Talk:African-American history

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marven215.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Names

"African-American" when used as an adjective is supposed to be hyphenated, as it is a compound adjective, as in "an African-American doctor". When it is a noun - "He is an African American." - it is not hyphenated. Parkwells (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Belatedly  Done – Fayenatic London 09:30, 28 March 2024 (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 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hyphens and African American

Should African-American be hyphenated in this article? The AP style guide has removed the hyphen this year in African American and other hyphenated dual identities.AP tackles language about race in this year’s style guide Columbia Journalism Review Should not Wikipedia follow this practice? I thought Wikipedia followed the AP style guide, but no? Such articles as the one on Barack Obama and virtually every other article using African America as a descriptor use the hyphen, including this one. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done where used as an adjective, see MOS:HYPHEN. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

White supremacy, apologism and erasure

This article seems to protect if not promote white supremacy. It is rife with apologism, with constructions of whites as saviors, and with erasure of exactly what happened, why, and who was responsible. The purpose of this article should not be to protect the egos of white people. Nor should the article in any way reinforce notions that whites are superior to Black people, or that slavery, Jim Crow, systemic racism or ongoing racialized inequality have been inevitable or necessary.

I started off trying to cite specific examples but as I went through I realized almost every paragraph is hugely problematic. I can't do it all and it is not my job as a Black person to do all the work (contrary to what is implied in this article). So here are some comments on the beginning of the article. I hope they are instructive and eye-opening to those who write and edit this and similar articles. I have tried to use double quotes "" when citing the article, single quotes ′′ when paraphrasing and curved quotes «» when proposing alternatives.

