmichael is where any of this belongs, but I think it belongs in Wikipedia somewhere. Maybe just the article on Mad? I'm very open to suggestions, but if none are forthcoming, I guess that is where I'll put it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous Questions

(this section was copied from Talk:Russell Tribunal to here for further discussion)

May I direct your attention to the quote from Stokely Carmichael and complete transcript from Instructional Resource Center, University of Washington Department of Communications; does this qualify as a "notable personage", or "winner(s) of...awards of recognition in humanitarian and social fields"? nobs

He has a wiki-article about him? Sounds notable to me. Your point is...? -Rob 03:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should I take your silence as an indication that you had no point to make with the above comment? -Rob 09:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Its not for me to comment or make judgement; it's my job to make available to the serious student of history the fact that Stokely Carmichael referred to the Secretary of Defense as "that honky McNamara" at time when he was sitting as a Judge over the United States Army as listed in item 2, or perhaps examine his judicial temperment by reading the entire transcript. Being new to wiki I can only imagine what judgement the wikigods would bring upon a User who spoke about another user that way.nobs
It's not for you to comment or make judgement, yet you go on to do just that? Heh, that's an interesting disclaimer. This may come as news to you, but McNamara was indeed a honky. All of the white people referred to 42 times in that speech as honkies were indeed just that. But any serious student of history would already know that. As for Charmichael ever being a judge, it appears you may be experiencing source confusion again. Charmical never sat on the bench of any judiciary system, as far as I am aware - but he was Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Committee. You lost me with your references to "wikigods" and speaking "that way." -Rob 02:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Carmichaels racist intonations I leave others to judge. Wiki may say honky doesn't have the same implication other words have but I'm sure other people may dispute that. Stokley Carmichael as I remember him and the transcript suggests is more of a stand up comedian. And to think history remembers him as an American participant in an International War Crimes Iribunal like Robert Jackson. I guess this is why history is so fascinating.Nobs 04:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Charmichaels racist intonations? Care to cite some of them? Perhaps you meant accusations of racism, which he intones repeatedly in the speech you cite. While you are at it, can you pinpoint exactly what in that transcript suggests to you that Charmichael is a stand-up comedian? Your response to these two questions should prove quite revealing. -Rob 17:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can see you don't intend to answer these two questions. Your silence is answer enough for me. I'll be copying your comments to the more appropriate Carmichael article talk page for further discussion. -Rob 13:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note on the above Personal References: There is a difference between (1) a judgement (2) analysis (3) opinion. I believe in this entire discussion I have always maintained a seperation between all, and have never offerred any personal points of view unless requested to do so. As for Stokely Carmicheal I beleive I was being generous after rereading the transcripts, as does very much sound like a Nite at the Improv, and kind when one considers he was being accused of treason in 1967. Nobs 02:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Somwhere I read that wiki had enough technical contributors and now it is being expanded into the humanities; perhaps technical contributors when engaging in debate and discussion of matters outside their fields need to learn some of the basics of discourse. Nobs 02:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to cite these "racist intonations]." I'm also still waiting for you to cite exactly what in that transcript suggests "comedy" to you. I predict I'll be waiting a long time. I keep asking, and you keep avoiding. Heh, talk about the need to learn some of the basics of discourse. -Rob 16:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
From The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of New Mexico. 1 May 2005 I'ntonation also has the important function of conveying attitude.' [1] Nobs 20:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Still waiting, Nobs. Cite away any time you feel up to it. -Rob 04:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow this conversation. Whether Carmichael/Ture was a racist or not has little bearing on whether he should have an article. As for treason, Americans seem to always call anti-war protestors "traitors". It's par for the course. Without some actual documentation (say, a conviction, or at least a scholarly article) there is no place for that in the article. If you can find a source saying he was called a traitor, you can always include it as an allegation. As for wanting to whitewash the word "honky" out of the article, just have a look at what links to nigger (or if you are concerned about offensive language in general, check out the truly remarkable article on fuck). Guettarda 16:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Summary of the conversation - Nobs claims "racist intonations," yet he refuses to cite just one. Nobs claims something in Carmichael's speech is akin to stand-up comedy, yet he is afraid to cite what that might be. No concerns about offensive language here, thanks. -Rob 04:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Having heard Carmichael speak several times, yes, he certainly at times used the techniques of a stand-up comedian (among other things, he was an excellent mimic). And of a preacher (a career he once was headed for). And a schoolteacher. He was an excellent public speaker. I don't think it's a put-down at all to say that he had the skills of a stand-up comic. So, for that matter, did JFK. