Talk:Timeline of African-American history/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial Work

The information in this timeline is entirely from existing Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, many significant dates are missing. I could not find articles on Executive Order 11264, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, or the June 23, 2003 Supreme Court decision in the University of Michigan Law School case. Simesa 22:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
-- I found the 2003 case in a Wikipedia page. Simesa 23:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
-- Created a stub for Executive Order 11246 and added it to 1965. Simesa 00:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Changes

Changed Years 1963, 1964 and 1965, as Follows, and Converted In-text External Links to Footnotes per Wikipedia Guidelines :

  • 1963 (there were four in-text external links, [1] to [4]) :
    • June 11 - This second June 11 item, JFK's historic civil rights speech, had his Bill of June 19 mixed in, confusing. Clarified it. Substituted JFK library's transcript as the source reference, and moved original source reference [1], about August 28 item, to there. And original source [2] was actually MLK's Aug 28 speech, so moved it there as well.
    • June 12 - Added a source (reference) for Medgar Evers and a little of its content.
    • June 19 - Clarified.
    • August 28 - (Moved original [1] and [2] here.)
    • November 22 -Added content.
  • 1964:
    • Corrected two apparent typos in dates: July 3->July 2, and added a source; October 14->December 10 and added a source.
  • 1965 (there was one in-text external link, [5]) :
    • Corrected apparent typo in date, March 16->15, per this item's own source.

For7thGen 21:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Civil Rights or civil rights abuses?

First off, I agree w/ Gatti up there about the monopolization. The word "Native American" (or American Indian, Indigenous People, First Nations, etc.) wasn't even on there until I added it (and I hope to add more). Of course, this is remedied through contribution. But what I really want to ask is, do we talk about civil rights, or abuses of civil rights? Advancements only? Or setbacks as well? I'm sure the assassination of Medgar Evers is up there. Is that to mean we should mark every Indian massacre as well? What about long-ranging phenomena, such as lynchings and Sundown towns? Should we mark the beginning of each decade (eg. 1890-1900: 246 lynchings)? Just wondering what people think about this...--Rockero 02:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that lynching and sundown town belong in the article, at least in See Also. The number of lynchings belongs in the lynching article, although notable lynchings might have a link - I'll look over the Timeline. I would leave out the Indian massacres but include Wounded Knee Standoff (which has no article of its own). Simesa 19:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Conflicts of automatic numbering

I have no way of knowing what the user would choose, who made the very good addition for Sep 15 1963 about the Spike Lee documentary "Four Little Girls". Would they (he or she) choose to add a placeholder footnote as the 6th item in the numbered list of footnotes, along with their automatically numbered embedded HTML link, to avoid conflict with the automatically numbered footnotes in this article? Or would they choose to use the non-numbered embedded HTML link which I have converted their link to? I myself don't care which, but they should have done one or the other. What they did instead, presumably unintentionally because of simply not knowing about conflicts of automatic numbering, fouled up all the footnotes (6, 7 and 8) that followed their embedded HTML link which was automatically numbered [6]. For any users who need further explanation or discussion, please see Wikipedia:Cite sources#Footnote notation and Wikipedia:Cite sources#Embedded HTML links. For7thGen 18:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That was my fault - I didn't spot the conflict. Good catch! Simesa 22:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Merger of Timelines

First, I want to propose a merger between three seperate, but overlaping articles. If a merger with the Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement isn't desired, than perhaps seperate article pages for the Key events sections of the American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954) and American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) articles will be desired due to the gross length of those articles.

Lastly, a review of the discussion page on the Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement article seems to show a consesus on placing notable events on groups beyond African Americans on this page. Yet, a review of the actual article doesn't reflect any effort towards that direction. If that direction is retained, then perhaps a name change is order.