• Enslavement
  • African origins: Entire paragraph written in passive voice. As though it just inevitably 'happened'. WHO enslaved us, WHO sought particular groups of us, WHO forced us through the middle passage?
  • Regions of Africa: "sources" of slaves?? Because slaves are 'resources'?? Certainly such talk was standard at the time but that is no excuse for including it today. How about, those were our «homelands»?
  • Middle Passage: the single short paragraph of this subsection is practically apologist, 'there were black people in the US before institutionalized slavery' or 'it's not slavery's fault' and especially 'it's not white people's fault, black people did it first'. (1) this is clearly not the most important part about the middle passage. (2) how come white slavers are not named but the "few countries in Africa" are singled out as responsible???
  • Transport: same passive voice issues as african origins subsection
• Early Af-Am history
  • introductory subsection:
    • "Africans assisted the Spanish and the Portuguese during their early exploration of the Americas" - just like that huh? just up and woke up one day, 'Hey I think I'll go help these white saviors colonize the Americas' - (1) this needs a LOT more explanation, (2) how is this the start of the Early History section?
    • how is everything written so timidly? "In 1619, the first African slaves were brought to Point Comfort on a Dutch slave ship, today's Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia, 30 miles downstream from Jamestown, Virginia. They were kidnapped by the Portuguese." how about: «In the early 1600s, Portuguese mercenaries abducted African villagers at random to exploit them for their personal profit. Some of these African abductees became the first slaves in the English colonies, when Dutch capitalists ransomed the captives from the Portuguese racketeers and in 1619 transported them to Point Comfort (now Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia). At Point Comfort, English colonists purchased the Africans from the Dutch traders like livestock at auction.»
    • "released servants had to be replaced"?? not sure if the person who wrote this was trying to be ironic but nobody 'needs' servants. are they really saying 'English colonists were completely incapable of mobilizing themselves to work the land, and so the only way they could survive was by enslaving others to save them from their own uselessness?' no, I don't think so. how about: «White colonists thought their lives were more important than those of Africans, and so they greatly desired to replace servants immediately upon their release, lest the colonists themselves might have to undertake the sort labor that they forced African abductees to perform without compensation.»
    • "This practice was gradually replaced by the system of race-based slavery used in the Caribbean." - oh ok the system just came and replaced the practice of indentured servitude, like, race-based slavery just reached its big ol' hand up from the Carribean and shooed indentured servitude away and said 'hey it's me now!'??? no. specific groups of people made decisions which changed the normative processes away from temporary servitude toward perpetual chattel slavery. and they did this not because they were forced to but because they were greedy, or they thought they were superior, or whatever other reason.
    • The next paragraph is begins with erasure of the horrors of slavery. "Africans first arrived ... Africans were transported ... these people came from that stretch of the West African coast ..." oh, that sounds nice. And then we have erasure mixed with apologism for Americans, of course the white savior Americans who couldn't do any wrong! "Only about 5% (about 500,000) went to the American colonies. The vast majority went to the West Indies and Brazil ..." oh that sounds nice they went to the West Indies and Brazil and besides if there was anything wrong with it only 5% of it was caused by the Americans, I mean only 500,000 people that's not much is it?? "...where they died quickly." OH IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED. should i be pleased that the article acknowledges that people DIED because of the slave trade? or is this more apologism, 'they died quick, painless deaths'? and what about those who didn't die, and their descendants, who endured generations of grueling forced labor and dehumanization at the hands of English, Spanish, Dutch, French and Portuguese settlers?? and what's this? "Demographic conditions were highly favorable in the American colonies, with less disease, more food, some medical care, and lighter work loads than prevailed in the sugar fields." OH THAT'S NICE AMERICAN SLAVES WERE SO FORTUNATE!! GOD BLESS AMERICA. (i am not claiming that the quoted statement is factually untrue - it's not an area of my expertise - but it is hugely misleading and frankly whitewashing for that to be the only comment made.)
    • The last paragraph of this subsection is just more of the same erasure and apologism. "At first the Africans in the South were outnumbered by white indentured servants, who came voluntarily from Britain." OK this is completely factually accurate but why are you highlighting this? 'Yes there were Black slaves but not that many, there were more volunteers than slaves!' Also how long did that situation last, why, and why did it change? "They avoided the plantations." the white volunteers avoided the plantations ... and ...? I thought this was an article on African American history, not on the history of white people in the context of an African invasion. "With the vast amount of good land and the shortage of laborers, plantation owners turned to lifetime slaves who worked for their keep but were not paid wages ..." Nice erasure of the armed and deadly theft of land from Native Americans, also fostered by white supremacy. Or did the genocide of Native Americans just 'happen' and therefore there was just all this land lying around just like that? 'There was so much land oh my goodness it just fell from the sky into the white saviors' hands and demanded that they cultivate it, such was their obligation, and so the good plantation owners were simply obliged to find lifetime slaves, slaves they would care for over their lifetime or maybe slaves who had been slaves all their lives or in any case slaves who heavens to betsy it was just natural for them to be slaves, that was their lives and they worked in exchange for room and board in lieu of wages so wasn't it nice for them and their lifetimes!' And... what's this? "... and could not easily escape." Oh really? it sounded so nice for them, why would they want to escape??? 'Well unfortunately dear me they were not the most talented bless their hearts so they didn't know how to leave, of course, but it was probably for the best since they earned their keep where they were on the plantations and the outside world would have been dangerous for them, since they were just so ignorant, and the plantations were just natural for slaves.' It just gets better. "Slaves had some legal rights (it was a crime to kill a slave, and a few whites were hanged for it.)" Are we supposed to be delighted that a handful of whites were punished for murdering our ancestors? When many thousands have done so with impunity and continue to do so today??? "Generally the slaves developed their own family system, religion and customs in the slave quarters with little interference from owners, who were only interested in work outputs." That is extremely misleading, and probably more or less false, to say there was "little interference from owners" or that the owners "were only interested in work outputs" and - wait a minute - did you just normalize the "owners" bit? Without me even noticing? Of course because Black people are less than human so it's normal we would have owners? How about «captors»? The section ends with a flourish: "Before the 1660s, the North American mainland colonies were expanding, but still fairly small in size and did not have a great demand for labour, so the colonists did not import large numbers of African slaves at this point." The erasure would be laughable were it not so simultaneously dispiriting and infuriating. How about: «Before the 1660s, European colonists in what they called the North American mainland (in honor of colonial European imperialist attaché Amerigo Vespucci) were still in the early stages of swindling, conquering and genocidally depopulating the lands of Native Americans, on the continent some native peoples referred to as Turtle Island. Therefore, the lands under Europeans' control were small relative to population of white indentured servants. Thus, given an ample supply of white indentured servants, commercial interests did not go to the trouble of developing industrial-scale abduction and enslavement of Africans until the 1660s, when colonists stole more land and volunteer servants became more scarce.»

