Talk:African Americans/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Purpose of this page

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

Gee, poor thing. :( Here's a stomach discomfort bag. Actually, I think you misunderstand. You want a White American or a European American talk page? Then begin an article on White American or European American. deeceevoice 05:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be included

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

Wikiproject?

Would folks consider a WikiProject on African Americans, Africans, the African Diaspora or an umbrella topic of all of these?

It would provide a venue for discussion, categorizing, provide suggested structure and format, and give direction to the creation and revision of articles.

It works very well for some Wikipedia categories; seems to me this is a good candidate for one. Quill 20:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering the kind of ill-informed, naive, silly or just plain racist crap one has to wade through on Wikipedia when dealing with issues pertaining to black people and the aparently relatively few contributors with real knowledge and sensitivity on the subject, I think you'd better leave well enough alone. deeceevoice 18:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Remember Matthew 7:1-5 before you go waving the "racism" flag. Blacks can be just as racist as Whites (if not moreso, from my experience), and this article does indeed seem to be biased. An article should be written from more than one perspective, not just from a pro-Black or pro-White (or pro-Eskimo) persepective, and i dont see why there should be any objection to a "wikiproject". BSveen 19:27, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we have a disagreement there. "Bigoted"? Yes, unfortunately. "Racist," very rarely. But that's another discussion. Again, if there are instances of bias, then raise them, discuss them, fix them. Some nebulous, blanket allegation of "bias" means absolutely nothing. Further, after visiting your page, the fact that you readily characterize yourself as "anti-Muslim" doesn't provide too much in the way of positive expectation that you would know bias if it bit you on the rump. :-p deeceevoice 19:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a Wikiproject is a great idea; this is an area that needs a lot of attention, and a good community to steer it in the right direction. - Sekicho 02:31, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sekicho, here and above. I did look at Japan and this seems to be the way Wikipedia is handling country articles. I had in mind Egypt when I suggested this, and United Kingdom follows the same pattern. Of course, ethnicities in the U.S. aren't the same as countries, but I thought that a WikiProject here could serve as a model. I have no idea how many people there are at Wikipedia who are interested in or would get involved with organizing a project on African American issues; this remains to be seen. There don't seem to be dozens jumping on the bandwagon thus far! One good thing would be that if a core got together to organize and write, support in the way of editing and formatting would come from all over the Wikipedia. Quill 21:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

west africa

do african americans know much about african culture? I have a Nigerian friend and she says african americans are so different from their roots that to call them "west african" culturally would be an insult. Do they actually speak bantu, swahili, or any of the african languages? Or is it all made up, like the juneteenth holiday instead of christmas. She said african americans have more in common with people from southern states than with people actually from africa. She said dressing up in colorful tribal clothing and headbands is an insult to african heritage. She's from africa so I'm not really sure how african americans would make any of this.

Though entitled to her own opinion, your friend is tragically, abysmally ignorant. I'm not certain who "them" refers to ("...that to call them '[W]est [A]frican' culturally would be an insult."). Presumably, you're referring to our roots -- which most definitely are in West and Sub-Saharan Africa. There can be no debate on this point; Africa is where our ancestors originated. In claiming our African heritage, we are simply saying, "We are an African people"; we are of Africa.

Frankly, your "friend"'s uninformed opinions on the matter are not terribly important to me as an African-American; we are who we are. And we can dress as we choose. I mean, really. Consider the fact that a hell of a lot more Africans wear Western clothing than African-Americans wear African-inspired attire. Further, your "friend" needs to get a clue and educate herself about African-American culture. Many Africans who are familiar with it readily see many similarities in our cultural traditions. Perhaps you should direct your friend to read some of the articles on Wikipedia which treat African-American culture: jazz, blues, African American Vernacular English, for example -- and then challenge her to repeat the same ignorant opinions (which to me sound colored by resentments/biases, rather than informed by concrete knowledge). deeceevoice 06:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And, no. I would venture to say that many African-Americans probably don't know much about African culture(s) -- probably about as much as anyone might know about a continent about which they've learned only vicariously and whose ancestors left that continent's shores centuries before.