The term "Civil Rights Movement" seems to be utilized in reference or secondary works as solely refering to African Americans. (See Encyclopedia Britannica, Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience, any American history textbook -- highschool or college texts, and any wikiarticle dedicated towards the other movements. Including:

  • antiwar movement -"The protests gained momentum from American Civil Rights Movement that had organized to oppose segregation laws, which had laid a foundation of theory and infrastructure on which the anti-war movement grew." (9th paragraph down)
  • student movement - "Students movements in the US also became a part of the movement for academic freedom in the universities and the budding American Civil Rights Movement." (3rd paragraph down)
  • women’s movement - "Feminism of the second wave in the 1960's focused more on lifestyle and economic issues; "The personal is the political" became a catchphrase. Second wave feminism emerged with battles on three fronts. Many came from within the New Left, seeking to expand the agenda of civil rights and campus to the status of women, while becoming increasing vocal on the mistreatment of women within the movement". (1st paragraph)
  • gay rights movement - "In the sixties, the civil rights, black power, anti-war, and feminist movements influenced some LGBT activists to become more militant and radical (Matzner 2004)." (3rd paragraph down)
  • disability rights movement - "The disability rights movement began in the 1970s, encouraged by the examples of the African-American civil rights and women’s rights movements, which began in the late 1960s." (sole paragraph)
  • “1960's” - "[A]lthough some of the most dramatic events of the American civil rights movement occurred in the early 1960s, the movement had already began in earnest during the 1950s. On the other hand, the rise of feminism and gay rights began only in the very late 1960s and did not fully flower until the Seventies. However, the "Sixties" has become synonymous with all the new, exciting, radical, subversive and/or dangerous (according to one's viewpoint) events and trends of the period." (1st paragraph)

That term "sixties" seems to be a catch all for all the tumultuous events that occured during that period in the U.S. and abroad -- constructive or destructive.

This is not a disagreement on the nature of the other movements. To avoid the confusion that appears on this discussion page with the aims of those writing an article on the Civil Rights Movement or mentioning the Civil Rights Movement on any page, I only want to adhere to what is the established terminology in scholarly studies, reference works, and on wikipedia. - Mitchumch 12:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The other two "core" articles are already too long - merging might only make them longer. We probably should have highlighted this article in their text (as opposed to in See also) in the first place. Simesa 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The "Key Events" section from the article that chronicles the years 1955-1968 currently exceeds the 32KB article size limit by 11KBs. The Civil Rights Movement article it is embedded in exceeds the 32KB size limit by another 32KB -- that is without the "Key Events" section. Another related concern is the awkward presence of such an enormous timeline preceeding the body of text in the Civil Rights Movement article. This is also a growing problem in the Civil Rights Movement article that chronicles the years 1896-1954.
From those three issues, I think it is inevitable that the "Key Events" sections will be seperated into their own article. Once that happens, a merger between it and the Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement will follow.
As for the concern about the length of the proposed merger of articles. I think the timeline will need to be divided into two or more articles. Perhaps the breaks in the article could hinge on major developments in the Civil Rights Movement -- emergence of Dr.King after the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956, passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the emergence of the Black Power Movement in 1966. I'm open to suggestions. - Mitchumch 10:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure how to make comments on this so I am just editing the page to add my opinion. I am studying the American Civil Rights movement 1865-1980 at school in the UK and I believe it would be most helpful if the timeline was merged with both key events pages - the more detailed the timeline the better, as I just copied a large chunk (1865-1915) out onto paper only to find that there was a great deal more in the key events pages - a merger would have helped avoid this and provide a more synoptic view! Thanks, Matt Smith Madmatt52 09:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Citation of bulleted dates