That's all, I can't go through any more. I'm tired. I hope you get my point. My critiques are not limited to slavery, I could make the same criticisms throughout all sections of the article. There needs to be more discussion of the experience of Black people in what is now the United States, a lot more criticality of who did what and why and how, and zero tolerance for apologism, erasure, white-saviorism, and white-centering of Black people's history! If those who have written this article are too tired to change it then just delete it, honestly, I think as-is it does more harm than good on here.

--Caffelatteo (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible contribution?

I was recently told about Pearl City (Boca Raton) which has a rich African-American history and is currently undergoing gentrification. The article needs work but may be connected to information on this page. Those of you with knowledge on the subject could add to this and the Pearl City article. --Chemkatz (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence seems to have poor grammar.

The first sentence speaks of "the arrival Africans to North America". Surely this should be "the arrival of Africans in North America" [insert "of", and exchange "to" for "in"]. The "edit" function for this article seems to be unavailable - possibly for good reason. 14.201.57.126 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback Discussion

@Firefangledfeathers I just realized you meant dont click the talk button but come over here....lol yikes long day. Ok Do you have a moment to share your thoughts with me? RFAvaria (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Hey there! not sure if you noticed that I started a chat here.... I am assuming maybe you got busy or something..... no worries, I will just work on something basic like alphabetizing the list at the bottom of the page to make it more user friendly and maybe try to put what each scholar is famous for... that should keep me busy while I wait to hear back from you... ok talk soon.....bye RFAvaria (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Out and about. Will be able to respond in a few hours. Pinging Compassionate727. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

no worries, I realize your whole world doesn't revolve around my questions about your feedback. Id like to make a suggestion.. while you are out and about.. Id like revert the deletion you made so I can keep working on the page trying to sort and organize things and delete duplicates etc....and then when you return we can work from that version...sound good? RFAvaria (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers @Compassionate727 Hey there, its been 30 minutes or so since I sent that last message... no worries.. dont rush for me..hopefully you are out doing something fun..... I am going to revert the delete that you (Firefangledfeathers) did, and keep working and then when you return we can hopefully collaborate and work from that version and I can address whatever concerns that you may have.... I think this should be ok because there is so much that needs to be addressed and clarified and organized on this page, coupled with the fact that it has sat kinda dormant without anyone tending to it for quite some time now..... all that said, I look forward to your feedback when you return because two brains are always better than one...or now three!!.. I promise I wont add anything that cannot be verified historically and if there is a format issue or some other issue about wording or whatever I will work with you so we can get it right... ok ill talk to you later tonight... not sure what time zone youre in but if you message me (and im alive lol) I will respond. thanks for caring enough to comment its nice to see other people care about getting this updated !! talk soon RFAvaria (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not revert the delete, as the issues have not been resolved. Establishing consensus on Wikipedia sometimes takes longer than expected, but we'd rather do something right with minimal disruption even if I get impatient. Remsense ‥ 论 00:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I didnt revert it... I thought the same thing after I made that reply...but I did not see how to delete it. RFAvaria (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I spent some of the time learning some of the other aspects of WikiPedia. I also spent a fair amount of time going to random pages and copy and pasting the first 4-5 paragraphs on the page and putting it into the plagiarism checker...... RFAvaria (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean to say with that? Plagiarism often can't be automatically detected, and once one is aware of what it is it is easy to avoid doing. Remsense ‥ 论 09:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers @Compassionate727

I will talk to you tomorrow or whenever you have time, thank you again for taking the time to bring this to my attention. Have a good night RFAvaria (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi RFAvaria. Glad you found your way to the talk page! I have multiple objections to multiple parts of the proposed language. My instinct is to either start discussion about the very beginning of the proposed content or to start with the portion that you think is the most straightforward improvement. Let me know which you would prefer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers whatever you think is best, happy to follow your lead. I can share with you what I see as concerns with the page and maybe we can go from there??