One correction of a misapprehension implicit in one of your comments: Juneteenth is a celebration of Emancipation that originated in Texas and Louisiana, and is celebrated -- as the name clearly suggests -- in June. The December, week-long, African-American holiday celebrated immediately after Christmas is Kwanzaa. deeceevoice 14:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's why I prefer Black American because were aren't Africans. The African was bled out of us centuries ago. Your friends assinine and contemptuous comments show the schism that exist in the African diaspora. We are our own people with our own culture and our own history. Yes we have more in common with white Southerners because that is where the majority of our ancestors lived in bondage and developed thereafter. We have no ties with Africa other than our forefathers originated from Africa and don't need or desire any connection with a forsaken land that only have ill will for the most prosperous and affluence branch of the diaspora. Eurytus

Repeating the same ill-informed opinion citing the ignorance of otherss doesn't make your comments any less wrong. It sounds like you, too, could benefit from a reading of some of the articles treating African-American culture on this website. deeceevoice 05:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article I think is inaccurate in stating "African-American culture is an amalgam of influences, the most persistent of which has been the cultural imprint of Africa." There may me traces of African culture remaining but the fact is, Africans brought to America often spoke different languages and were not taught to write. Because of this it was incredibly difficult to maintain their African culture (which I'm not sure there is an 'African' culture anyway, there is a bantu culture, swahili culture and shona culture for sure, but often the Africans brought to America had little in common anyway) especially when you're a slave more concerned with surviving and not getting beaten than preserving a cultural heritage. I'm not saying African Americans don't have a distinct culture, they clearly do as someone else has made a list of African-American cultural achievements, however the current line in the article is an overstatement if not outright false. --138.253.235.112 14:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No. The statement is completely correct as I carefully crafted it. Read it again. To speak of the "cultural imprint of Africa" is not to speak of a singular culture. Secondly, "persistent" is defined variously as:

Main Entry: per·sis·tent Pronunciation: -t&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Latin persistent-, persistens, present participle of persistere Date: 1826

• 1 : existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously: as a : retained beyond the usual period <a persistent leaf> b : continuing without change in function or structure <persistent gills> c : effective in the open for an appreciable time usually through slow volatilizing <mustard gas is persistent> d : degraded only slowly by the environment <persistent pesticides> e : remaining infective for a relatively long time in a vector after an initial period of incubation <persistent viruses>
• 2 a : continuing or inclined to persist in a course b : continuing to exist in spite of interference or treatment <a persistent cough>

per·sis·tent·ly adverb

Certainly, the word clearly applies to the imprint of African culture on Africans in the New World, which has persisted through the centuries, despite concerted attempts to obliterate it. deeceevoice 17:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that may be accurate. But in that case, I think it is misleading. It gives the impression that the biggest contributor to African culture is indegenous African culture. Which I would strongly dispute. I would support keeping the statement, but perhaps rewording it so as not to overemphasize things. --CJWilly 22:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This talk page

I recently, and with great difficulty, cleaned up this talk page. About 2/3 of the sections were duplicated, in whole or in part, in no terribly obvious pattern. I some cases, one of the two versions of a section contained remarks not in the other. I've tried hard to preserve everything. Sincere apologies if anything got removed in the process, feel free to restore it. And I'm sure that the sections are no longer all in chronological order, but I'm pretty sure they haven't been in some time.

Anyway, it would be appreciated if someone would archive some of this. It might make sense to do archive a page just on the discussions of (1) whether African American is the most appropriate term and (2) whether recent white South African immigrants, Ethiopian immigrants, etc. are African American. Then when, inevitably, someone asks these questions again, we would have a single archive page to refer them to for the exhaustive, exhausting discussion. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to suggest an archive; you beat me to it. I don't know how to do it myself. I think a note at the top of the TALK page indicating what the consensus is and where the archived discussions can be found would do wonders.

I also think it would be good to start this TALK page afresh from [date] and request that people sign and date their comments and use indenting, to keep that type of chaos from happening again. Your cleanup efforts are appreciated.

