Talk:African American contemporary issues/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:African American contemporary issues

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.

1 Military
2 Criticism
3 Criticism of the criticism
4 The role of police in upholding the status quo, and white-collar crime
5 NPOV Dispute

Military

The article made a point that employers seem to be indifferent about whites who serve yet appreciative of African Americans with military experience. This is an interesting point, but it seems out of place in the article. I think someone needs to ask their local AfrAm Studies major to whip this whole article into an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a blog (although the talk section is, sort of). GavinSimmons 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The author of this article has not taken heed to the numerous conscientious suggestions of others in the discussion section. It grossly distorts facts and has an overwhelmingly negative, pessimistic tone. This article serves no useful, informative purpose, and I fear that the less informed will be further misinformed after reading this article. Either clean it up, or remove this article completely. This article is unscholarly and pedestrian at best. Kemet 19 Nov 2005.

This article is currently on its way to NPOV - compare the current with the former and much more POV version [1]. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is a move in the right direction, but I think it needs to make changes in the language to avoid the types of generalizations that deny the profound diversity between African Americans. The sections "Institutional racism and discrimination, Environmental racism and Public education and failing schools" clearly indicate that the author already has pre-conceived notions of how African Americans live---many African Americans have overcome institutional racism and discrimination (it can, in fact, be argued that much of the malaise among those of the lower classes is from internalized, not white, racism), most do not live in environmentally racist environments, and failing schools is a problem largely confined to members of the working and lower classes (many of whose members still perform very well when measured according to mainstream criteria). Keep working [musicus, 24 July 2005]

This is stupid. The article on African American was fine and far more substantial when this was an integral part of it. And how the hell can this claim to discuss these issues from the "unique perspective of the African American experience" (or whatever the hell the flimsy introduction said) -- when contributors are not (and should not be) limited to African Americans?

This -- and the other sections should be reintegrated into the original article. After all, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- and the articles it presents should have some depth of treatment. The article on African Americans in its present, truncated form, once useful and informative, now just sux.

Whose decision WAS this? It should be changed BACK to the way it was. deeceevoice 23:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of the criticism

I believe in the exchange of ideas and opinions, but 'this is stupic' 'sux' 'whatever the hell' are not the way an intellegent person discusses issues in an intellectual format.

Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. Nothing is cast in stone. Everyone is allowed to contribute and that's both its strength and its weakness.

No, the main article wasn't 'fine'; it was too long [approaching 32KB] and involved. Further, it departed from 'African American' in a way that Irish American and Italian American do not. I don't mean to say that it was bad (although it still needed work). You are correct; the article WAS informative. That does NOT mean that all the information has to be in one place. Many, many Wikipedia topics are split into subtopics and articles. There is no reason, for example, for Chitterlings or what was traditionally called The Black Church to be discussed in detail in a main article on African Americans.

I agree that the intro to this could do with a rewrite. It wasn't intended to suggest that only African Americans will be writing this. By all means rewrite it.

It will help if you do not take a proprietary attitude towards articles to which you contribute.

Quill 00:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't take a "proprietary" attitude about what I write. However, truncating the article doesn't make much sense. Take a look at "jazz," for instance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and one expects entries to have length and substance. And, of COURSE the article can be improved upon. My comment about it's being "fine" had to do with its overall structure; it was not a line-by-line appraisal. Your separate, truncated entries are really weak as stand-alone pieces. Perhaps, you should have taken the time to try to write some a decent introductory paragraph to them before slicing and dicing the original.deeceevoice 16:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look, you've made an improvement already. I believe your comments are genuine and I admire your passion; I just don't agree in total. jazz is a specific, much more manageble topic. It is in depth, yes; its subdivisions are on topic, to the point, and focused. Now, have you considered Irish American?

As to your last sentence, well, yes, and no. I didn't have the time. And I didn't have to force it; that's the beauty of Wikipedia. Not everything at Wikipedia has to be done by one person, and even so, not everything has to be done at one time. Further, mistakes will always be made (and jumped on by others) eg. "...to write some a decent introdtory..." It happens. ;)

We're on the same side.