- there are quite a few historical inaccuracies which might be why there are issues with citations lol

- The page reads like a lot of ad hoc bits of information and is not cohesive

- maybe as a result of the previous bullet the lack of chronology and bouncing around without a clearly defined structure makes it difficult to hold on to any over arching understanding to take away as the reader. It reads more like a trivia page full of facts than a history

Would just starting at the top or beginning and working our way through be a good idea? Maybe agree on a general outline and then try to reorder the information that is there in the period in which it took place, I think the problem with this proposal however is the issue with the accuracy of some of the information.

Either way, im open to whatever you suggest. I thought this would be easy because it is a topic I have a fair bit of knowledge on and I thought just adding citations would be straightforward. ... never assume they say.... Let me know what you think thanks RFAvaria (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

From the top then. We typically start our articles with a bold statement of the title in context. Is there a reason you prefer to start with "Voluntary migration to the US of people of African origin ..."? Then you had a sentence about early voluntary migrants of African descent, but this is new material added to the lead and not the body. If the provided sources support that material, we should first consider adding it somewhere in the body of the article. It's hard to tell if the material is appropriately verified because (a) it cited Horton & Horton's whole book with no page range and (b) the Lourence article is not strong—it's a review in an undergrad journal—and it doesn't appear to support any content about voluntary African migrants. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Compared to many of the existing source, Horton & Horton is exemplary. If you have a copy of it at hand and can help cite or adjust some of the existing material, that would be super helpful. If you need help adding citations with page numbers, I'm available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Good morning- If H&H is the preferred source I am def open to that. I had a copy of Hope of Lib and Culture and Hard Road but back in 2017, I had a home tragedy and lost 90% of my bookshelf it was devastating. I lost a lot of first editions but I digress.....

I think the reason beginning with Voluntary and Involuntary Migration as it relates to the African American experience is because they, unlike any other group had both and how people/cultures move forward through history is deeply impacted by the choices they see available to them, how they navigate life and what they. see as opportunities or problems. I guess maybe the example I would use would be akin a woman who becomes a wife...one that runs to and dreams about and cannot wait to marry a man she is in love with would be a very different wife than a woman that was forced to marry. I think what we see in their history, (with the benefit of hindsight) is really two groups moving through with different experiences but some overlap like a Venn diagram because depending on time or place hey are being acted upon similarly, and I think the research supports that.

How do the admins handle information that is inaccurate? If nobody ever did anything with this page again, what would happen to the inaccurate information on the page as it currently stands... would it just sit there forever inaccurate? RFAvaria (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

RIP to your library; that would devastate me. Your reasoning for focusing on voluntary and involuntary migration is sensible, and we do rely mainly on our editorial discretion for selection and organization of content, but I still think the key piece your missing is a source (preferably multiple) that analyzes AA history in a similar way.

Inaccuracy of content is not primarily an admin matter. Regular editors like you and I (I'm an admin, but I'm wearing my editor hat here) slowly work to improve the accuracy of this page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Good afternoon! glad to see you (virtually today) you have no idea how broken I was when I lost most of my library., I had a lot of first edition Stephen King, I had a copy of the original printing of the magazine that the short story Children of the Corn was printed in. I also had Sooooooo many history books. The library where I live sells the books they cancel for less than $1 so acquiring books is great! I will take a little pivot and share that one of the things I found most strange about the experience was that the insurance company made broad lists of major/expensive items, as an example 3 crystal vases, no name and no description whatsoever, yet they chronicled every single book title and author of every book lost. Not that they covered the cost to replace them but my library list of books is in some file in some insurance adjustor's office now..... (insert squinted side eye here)

I will work to try to find a source that segments the history that way. although I am doubtful I will find any as this has been one of my bones of contention since god was young and the earth was new regarding how this history is chronicled. It's quite odd to me in general how much of American history bounces around instead of providing a linear clearly articulated "here are the facts". I digress.... I think one of the issues we may have in finding such a source is that their history is so unique to the US and really world history.