First, though, we have to ask - is this information from a copyrighted source? Simesa 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, because the "Key Events" sections has grown naturally from the contributions of numerous editors. Could you elaborate on your concern and question -- I'm not sure that I fully understand your thoughts on this matter. - Mitchumch 10:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
For the sources I used to produce the introduction in the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), see:
  • Abraham, Henry J. and Barbara A. Perry. Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States. 8th ed. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003. pgs. 367-464 ISBN 0700612629
  • Kousser, J. Morgan. The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. ISBN 0300016964
  • Lowery, Charles D. and John F. Marszalek, ed. Encyclopedia of African-American Civil Rights: From Emancipation to the Present. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992. ISBN 0313250111
  • Sullivan, Patricia. "Civil Rights Movement." Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience. New York: Basic Civitas Books, 1999. ISBN 0465000711
An additional note on the citation of various dates in the timeline or key events sections in articles related to the Civil Rights Movement:
Outside of the grammatical or spelling edits that I've made in the different articles, I've contributed dates for the urban riots. For the source of information that I used for the urban riots between 1964-1968, see:
  • Brown, Richard M. "Black-White Violence, 1663-1970: Slave Insurgencies; Riots; Lynchings. appendix 4. Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of Ameican Violence and Vigilantism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. (This work is a noted synthesis of secondary studies. The literature on riots are drawn from six studies that are cited at the end of the table on racial violence.)
I think adding citations to each event bulleted would definitely raise the bar on the quality of the article and avoid plagiarism, but it would take time to fact check each event without a citation. If that it is the first step in merging the articles, I will definitely need to enlist help. - Mitchumch 04:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
In the current Timeline, of the first 40 bulleted items I checked (all through 1949, with 2 duplicates) all were wikilinks and 35 of those had references and/or adequate External Links. It is not too much to expect that each bulleted item have a citation, if only to a footnote. Simesa 07:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging-in of 1954-1968 info

The 1954-1968 timeline info that user Mitchumch placed in American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) has been merged into Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement as "Unsourced/Unchecked Info". This was done because one line stated that Bobby Bland graduated from the University of Virginia's Engineering school - which was patently false. Also, there may be copyright violation concerns. I (or, hopefully other editors as well) will check each line and move the info up into the normal text as time permits. I do appreciate Mitcumch's hard work, and want to see it installed properly. Simesa 16:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll remove merge into and add a fact checking link.Avraham 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gutting of Timeline

Removal of 284 years of struggle is grossly inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Perhaps the Holocaust didn't happen either? Simesa 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This change - cleanly removing absolutely everything outside the '60s (including not only timeline material but also header and trailer material) - looks to me more like an edit error of some kind than a deliberate removal of the information. Remember WP:AGF. Restoring the material, as you've done, is completely appropriate... just don't assume that the original deletion was intentional. (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity :-)

Jordan Brown 10:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Source of the "Unsourced Material"

This material appears to come from [1], which is a copyrighted website. I will try to reduce the unsourced material as time permits. Simesa 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of December 5-6

It gives me no pleasure to remove info from Wikipedia, but I believe it to have been lifted wholesale from [2] and I simply don't have time now to find alternative sources for each item. The best thing to do is to keep what we can support, prominently reference the website, and come back later with references for more info. Simesa 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Michigan's Affirmative Action Ban

[3] - need a non-Yahoo reference. Simesa 06:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Ward Connerly was involved. Simesa 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Classification and Timeline Question

It should be clear that in the 1600's and 1700's that there were a negligible number of Africans who could rightly be called "African Americans." Moreover, as enslaved Africans, is it not difficult to argue that their struggle constituted a "civil rights struggle"? After all, this presupposes that these Africans prized citizenship above freedom. That is a tough position to establish until you get well into the 1850's. The Civil Rights Movement is part of a larger international struggle and does not properly date from the 1600's. To suggest that it does may be to overlook either the meaning of "civil" or the meaning of "African" vs. "African American."

How can this be resolved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Temple3 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC).--Temple3 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Significance of items

The later sections are very detailed, but maybe we need some consensus about what should be included. I deleted the birth of Martin Luther King's third child. Also, unless there is some explanation, the 1960 meeting of Bob Moss with an organizer in MS will be deleted.--Parkwells (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not include lynchings

I would vote against including lynchings on this list, except perhaps those of civil rights activists - there were too many lynchings, and they are covered in detail, as are some larger outbreaks, in Lynching in the United States, Mass racial violence, and separate articles on riots--Parkwells (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC).

Otis Moss Jr.

We need a bio on Otis Moss, Jr. Simesa (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson?

I'm wondering why this item was included:

1982
* unknown - Michael Jackson releases Thriller, which has become the best-selling album of all time.