Quill 20:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"African-American" IS manageable; it is also mis-manageable. :-p I frankly do not believe the subject has been better served by hacking it up into curious side topics with clumsy introductions that do not stand alone well. As for "Irish-American," I believe someone SHOULD write a similar article which seeks to be a comprehensive overview about them, if one already does not exist. While I have crusty, old, peg-legged white-rapist Irish-American ancestor, the group is not a particular interest of mine -- so, I'll leave that one to someone so inclined.deeceevoice 11:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further, there is no difference among a comprehensive article on "jazz," or "race," or "African American." As I stated earlier, Wikipedia is FULL of lengthy articles when the subject merits; that's what an encyclopedia is. It's not a dictionary. It makes no sense arbitrarily to bowdlerize an article because someone gets the notion in his head it's simply "too long." I think the article -- and its component pieces as they now stand -- while certainly not perfect, had far more integrity as a whole. I think you've made a mess. deeceevoice 11:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed your silly comment about a typo: "Further, mistakes will always be made (and jumped on by others) eg. '...to write some a decent introdtory...' It happens. ;)" What? You're equating a simple typo (and in the "Discussion," no less -- who cares?) with the intentional mutilation of an article because it's "too long"? Get a grip. deeceevoice 18:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The role of police in upholding the status quo, and white-collar crime

Once again, a nameless editor has reverted my contribution in this regard. This is not POV; it's a matter of historic record. Police and elected officials often were complict in mob actions and lynchings of black people. (Read Ida B. Wells' accounts -- or anyone's, for that matter -- of the wave of lynchings and riots that swept the U.S. from slavery to the Mississippi Blood Summer of 1964 and beyond. It's the police's job to uphold the law. And when segregation and discrimination were sanctioned/mandated by law, that is precisely what they did. They upheld a system that oppressed and sanctioned the murder of innocent black people. After all, what happened when Rosa Parks defied the rule that blacks had to relinquish their seats to white passengers? She was arrested by the police! And such things as this have contributed to the hatred, antipaty, distrust and antagonism with which some black folks regard the cops. It is reverted. AGAIN. deeceevoice 17:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto for the passage dealing with white-collar crime. deeceevoice 18:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No explanation from the anonymous editor -- just another revert. Reported for action. deeceevoice 11:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Racist. Seriously. {An anonymous contributor who doesn't care enough to sign his/her name -- or to make his/her point clear. Utterly useless. deeceevoice 05:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC))

NPOV Dispute

Historically, the police were enforcers of a racist, white supremacist status quo that often victimized innocent blacks, sometimes acting in concert with vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or lynch mobs.

It's the police's job to uphold the law. American laws are not made by the Ku Klux Klan or by lynch mobs.

White-collar crime— which is predominantly a phenomenon of white society

Your source? Statistic? [contributed by still nameless contributor who keeps reverting text deeceevoice 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)]

---

Historically, white supremacy was the law of the land. (Duh!) It is a fact that police were often complicit in the lynchings of blacks. Not to mention the fact that law enforcement regularly participated in the apprehension of runaway slaves and their return to lives of bondage. It was their job to keep whites in power and blacks in check. (Did you even bother to read what I wrote earlier re the arrest of Rosa Parks?) One needn't, after all, be a member of the Klan or of a lynch mob to be a racist white supremacist. (Another big "duh") As I said, Ida B. Wells' accounts of lynch-mob violence are replete with incidents where the police were complicit in such events. You'd have to have been in a coma all your life to be unaware of this fact.

And even in more "enlightened" times, police still acted in collusion with such groups. In 1964, in the killing of Cheney, Goodman and Schwerner, the police deliberately set them free in the dead of night, so they could be apprehended and beaten (and eventually murdered). Civil rights workers knew local law enforcement was not to be trusted -- and so did the federal government -- which is why the National Guard was called in, in Little Rock and called in to protect civil rights workers during the freedom rides and after the murders. Furthermore, there was FBI collusion in the murders of the three civil rights workers in the summer of 1964 -- or hadn't you heard? If you saw the film "Mississippi Burning," don't believe it. It was a flat-out Hollywood lie. Willem Dafoe's FBI agent character was an "artistic device," because film writers and producers believed that the film had to have a white hero for the film to make big box office. Dafoe said as much. In reality, the local G-men (MBI) were in cahoots with the bestial, redneck bastards who perpetrated the killings. This, too, was known from the start. deeceevoice 08:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I googled "police collusion with KKK," and the first file I opened was: http://www.gjf.org/index.php?page=tvcoverage. And this was in 1979. That's just one instance. It was worse centuries before that in the days when cops were openly members of the White Citizens Councils and grand dragons of the Klan. What kind of Pollyanna world have you been living in? Reverted. Again. Next time, you can spare both of us a lot of time and trouble and ask first -- before you repeatedly revert text you think is POV without even so much as a single word in discussion. *x*deeceevoice 19:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Spotted another file which I haven't opened; but which, presumably, refers to the murders in Neshoba County, MS in 1964: "MSN Encarta - Print Preview - Segregation in the United States - ... In Philadelphia, Mississippi, the police conspired with local members of the KKK to murder three civil rights workers (two white and one black) and bury ... http://encarta.msn.com/text_761580651___11/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html"

For white-collar crime and racial/racist perceptions: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/nucera95.html

For data on white-collar crime:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/whitecollarforweb.pdf