In most of history a colonizing force goes to another land and takes over and controls the people in that land, rarely does the powerful force say, "hey you're coming with me" and oppress the people in a different land. so al of the "normal" or expected things we'd see in a society colonized in their own home is just the opposite for African Americans (ie complete loss of language, religion, culture, history, family knowledge, knowledge of the community or even how to identify oneself self in the larger global community. They are literally the only people on the planet who rely on the people who oppressed them to tell them who they are or how their community contributed to the world before contact.

I've met people and read books about people who clearly articulate, hey my family were never slaves. So we know the starting point of some non enslaved people happened and I agree their history should be acknowledged and included. it also causes me to question the impact of taking a group of people from warring countries and force them to build a society with one another. I can't imagine Poland and Germany being coalesced into one society and referred to as one people, but that thought is for another day

I think it will be a struggle to find both (voluntary and involuntary migration) in one source document, however, I will give it a go and I will keep you posted! Have a good day! RFAvaria (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My administrative assistant found a book that might be a good source, she has ordered it from Amazon and once it arrives, I will let you know .... Im a bit discouraged that there is so much emphasis on formatting and paraphrasing (I understand copyright infringement is an issue)... but at the same time, actual incorrect information is allowed to stand. Its making me think what others say about Wiki might be accurate and its not a source that should be considered as legitimate.... I apologize for saying that out loud but its a bit odd.... "unencylopaedic tone" not ok.... completely inaccurate citation .... okay. weird

Ok ill let you know when the book arrives. thanks again RFAvaria (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You've given some examples below of thing you think could be more clear, but I wouldn't classify any of them as outright inaccuracies. Please speak up if you come across any unambiguous cases. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers The very first sentence is inaccurate their arrival is not the first arrival of Africans on the Noth American continent. the Wiki page reads;

African-American history started with the arrival of Africans to North America in the 16th and 17th centuries. Formerly enslaved Spaniards who had been freed by Francis Drake arrived aboard the Golden Hind at New Albion in California in 1579.

however, St Augustine is the first settlement documented in the US that had Africans. Its even a tourist attraction.

https://www.citystaug.com/693/Our-History#:~:text=Founded%20in%201565%2C%20St.,the%20Spanish%20established%20at%20St. RFAvaria (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

TYPO - Forgive me I said "Civil War" above but obviously meant American Revolutionary War RFAvaria (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I would consider this paragraph inaccurate as well based on how it is written, for a two primary reasons:

The American Revolutionary War, which saw the Thirteen Colonies become independent and transform into the United States, led to great social upheavals for African Americans; Black soldiers fought on both the British and the American sides, and after the conflict ended the Northern United States gradually abolished slavery. However, the American South, which had an economy dependent on plantations operation by slave labor, entrenched the slave system and expanded it during the westward expansion of the United States. During this period, numerous enslaved African Americans escaped into free states and Canada via the Underground Railroad.

1) At the time of the American Revolution, which is what the paragraph is pinning the time period being discussed (1776) there were no "free states"

• Massachusetts – Slavery was legal, but Massachusetts would lead the way in abolishing slavery in 1783.
• New Hampshire – Slavery existed but was not widespread; it was officially abolished in 1783.
• Rhode Island – Allowed slavery, though it had some early abolition efforts and would gradually outlaw slavery by the 1780s.
• Connecticut – Slavery was allowed, but gradual emancipation laws were passed starting in 1784.
• New York – Allowed slavery, though a gradual emancipation process began in 1799.
• New Jersey – Also allowed slavery, with gradual abolition starting in 1804.
• Pennsylvania – Passed a gradual abolition act in 1780, the first colony to do so.

2) while there were early abolitionist sentiments in 1776 Harriet Tubman wasn't even born until the early 1820s

3) not an inaccuracy, however just highlighting that just yesterday I alphabetized the list at the Botton of the African American History page and provided a one-sentence summary for each "scholar" on the list in the hopes of just making the list/names easier to navigate. It was deleted/reverted the reason given that it was not "encyclopedic in tone". Now I read this paragraph above with new eyes and I ask myself why it would be acceptable to write about the Civil War and say;

Black soldiers fought on both the British and the American sides

which sounds like has the "tone" of a 3rd grader explaining events, as opposed to more standard nomenclature like,

Black soldiers fought in both the British Army and the Continental Army.