I don't see as how this represents anything new (persons of colour had been recording vinyl LP's for years, this was one among many) or how it relates to or was in any way created to promote civil rights per se. Sure, he made a pile of money, but Brown v. Board of Education this isn't. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusion of intent

It's hard to understand the criteria for what is included here. There is another "List of African American firsts", although some are included here. The timeline includes both events that are against African Americans, such as riots, and laws and Supreme Court cases that benefit them, plus assorted first works by some authors (how were they selected?) Someone is adding firsts for Orlando, FL, although this might not be the most important city to acknowledge. It's quite long, and I think needs to be reviewed with the intention of shortening it and clarifying what should be included here.--Parkwells (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although my recent focus has been in trying to be sure that everything that might be of significant note got linked in somehow (I still have a WordPad file of about 27 1960-1969 entries that need to be considered for significance - I believe I've gotten all my other notes into the article now). I was hoping to have everything entered in time for Black History Month.
When I started this article, it was basically nothing more than wikilinks with the very briefest number of additional words necessary to have their context make sense. In addition to paring down the number of entries we'll have to discuss how much explanation is appropriate in each entry (I tend to favor more terseness but with more entries).
I didn't know about the list of firsts - what's the wikilink?
We might even want to rename the article, as it covers slavery and semi-slavery in the U.S. from start to finish. Simesa (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
List of African-American firsts, also List of first African-American mayors--Parkwells (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone against renaming this article Timeline of slavery and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States ? That's pretty much what it is right now, and the two are very much inextricably linked. Simesa (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems more a "Timeline of African-American history and Civil Rights Movement" - it has early figures like Crispus Attucks, etc. who don't really figure into slavery; legislation and revolts related to slavery, etc.. I'm not sure what it is supposed to represent.--Parkwells (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You have good points - still, I can see where all these events interacted and so a combined list (this length is tolerable, if long) is useful. "Timeline of African-American history and the Civil Rights Movement" then? Simesa (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
They are related, but perhaps we can come to some agreement - political and social movements? rather than books and inventions? There are other lists of "firsts". Because the Civil Rights Movement worked from institutions, my inclination would be for events related to institution building - political, social, religious (the first black churches were important harbingers of growing independence.)--Parkwells (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Eartha Kitt

I'm including Eartha Kitt in the See Also, but realize her inclusion may be somewhat contentiou. Thoughts? Simesa (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Article needed on "Preachers and Teachers"

This topic appears to be unaddressed in Wikipedia. The concept was that at one time being a preacher or a teacher were the highest callings an African-American man could aspire to - therefore, the best and the brightest men then went into those fields. Simesa (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Celebration

Four years and 56 days ago I started this article, and today I finally feel as if it's been done a reasonably adequate job. Not at all the best of speeds, but still something I'm proud to have helped with. Simesa (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Info without primary sources

The following information was found on [4], but without a primary source:

"ca. 1582 - King Philip II of Spain sends some enslaved Africans to work in San Agustin (St. Augustine, Florida)."

"1619 - Approximately 20 blacks from a Dutch slaver are purchased as indentured workers for the English settlement of Jamestown . These are the first Africans in the English North American colonies."

"1662 - Virginia reverses the presumption of English law that the child follows the status fo his father and enacts a law that makes the free or enslaved status of children dependent on the status of the mother."

Simesa (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

verify

The info that needs verification is the 1954-1968 timeline info. Most of it is labeled. See above (merging of 1954-1968 info) For the information about the 1968 Civil Rights act, see Patrick Jones, Selma of the North, Harvard U Press, 2009. See also Margaret Rozga, 200 Nights and One Day. Benu Press, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.65.185 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

July 19, 1958 in Wichita, Kansas

http://stubbornfacts.us/random/almost_forgotten_history • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

See also

The "See also" and "other ___" sections here seem a bit ludicrously unwieldy. --Dystopos (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The section seemed to be trying to be the entire African American portal, which is already linked. I've removed the "Other" sections and trimmed the see also a bit. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Timeline of African-American Civil Rights Movement → Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement – The African-American Civil Rights Movement takes a "the" definite article just like Timeline of the Iraq War. So either this is a hilarious misinterpretation of the WP:MOS or MOS was much different in September 2011. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as common sense. Probably could've been a technical request. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

event density?