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel, let's not sidetrack the actual issue with a disingenuous reading of Nobs comments. Nobs has not commented on speaking style, skills or techniques, at times or otherwise. Nobs linked a particular speech Carmichael made about racism -- Nobs then suggested Carmichael was a racist and the message of his speech was comical. I'm sure Nobs will be happy to elaborate if he meant otherwise. -Rob 17:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Truth to tell, I'd only skimmed the thread. I was just pointing out that if, in a given speech, Carmichael came off like a comedian, he doubtless knew exactly what he was doing. And the use of comic modes is no reason not to take ideas seriously: look at Plautus, Jonathan Swift, or Lenny Bruce. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I am offerring no opinion on the subject other than making the transcript available and questioning what, by any standard, qualifies him to be a voting member on the International War Crimes Tribunal, specifically, does he have the judicial temperment that would be required to stand in judgement even in a traffic court. Further, "that honky McNamara" is directed at an individual to whom one might consider may have some personal responsibility in the conduct of the Vietnam War. And the parallel is obvious with the selection of the name "International War Crimes Tribunal". By contrast, one can imagine Mr. Justice Robert Jackson speaking before Nuremberg of "that honky Goering". Would this be condsidered prejudicial? I never heard Carmichael speak but I did personnally hear American citizens (contemporaneously, meaning in 1967) state he should be tried has a traitor. Not saying its my opinion, I am just a chronicler of events. (One must keep in mind this is pre-Jane Fonda, before consorting with America's enemies became fasionable). (Incidentlally, I didn't know Beethoven was black or Napolean was step-father to a black child till Stokely Carmichale enlightened me; I am much more interested in the quality of his research than anything else. thx. Nobs 01:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
i.e.; No citations from Nobs. Hardly a surprise. -Rob 02:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
in reference to what? Nobs 17:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you might have another go at reading the above. Hint: the relevant questions to you were long ago put in bold print for your benefit. -Rob 18:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Racist intonations: "that honky McNamara" plus numerous others (I didn't count but I assume maybe the 42 is about right; also it's likely such sentiments were expressed elsewhere outside this transcript); Nobs
"Such sentiments?" The sentiment was disparagement, not racism. With the 42 references to honkies in that speech, spoken in the vernacular of the day, and properly applied in each and every context, you can't call that "racist intonations." No more than I can call the use of the word 'nigger' by Guettarda in the paragraph above a racial intonation. I'm still waiting for these "racial intonations" of which you speak. -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
How about this quip using racial sterotype: "white people believe they are gods....They think that everybody was put on this earth to benefit them.", does this include 500,000 honkies (yankees) that gave thier lives in the American Civil War? Nobs
Sorry, but I don't see that 'quip' anywhere in the speech. I do see this one, however:
We are so ashamed of ourselves that our kids won't even hold their heads up high. They learn to bow down before white folk by the time they are nine years old. And our parents call themselves Christians. Did they forget the first commandment? Though shalt have no other gods before me. They have taught us to bow down before white folk as if they were gods. And white people believe they are gods. And that has been the fault of black folk because we let them believe they were gods too. We let them play gods, but they don't understand that we telling them that play period is over and they better come on home. They think that everybody was put on this earth to benefit them. And they use us against each other.
Are you accusing Carmichael of stereotyping blacks in some way? How dare he cast blame on "black folk" in such stereotypical fashion like that. I'm still waiting for these racial intonations of which you speak. -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
"they going to draft you all and send you to Vietnam; I guess you going to go over there and make love to the Vietnamese", sexual innuendo always good for a laugh. "Benny Goodman can not carry the empty trumpet case of Miles Davis?", it's the element of truth that is the essence of comedy. "Booker T. Washington...used his mouth to do two things: to eat and to say "Yes, sir." Lyndon Bird, Lady Bird, and Loony Bird! "Yeah! Sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me! Yeah!" right out of the TV series Laugh In. It's a rich text, there's numerous others. Nobs
Let's hear the "numerous others," because the ones you cite (when left in context) don't come close to stand-up comedy, as you suggest. In fact, you've listed some caustic sarcasm, some comparitive insults and a line from a TV show being used as punctuation. Most didn't (and weren't intended to) elicit laughter; not the mark of a stand-up comedian. If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, I would suggest that you are confusing well-known speech delivery methods (such as the use of levity and light-hearted references to maintain interest) with stand-up comedy. But I'm not willing to give you that benefit, in light of other comments previously made by you that betray your real sentiment. You suggested the message of Carmichael's speech was comical, and now you are back-peddling. -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand, I am not on some mission to disparage the man. This quote is quite impressive for it's time: "The Nazi’s who were brought to trial after Hitler was—after the Hitler regime was brought down", showing a well studied student of events and current affairs; I'm impressed by his proper use of the term Hitler regime, and not impugning all of Germany as was (and still is) common. (Many raconteurs of current events today beleive the term 'regime' just came into popular use 2 or 3 years ago.) Also his detailed discussion of Truman's Executive Order integrating the troops is very interesting. Nobs 19:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