Quill 23:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been archiving (tediously: once pages get this big, Firefox chokes); I'm pretty far along. As for keeping the talk page clean: no notices will ever do that, but people should feel free (for example) to add a pseudo sig ("anon" plus a date) to newly added anonymous remarks, add a new section heading when the topic changes, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to ya, darlin', for a job well done. If I had a medal, I'd definitely award it to you -- and it wouldn't be a rusty ol' barn star, either. Somethin' wit' bling. :) deeceevoice 18:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Give this man a medal

I've seen barn stars and all sorts of virtual hardware being awarded around this site to this or that Wikipedian for this and that thing. The archiving of this talk page is quite an effort. (((Somebody!))) Give this man (User:Jmabel) a medal! deeceevoice 05:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

racial profiling

Racial profiling needs a citation -- a line in there says afr.americans are more likely to be pulled over based on race alone. Without a citation I'm removing it.--172.191.103.186 20:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Racially Biased Policing: Determinants of Citizen Perceptions", by Ronald Weitzer and Steven Tuch, George Washington University, Washington, DC, published 2004 based on a survey conducted December 2002, estimates that 47% of victims of racial profiling are African American. I don't have access to the original, but it is cited online at [1] in a document from Amnesty International. Will that do, and if not, what exactly are you looking for by way of citation? -- Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 01:05 (UTC)

• Those numbers are based on an "opinion poll" (the questions asked are not available). It also defines racial profiling as "....the targeting of individuals and groups by law enforcement officials, even partially, on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion, except where there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links persons belonging to one of the aforementioned groups to an identified criminal incident or scheme." The statement you keep reverting says they are stopped due to race alone, not partially. The poll respondants also presumably have no way of knowing why they were stopped by police. A police officer will not pull you over and say "do you know why I'm stopping you? because you're <some ethnicity>" If you want to insert qualifications stating that a disproporionate # of african-americans believe they've been stopped due, in part, to their ethnicity, it is fine with me, but as it is the foundations don't support the strength of the statement. --155.91.19.73 29 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Common knowledge.[2] There's more, but I won't waste my time. If you really want to know the truth, rather than are simply interested in reverting completely accurate text, then you'll search online yourself. I'm restoring the text. Again. *x* deeceevoice 30 June 2005 02:47 (UTC)

• The phenomenon of racial profiling has been reported on widely, but it is not common knowledge that people are pulled over on the basis of race alone. If it were I think you'd have an easier time showing some real numbers. Your link says that 12% of "blacks" and 10% of whites were pulled over in 1999. That additional TWO PERCENT could have been pulled over due to race alone, but there is no evidence of that whatsoever in the article other than the initial anecdote. My guess is that the cops have some excuse, however lame, to pull over almost all of those people: tail-light out, expired tabs, tinted windows, mud on a license plates, 26 in a 25mph zone, etc. It is also entirely possible that there is some other bias responsible for the 12% vs 10% difference. African Americans tend to live in urban settings, where there are more police to hassle everyone. If you want to adjust the statement to say that in 1999, 12% of blacks and 10% of whites were pulled over, but the statement that black folks are puled over for race ALONE remains unjustified. I did google for racial profiling statistics and didn't find anything to back up the statement and, anyway, if someone points out a possible unjustified statement in a page, the onus is on the creator/maintainer to prove it. Reverting, again. --172.196.0.97 30 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)
  • You have not indicated what you would consider acceptable for a citation. And I don't see anything in the sentence you deleted that is specific to being "pulled over" while driving. The sentence you removed said "They are more likely to be stopped by police simply because of their ethnicity." A "stop" is the initial contact by police that can, potentially, lead to an arrest; it is not limited to a "traffic stop". -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 06:52 (UTC)

AMERICANS are a different tribe, a different ethnic group from any in Africa (xhosa, zulu, somali, tswana, tsonga....)

Any ethnicity is the consequence of a previous mixture and the same goes with black or white AMERICANS, who are clearly a different ethnicity. When a black AMERICAN goes to Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria or Congo-Kinshasa he/she cannot identify with ANY ethnic group in those nations, with any...and for the Congolese, Nigerian, Ghanese, Senegalese ethnic groups (nations) AMERICANS are clearly DIFFERENT (and the same happens when white AMERICANS arrive to Europe. In any European country they are considered ALIEN, not European, neither German nor French, nor English...but a new mixture that has given birth to a new white tribe the same way the mixture of Anglos, Saxons, Latins, Celts, Dannish and Normands built the English ethnicity as something different from the German)

An AMERICAN ethnicity, an AMERICAN tribe, clearly exists as Alex Haley says in his book "Roots" when he arrived to Africa or when thousands of black Americans discovered when they were sent to Liberia so far away as 1847...and since then (over 160 years) the ethnic mix in the other side of the Atlantic has gone much ahead making black Americans much more a different ethnicity from any in Africa.