Not too worried about the 'off years' but I'm looking at 1963... I see that it's a sub-sub-sub category... so I am loathe to add a lot of events. On the other hand, there were a lot of events! There are plenty of events to add that have (IMO) greater significance than some of the ones currently listed. And look at the percent devoted to Birmingham. I know Birmingham was a big deal. But at the same time, there were things going on in every American city!

So I guess I am just wondering what people think about adding more events... and maybe do we need to split off pages, or something like that? Or should we not worry too much about having a really big in-depth article that would allow people to follow along with the timeline of what was happening? Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Category Monopolization

Civil rights is the history of all discriminated classes - the monopolization of the term for one class at the exclusion of others is itself discriminatory.

This is the exclusive History of a the struggle of persons identified by the NAACP as "Persons of Color" for equal protection under the law.

The Civil Rights Movement recognizes the coincidence of various groups to overcome systemic discrimination which was initiated by simultaneous efforts of Africans and Women to attain sufrage and which accelerated from 1886 - slowed during the KKK years from 1889 to 1918, picked up momentum during the wars because of federal integration of troops, but made a decisive turn when the Democratic party split with the "Dixiecrats" and choose to embrace the idea that equality in the workplace should be mandated at the federal level in (1955?) The resulting victory of the democrats (JFK) coincided with the imprisonment of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement accelerated to include:

including: 1. Indigenous Peoples - who deserve their own labels - ie Navaho. 2. Persons of Sub-saharan African Descent. Not to be confused with those of Arab Descent. 3. Women - specifically white women seeking suffrage, Minority women were doubly disadvantaged, but it must be remembers that the champions of womens suffrage specifically disowned any interest in negro suffrage, and so by extension the suffrage of black women was considered distinct from womens suffrage. 4. Jews and Catholics - NC and probably other states prevented Jews and Catholics from participating in public life. 5. Handicapped and Mentally challenged - once treated worse than criminals, those with mental difficiencies were recognized as people - "One flew over the cukoo's nest" represents the period of transformation. 6. Families with Children - were (are) discriminated against in housing until federal laws passed. 7. Minority sexual orientations - Oscar Wilde was imprisoned to the point of insanity before civil rights were recognized. Homosexuals continue to be targeted by multi-bigots: generally those who abhor Jews, Blacks, Gays, and Women in positions of authority, with broad - biblically-based hatred - often with tacit approval from their communities. Matthew F. Hale being a recent example. David Duke another. 8. The right of the homeless to register to vote without a fixed address. 9. Nonsmokers right to healthy air. 10. Atheists right to freedom of (from) the use of tax money to establish religion.


Civil rights increased until the presidency of George W. Bush - who kicked off his campaign in the bastion of bigotry - bob jones university - which condemns Catholics and prohibits "blacks" from dating "Whites" (leaving asians, geogians, arabs, portugese, hispanic, Indians from either continent, chechnians, and other non-whie-non-blacks to "choose" one "race" or the other), and has marked his Presidency with reduced equality for homosexuals first, then race based interment, racial profiling, and promoting the use of tax money to promote (some) religions. In fairness, Bush has promoted minorities to higher posts that previous Presidents but has insisted on unquestioning loyalty - raising the question that he favors "Uncle Toms", or minorities who are willing to subjugate the principles of equality and participate in the repetition of historic prejudices (such as the japanese internments being revisited in gitmo) in exchange for high profile positions. Benjamin Gatti 05:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

more merging

If someone can merge in the info from that would be great. You can find it at the subpage here: Talk:Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement/Merge in

Birth of A Nation(Of Islam)

Does anyone think that it may be a little inappropriate to incorporate the NOI into this timeline of civil rights?