You aren't on some mission to disparage the man? Of course you are. You've called him a racist; you've called his speech comical; and you've expressed disbelief that he could be chosen to sit on a panel of concerned humanitarians investigating war crimes in Vietnam during the war. Now that someone has called you to task on your views, and pushes you to explain them, you back-peddle. Recent compliments to the man not withstanding. -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I've presented the evidence. Perhaps you just lack a sense of humor to see the comedy in his delivery. Carmicheal certainly is an interesting historic figure (notable personage) I beleive is the term used. I would not consider him "humanitarian"; at best he needs some sensitivity training or perhaps anger management. Let's keep in mind what this discussion is, it demonstrates the judicial temperment of voting members of the Russell Tribunal making assessments or standing in judgement of war crimes committed in the Johnson era. Carmicheal and Lederer were only the first two I selected off the list of "members" and other participants. I just scratched the surface of the evidence presented in the wiki article. It gave all the conclusions I believe necessary to pass judgement on (1) the Russell Tribunals aims (2) its methods to achieve those aims. Comedian is certainly a better epitaph than traitor or demogogue which some may apply. He doesnt need me to disparage him, his own words and actions speak for themsleves. So you and I have a different view: I believe "honky" is a racist term, you take the wikitionary definition and water it down. Perhaps this discussion belongs on the Lani Guinier page where the view was expressed that black people were incapable of racism, and even if it could be proved aganist all nature that there were indeed racist blacks, it somehow was justifiable. Nobs 02:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, Edgar Lederer bio page needs to be done. He seems to be a very interesting person. If memory from 30 years ago serves me good he can be linked to developement of Soviet WMD programs, a card carrying communist who likewise worked in fascist WMD programs. Fled the Soviet Union in 1938 for fear of the purges. Then worked in WMD programs in the Vichy regime, although he could have emigrated to Canada several times. He claims he was dismissed from 1941-43 because he was Jewish. All the source information I've found is in French and I dont claim any authority there. But there is other source material in English where his name is mentioned. Nobs 03:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
"Let's keep in mind what this discussion is..." Yes, let's. This discussion is about your suggestion that Carmichael is a racist, and your failure to substantiate that suggestion; your assertion that the speech in question is comical, and your failure to justify that assertion; and your curious failure to understand that any living, breathing soul on this earth can cast judgements, and usually does. As for your two paragraphs of attempted diversion into a variety of other topics: I ain't biting. -Rob 04:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[Re-setting the indent] With regards to whether you want to consider Carmichael racist you might want to look at the distinction Wikipedia makes between racist and racialist. Until I heard him speak in [?1996 or 1998] I would have assumed that he was something of a racist. Seeing a recording of him speaking in Trinidad, I was impressed. Rather than seeing everything in terms of race (as politics in Trinidad is usually phrased) he spoke about class. And yes, when he chose to be, he was quite funny. I was impressed by clarity and by an understanding you rarely see among people who left Trinidad as long ago as he did. I was impressed, despite the fact that I approached his talk without a very open mind. Guettarda 17:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It's probably safe to assume a person's attitudes can change much from 1967 to 1997, as America changed much. The transcript definetely places Carmichael in the forefront of what was known then as the black pride movement. Nobs 18:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, people's attitudes can definitely change over time. I think we can count ourselves fortunate that Carmichael's didn't. He still has an impressive way of expressing himself even thirty years later. -Rob 20:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
From what I can see, Nobs has no point at all here. And as far as hearing someone call someone him a "traitor", what high-profile political figure didn't get flack like that from one side or the other in Vietnam-era America? Hell, what low-profile political activist on either side didn't get flack like that? I was certainly called that and worse. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jmabel. Nobs has no point at all. -Rob 18:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Very true; keep in mind Stokely Carmicheal was among the first, if not the first to wear such an honor. Also, this discusssion has been transplanted from the Talk:Russell Tribunal page; I don't know what purpose it serves here. Nobs 17:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The discussion about Stokely Charmichael was copied (not transplanted) here for further discussion because this is where such a discussion belongs. If you are going to trash someone, why not allow the widest audience of interested wiki-readers to participate as well? -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[resetting margin] FWIW, I first heard Carmichael in person circa 1973 (I was in college at the time); his primary agenda at that point was socialist, not racial. The crowd I heard him with was racially mixed; he did give a separate talk earlier that day to an all-black audience (including someone I was living with at the time) and I gather that his talk was similar, except for a more specific plea to black students to support one another when he was talking only to black students. This is not very long after the height of the "black power" era. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On Unrelated Matters

I'd say we've carried Stokely Carmicheal about as far as we can go vis-a-vis his judicial temperment to vote about Johnson era war crimes and his nonjudicial attitude toward unindictited war criminals, i.e. Robert McNamara. I suppose it is possible for one to use racist language, with the intent to impugn or denigrate all members of a given race, without being a racist (some may dispute that however). As a personal aside, IMHO over the past several months I've noticed you (under whichever name you use) attempt to make every discussion some sort of exchange of personal motivations. Originally I thought we were singing from the same song sheet on the Russell Tribunal page, the goal of bringing to light human rights concerns as the common ground. Somehow I'm left with the impression that your concern over the Russell Tribunal page has more to do with preserving a record of criticism of war crimes in the Johnson era (or broadly speaking, criticism of American foreign policy and failings) than with the stated human rights objectives of the original 1967 Tribunal. I favor a more broadminded approach. I am always open to personal criticism, and where I'm wrong in an assertion, I appreciate the help of others. I can be persuaded by logically driven, factually driven arguements. My mind in not set in any partisan concrete. I'm not out to sell an agenda. My motivations have always been to establish the facts and let the chips fall where they may. And of course we're always dealing with flawed human beings, so perhaps my approach does come accross as iconoclastic toward hero worshippers and those in search of a false messiah in the flesh. --Nobs? Nobs 05:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"I'd say we've carried Stokely Carmicheal about as far as we can go vis-a-vis his judicial temperment to vote about Johnson era war crimes and his nonjudicial attitude toward unindictited war criminals, i.e. Robert McNamara." That's nice. I'd be interested in reviewing such a discussion if you could provide a link to it. Don't expect me to participate in that discussion, however -- I'll leave that to you guys. I've already given my opinion above on the matter of one person sitting in judgement on others: any living, breathing soul on this earth is capable of casting judgements, and usually does.
"I suppose it is possible for one to use racist language, with the intent to impugn or denigrate all members of a given race, without being a racist (some may dispute that however)." I disagree. Either you have racist intent, or your don't. Apparently it is easy for some, however, to read disparaging words and automatically assume racism where none exists.
"As a personal aside, IMHO over the past several months I've noticed you (under whichever name you use) attempt to make every discussion some sort of exchange of personal motivations." As I've only used one name, and I've only exchanged words with you over the past month, I'll assume you refer to someone else -- perhaps the same person with whom you discussed Johnson and McNamara? As for me, I've always been very clear on your motivations.
As for the posting of your resume above: "I favor a ... I am always open to ... I appreciate the ... I can be persuaded ... My mind is not ... I'm not out to ... My motivations have ... my approach does ..." You've come to the wrong person seeking validation. -Rob 18:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
yes, I figured in closing I would answer the many personal approaches you've placed toward me. Nobs 18:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Shouldn't this article be moved to Kwame Ture? Wikipedia precedent generally respects name changes (e.g. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Muhammad Ali). Since Carmichael chose this name and held it for the last two decades of his life, I think that the article should be moved to that name. Firebug 06:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is yes, but on the other hand he is more widely known as Carmichael, so you could argue that the naming convention should have him here. Guettarda 13:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