I mean, yeah, they WERE in the Civil Rights Movment, but there a religious/black nationalist group first and foremost. The klan has donated to childrens charitys, but that dosn't subtract from the fact that it's a terroist organization. Should THEY then be placed right next to the March of Dimes?

Besides, the amount of members is a personal acomplishment, not geared towards the Civil Rights Movement in any way. -69.250.130.215

Requested move 20 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement → Timeline of African-American history – I think the proposed title would better describe the list's content, which is much broader than the Civil Rights Movement. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, as it covers a wider spectrum. Kierzek (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, along with, if this passes, opening a new page with just the timeline of the Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968) with data copied from this page (I've started one here). A timeline of that particular movement, the actions and events of that period, seems important to have as a separate page, and one that could be linked to the template and other pages. But yes, as this page stands now, it is a timeline of African-American history and far from exclusively a page about the movement. Randy Kryn 11:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disputes

  • The article's title is inappropriate because it infers that the article is about the history of African-Americans, but only includes info about the history of African-American's interactions with Europeans. If this article wants to be a timeline of the Atlantic slave trade, the title should be changed.
  • The neutrality of this article is disputed because it pushes a point of view that history started for African-Americans in the 16th century upon contact with Europeans. However, millions of African-Americans were born in West Africa before being transported to the Americas. Peer reviewed secondary sources agree that West Africa has a history outside of the triangle trade. Therefore, the individuals that lived in West Africa before coming to the Americas own the history of West Africa, as well as the history that stems from their experiences in the Americas. Furthermore, the timelines of Chinese and Korean history have established a precedent that the early history of a people should be included in the timeline of an article alongside the modern history. Finally, previous edits want to focus the content of the timeline of the 13 colonies, while the article is titled African-American history. There were African-Americans living in Spanish and French areas that had nothing to do with the 13 colonies.
  • The article is missing information on the history of African-Americans before their contact with Europeans.Rod (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This so-called "dispute" is ridiculous. There were no Africa Americans before there Africans in America. That isn't POV-pushing; that's a fact. Since it was Europeans who brought Africans to America, yes, African-American history realistically starts with the interaction of Africans and Europeans in the Atlantic slave trade. African history is, at best, prehistory in a history of African Americans.
Comparing this timeline with timelines of Chinese or Korean history is a comparison between apples and oranges. Were either of those groups transported thousands of miles and created in the crucible of slavery?
The fact that most of this timeline during the Colonial period has to do with the "Thirteen Colonies" relates to an educational bias most of us experienced in school, not a "want to focus the content of the timeline of the 13 colonies". You recognize that's a problem? Help fix it, instead of belly-aching about it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's an example of the uselessness of the materials I deleted--I contend it does not belong in this article: The Nok Civilization is considered to be one of the most advanced ancient sub-Saharan civilizations in African history. Beginning some time around 1500 BCE, it was largely concentrated in what is now Nigeria but produced some of the first sub-Saharan iron smelting and terracotta architecture. Mysteriously died out around 200 CE. Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about African-American history. Many African-Americans are of Nigerian descent. It is a NPOV and unencyclopedic to state that descendants of the area now known as Nigeria (aka African Americans) would not find a Nok civilization centered in Nigeria to be a part of their history.Rod (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I can now see where the disagreement lies. In the view of Rjensen this is an article about the timeline of slavery, as it relates to the British colonies. If that is the intent of this article, it needs a new title. I suggest "Timeline of the Slave Trade to the British Colonies in America." As it stands, the title implies that this is the history of "African-Americans." You are very wrong. African-Americans were Africans before they were African-Americans. Many were actually born in Africa and their children would still share the history and ancestry of their forefathers that were born in West Africa. Change the title and let the lay reader know that this article is only about the slave trade to the British colonies.Rod (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Above RJensen contends that African history is not the history of African Americans, but a "prehistory" and that African-American history begins with the onset of European oppression and the slave trade. First, this is an inappropriate use of the word "prehistory." Next, I would contend that your statement is highly contentious, if not outright racist. "African-American" is just a label, like European American. The people that comprise the group known as "African-Americans" would have been called by a number of West African tribal names before they relocated to the Americas. That West African history is missing from the timeline, although many of the people described by the timeline were not born in America. Even if they were, the American born descendants of West African parents or grandparents, still share a common history with West Africa, which is their motherland.Rod (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe you've confused me with Rjensen. (You've also built yourself quite a straw man. Nobody beside you has said this is a timeline of slavery.) Your statements about African-American history are baseless. I recommend you read a good book on the subject, or maybe an encyclopedia article... if only I knew where to send you to find one.
Also, your statement that "African-Americans were Africans before they were African-Americans" gave me a good belly laugh. I know thousands of African Americans, and not one of them was an African, ever. Maybe you're the one who's stuck in the 17th century. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Dailey78 says It is a NPOV and unencyclopedic to state that descendants of the area now known as Nigeria (aka African Americans) would not find a Nok civilization centered in Nigeria to be a part of their history. Well no. the duty is on an editor adding the claim who must have a RS saying that the Nok civilization is part of the timeline of Af-Am. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Africans and African Americans