So much better known by his older name that when he went on speaking tours, he was always listed as "Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael)". Kareem Abdul-Jabbar achieved his greatest fame under his adopted name (I bet few people under 40 could give his birth name, even if they are basketball fans); Muhammad Ali is slightly less clearcut, but certainly his birth name doesn't have higher recognition than his adopted name. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to say I agree. The name of the article should reflect the wishes of the person it's about. When I first heard of this remarkable man, it was his chosen name and not his birth name that was said. P.S. I'd like to give a big thanks to everyone who has contributed information about this unfortunately little-known activist. Vote Socialist! -- H3xx 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it absolutely makes sense to move this to Kwame Ture. It was the name he was known by for many years at the end of his life (though he did often still use Stokely Carmichael, for example in the author listing of his autobiography--I assume simply because many knew him only by that name) and as has been said Wikipedia generally seems to go with the name that a subject preferred. Also because of the coolness of redirects, someone who types "Stokely Carmichael" and has never heard of Kwame Ture will obviously still get to the correct article (and may be more likely to notice his name change as a result). I would vote for a move to Kwame Ture (and might even get all bold and do it at some point) but will wait to see what other editors think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the general rule is not what the person calls him or herself, but what he or she is most known as ("what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" from WP:NAME) which is generally the name that the person achieved notability under. Although he did use Kwame Ture for many years, his notability was achieved under Stokely Carmichael, and it is most likely that readers would look for that name. So I think we have to stick with Stokely Carmichael as the name of the article. Tvoz |talk 08:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tvoz for that info, I had not read the WP:NAME policy before and was thus laboring under a misconception. I do think it's an interesting policy choice though to default to the name which is more recognizable to more people over that which any given subject generally preferred (particularly in a case such as this, where the name Kwame Ture is hardly an obscure version of Stokely Carmichael). On the one hand it obviously makes sense to go with the more recognizable name for the purposes of a user friendly encyclopedia, yet such a choice does a certain amount of violence to a very fundamental concept in our society--namely the idea that you call people whatever it is they like to be called. I don't necessarily disagree with the policy, but I wish the WP:NAME page at least acknowledged the tension there. I think such tension is particularly evident with someone like Kwame Ture (and any number of other individuals), who in choosing his name was quite consciously breaking with his given name and the society that bestowed it upon him. In insisting on using "Stokely Carmichael" for this article we in a sense rob Ture of his chosen identity and the particular critique of American society (in this case racism as Ture perceived it) contained therein. When you think about it in this admittedly rarefied and abstract way--which I may not be expressing well--it's a bit of an odd, anti-individualist (perhaps even vaguely Big Brotherish--or that might just be some Foucault nonsense coming out my head) thing to do while at the same time being a fairly common sense rule for a good encyclopedia. Anyhow these are just random musings which can safely be ignored. Thanks for the guidance on this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added material to the article today which I believe resolves this issue. My own feeling was initially that this needed to be moved to Kwame Ture, but Carmichael himself spoke about the issue with a Washington Post reporter while on his deathbed and "didn't seem to mind" interchangeable use of both names. So now, I lean towards the use of the name under which he became most famous, Stokely Carmichael, with appropriate redirects. -- Lisasmall 17:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carmichael and Womyn's Rights