Free Africans from known regions of Africa were brought to the Americas via the slave trade and became "African-Americans." Since many of these "African-Americans" were actually born and raised in continental Africa before gaining dual nationality as African-Americans, we cannot exclude the history of West Africa from this timeline. The millions of Africans that were born in Africa before transport to the Americas had a history that began before the slave trade. Their history is the history of West Africa and all of its kingdoms, empires, tribes, etc. Their history grew to include the wars in West Africa, their interactions with Europeans, and their experience in the Americas. It is an incomplete timeline to tell the history of West Africans without giving the context of the land in which they were often born and raised before becoming "African-Americans."Rod (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I propose that we include the history of West Africa in the Timeline of African-American history, for the following reasons:

  • It is a fact that many "African-Americans" were born in West Africa and not the Americas.
  • Any "African-American" born in West Africa inherits the history of the region, empires, kingdoms, and tribes into which they were born.
  • It is well known which regions, empires, and kingdoms produced "African-Americans."

See the African slave trade article. I will excerpt a portion here:

Slave market regions and participation

Major slave trading regions of Africa, 15th–19th centuries

There were eight principal areas used by Europeans to buy and ship slaves to the Western Hemisphere. The number of enslaved people sold to the New World varied throughout the slave trade. As for the distribution of slaves from regions of activity, certain areas produced far more enslaved people than others. Between 1650 and 1900, 10.24 million enslaved Africans arrived in the Americas from the following regions in the following proportions:[1]

Does anyone dispute that millions of "African-Americans" were actually born in West Africa before transport to the Americas? Is it appropriate to disconnect West Africans from the history of the land on which they were born because they happened to move to the Americas and gain American nationality? Rod (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Finally, if one reads the timeline of Korean or Chinese history on Wikipedia, you will find their history back to pre-historic times (no writing, no evidence). Does it dilute modern Chinese history to speak of Peking man, mythic founding dynasties, and prehistoric China? Does it dilute Korean history to talk about stone age Koreans, if any such term could be used? How does it dilute the history of African-Americans to talk about the history of West Africa when we know for a fact that millions of African-Americans lived half of their life in Africa and half in the Americas. We know that many African-Americas in the Caribbean were replaced by fresh recruits from continental Africa. These recruits were often adults and thus already had a nationality and a history before adding the Americas to their history.Rod (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

well no--the proposed additions say nothing much about the people who left. Instead we get kingdoms --and we are not told which of those kings captured and sold slaves? Which ones cut deals with the slave traders and which ones resisted? what was the social structure, the religion, languages, the culture, the music that to-be-slaves took with them? What was the condition of people enslaved inside West Africa, no slave revolts??? Furthermore the vast majority did not go straight to the 13 colonies, they went to the Caribbean where they had complex experiences that are not mentioned. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The formatting of this article does not allow space for one to expound on any topic including the history of West Africa. Most bullets in this timeline and the timelines of Chinese or Korean history are one liners. Many of the bullets are 3 or 4 words in total. It's unreasonable to expect that the history of West Africans before they relocated to America should be detailed in an article formatted as a timeline. It's also an undue burden on the African-American timeline article that is not imposed on the Chinese or Korean timeline articles. If you would like to know more about the history of West Africa, you should read the articles about those empires, kingdoms, and tribes. The timeline article is just to provide the dates and topics.
  • Does anyone dispute that millions of African-Americans were born in Africa?
  • Does anyone dispute that millions of African-Americans were born in Africa, transported to the Caribbean, and then transported to North America?
  • Is not the history of West Africa (where nearly all African-Americans originate) not more important than the death of Malcolm Shabazz, which made this article. Did Malcolm Shabazz do anything so remarkable that he is worth mentioning in an encyclopedic article about African-Americans? He is not his father.

Rod (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

yes: I reject the contention that "millions" of African-Americans were born in Africa. (I limit the term to What is now the United States). A better estimate is about 400,000. See Kimberley Louise Phillips (2012). Daily Life During African American Migrations. ABC-CLIO. p. 9... The history of West Africa is useless in this article if it's only about kings and not about the people who became slaves in North America. An interesting question is what the slaves in fact brought with them from West Africa in terms of culture, religion, values and beliefs. Furthermore there is obviously an ignorance of reliable sources when numbers get multiplied into the millions with no justification. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It is your original research that the term African-American only refers to blacks in the USA. It is your non-neutral point of view that the history of West Africa is useless in this article. I hold an opposing view, which is supported by the precedent established in the Korean and Chinese timeline articles. Kings waged wars, which led to prisoners of war, which led to African Americans. Empires, kingdoms, and kings did business with those that transported West Africans to the Americas to form the group that we know today as African Americans. There could not be any African Americans without West Africans. By definition (AFRICAN American).Rod (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Which kings sold the slaves? Rjensen (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You are missing the point and asking the wrong question. Twelve (12) million people were removed from Africa and brought to the Americas. It's irrelevant which king was involved in their departure. The kings did not become African Americans. The kings stayed in Africa and are just plainly Africans. The real question is: Who were the 12 million people that left Africa and moved to the Americas (including USA)? What land did they come from? What empire or kingdom was in the area from which they came? What is the history of the people that became African Americans? That is the title of this article. For those 500,000 that you concede were born in Africa, their history begins with the history of their ancestors in Africa. It certainly does not begin in the 16th century with their contact with Europeans. That is a NPOV to push the idea that 12 million Africans had no history before the slave trade. The answers to the real questions can be found in my excerpt above, the Atlantic slave trade article, and the empires of Africa article on WikiRod (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Your proposed additions to the timeline are all about kings and kingdoms, Which you now agree tells us little or nothing about the people became enslaved. There's a large literature on them, but you seem unaware of it have not used any reliable sources at all. Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
We will wait for input from others. I do not agree. You are butchering my position. My position is that human beings living in West Africa lived in tribes, kingdoms, and empires before they moved to the Americas. Those tribes, kingdoms, and empires had histories. The history of West Africa belongs to the masses of people that lived in West Africa (ruling class, commoners, etc.). The people of West Africa moved to the Americas. You cannot separate the history of West Africa (and it's kings, kingdoms, empires, and tribes) from the West African people that moved to the Americas. That is why Black Americans are referred to as AFRICAN Americas. The same information that you might find in a Timeline of West African History would be relevant in a Timeline of African-American history because African-Americans came from West Africa and millions of African-Americans (in the New World) were actually born in West Africa. Therefore, they are by birth West Africans and West African history (kings, kingdoms, tribes, and empires) is their history.Rod (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a timeline on African-American history and knowing nothing specific about the history involved but being a wikipedia user, I would suggest not including African history in it. I would, though, most certainly link to an African history timeline and to an article that explains, in detail, such things as the slave trade and any other historic topics that you feel are strongly related.Natrina (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lovejoy, Paul E. Transformations in Slavery. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of African-American history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Timeline of African-American history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:African-American gospel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_African-American_history/Archive_1&oldid=1075604689"