With all respect to Carmichael's extraordinary contribution to the Civil Rights Movement, shouldn't the article also make mention of the famous incident in which Casey Hayden asked, "what is the position of womyn in SNCC" in response to a growing sense of patriarchy within the organization and Stokely Carmichael answered, "prone." Not to present a dynamic view of the individual and organization presents an incomplete picture of the time, the movement, and the man. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.141.4.148 (talk • contribs) 14 March 2006.

"Womyn"? I don't think I've seen anyone seriously use that spelling in over a decade.
Yes, the quotation probably belongs (though not with this bizarre respelling). The problem is, in writing an encyclopedia article, that it's hard to know quite what to say about something that was clearly on some level a joke, and the question is how the joke was meant. See, for example, Mark & Paul Engler's review of Carmichael/Ture's Ready for Revolution] (written with Michael Thelwell).

On the organizer’s behalf, Thelwell convincingly argues that Carmichael’s infamous sexist remark (answering “prone” to a question about the place of women in the movement) was a joke taken out of context. Mary King and Casey Hayden, the supposed targets of the quip, defend Carmichael as being one of the men in SNCC most sympathetic to their criticisms of patriarchy within the organization.

So, it's pretty ambiguous. If we are going to write about it, someone should probably dig up a copy of Ready for Revolution and see what Thelwell has to say. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ishango

The quote that links to David Horowitz is a very bad quote. It is a lie. Kwame Ture was never a hater of Trinidad and Tobago. I wish you would remove it. Neither was he a Racist. A Racialist, maybe but not a racist. He came back to Trinidad and gave a lecture before he died preaching Racial tolerance,... . —This unsigned comment was added by Ishango (talk • contribs) 16 March 2006.

Ishango's remark here is very confusing. Nothing in the article says that Carmichael/Ture was "a hater of Trinidad and Tobago." Nor does anything in the article say he was a racist. I happen to disagree -- utterly -- with Horowitz, and think the statement reflects more on Horowitz than Carmichael, and I probably wouldn't have put it there (it's nothing but a substanceless putdown), but probably for such a controversial figure something negative/critical ought to be here. I'd gladly see something more substantive instead of Horowitz calling him "bad". - Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. I'm sorry. I guess that I was probably on something!--Ishango 19:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carnical

What is a "carnical"? - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Encyclopedia

Probably a lot more of this could be cited from the King Encyclopedia article from which I've cited some of the basics. It might be worth someone's time to comb that for citable material. - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Prone"

The quote is still not in here - we have to work out a way to include it. Slac speak up! 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way, find a verifiable citation and post an NPOV sentence or two about this. We ought to remember the dangers, though, of using today's sensibilities in evaluating what people said in the past. The movement was filled with people - men- who fought for equal rights and justice and yet were appallingly sexist, certainly by today's standards. Stokely no doubt said that, but he was hardly the only one - not by a long shot. Tvoz 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No small number of movement women have said that Carmichael was, in practice, an advocate for women within SNCC and the Panthers, and that while it may have been a joke in poor taste, it was not representative of his views. - Jmabel | Talk 21:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See Casey Hayden remark at [2]; see also [3]: "Mary King and Casey Hayden, the supposed targets of the quip, defend Carmichael as being one of the men in SNCC most sympathetic to their criticisms of patriarchy within the organization." - Jmabel | Talk 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YPSL

[4] says he was "close to the Young People's Socialist League", but if anything this casts further doubt on the claim that he was a member. I am removing that. - Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All African People's Revolutionary Party

If memory serves, it was around 1971, when Stokely came to the States, made a major address at Howard University, calling for the need for a political party for Africans on the continent and in the diaspora. Shortly thereafter, he announced the founding of the AAPRP. The party still exists. Nothing in the article mentions it. No time right now. Perhaps someone else is interested in adding it. deeceevoice 11:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a slight reference to the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party today as the source for the New York Times obit reference to two sons, instead of one. I agree with you, the article needs more about Ture's role in the A-APRP, but I've given the article three hours today and can't do more. I notice you don't use the hyphen, and I wouldn't either — but the Wiki article does use it, as does kwameture.com. -- Lisasmall 17:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 1968 Washington D.C. riots

This article seems to need some reference to Carmichael's role in the 1968 Washington, D.C. riots. That article states he lead a group of SNCC members requesting stores to close out of respect for the assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King. Curious as this article states he was essentially removed as head of SNCC in 1967. Scarykitty 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Does anyone else feel like this portrays Carmichael (and the radical black nationalists in general) in a bit of an overly positive tone? At times, I felt more like I was reading propaganda than an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.169.131 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent article

This article (as read here) is excellent in my opinion. Very good summary, very encyclopedic, very well written, and an excellent presentation of Carmichael's ideas as well as the environment in which those ideas were developed. Just thought I'd say good job. :) Uwmad (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)