4) Also not an incorrect "fact" but "plantations" in the above paragraph on the live site is spelled incorrectly. How that has sat on the live page not edited or corrected by an administrator or bot is interesting.

All this leads me to take a step back and think to myself, accurate information that was sourced was deleted as unacceptable for "copyright" infringement with all of the work deleted instead of the offending phrase or sentence, an alphabetized list was deleted for lacking the correct encyclopaedic "tone", yet all of the aforementioned in 1-4 allowed to persist..

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African-American_history&diff=prev&oldid=1245445782

I am not complaining at all, this just seems WikiPedia might be a lot more subjective than just "provide accurately sourced facts", and those unknowns or unspoken elements are what is really the underpinning of the pages. Hopefully, you can forgive my candor. RFAvaria (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is a recommended opening ...your thoughts ?

Unlike any other group of migrants to the United States, African-American history has two points of origin, the arrival of people from Africa who voluntarily migrated to the US and the people who were kidnapped from their country of origin as part of the Transatlantic slave trade.

Voluntary Migration to the United States by African people started with the arrival of Africans to North America in the 16th and 17th centuries. Formerly enslaved Spaniards who had been freed by Francis Drake arrived aboard the Golden Hind at New Albion in California in 1579.^[1]

Forty years later,  in 1619 the  Involuntary Migration of a group of “twenty and odd Negroes” ^[2][3]  found themselves in Point Comfort, a settlement in the Virginia Colony not far from Jamestown. The group of enslaved Africans was purchased by the governor of the colony Sir George Yeardley.^[4]

QUESTION for you FFF

This statement is from the LOC which falls under the Fair Use Doctrine, would Wiki still require contributors to rewrite?

The Virginia government at Jamestown passes statutes and codes that differentiate between white indentured servants and blacks in permanent servitude. By the 1680s, permanent servitude has become even more identified with race.

HERE

https://www.loc.gov/collections/thomas-jefferson-papers/articles-and-essays/virginia-records-timeline-1553-to-1743/1640-to-1699/

----

^[1] Kauffman, Miranda (2018). Black Tudors" The Untold Story. Oneworld Publications

^[2] https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/twenty-and-odd-negroes-an-excerpt-from-a-letter-from-john-rolfe-to-sir-edwin-sandys-1619-1620/

^[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2953279

^[4] https://www.loc.gov/item/2021692283/ RFAvaria (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The LOC source is in the public domain, so it would be okay to copy from it. You'll need to attribute that with more than just a citation; see WP:PDCOPY. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

If I were asked my opinion I believe this is a much more accurate representation of the events of arrival. I would propose removing the 1st paragraph and replacing it with this. ... are you good with that?

______

Unlike any other group of migrants to the United States, African-American history has two points of origin, the arrival of people from Africa who voluntarily migrated to the US and the people who were kidnapped from their country of origin as part of the Transatlantic slave trade.

Voluntary Migration to the United States by African people started with the arrival of Africans to North America in the 16th and 17th centuries.  Around 1572 Sir Francis Drake, a privateer^[1], who had been issued a “letter of marque”^[2] by Queen Elizabeth the 1^st, was essentially licensed to stop, seize, and capture the Spanish vessels. Drake captured Cacafuego, a Spanish vessel off the coast of Peru. This ship was carrying a significant number of enslaved Africans who had been captured in the Caribbean.  The Africans formerly enslaved by the  Spaniards, who were ultimately freed by Francis Drake, arrived aboard the Golden Hind at New Albion in California in 1579.^[3] There are no records of whether those Africans stayed in New Albion, or returned to England with Drake aboard the Golden Hind. If they stayed in what would later become the Americas this would be the first touchpoint of Africans in what would later become the United States that made a voluntary decision to settle in the US

Forty years later,  in 1619 the  Involuntary Migration of a group of “twenty and odd Negroes” ^[4][5]  found themselves in Point Comfort, a settlement in the Virginia Colony not far from Jamestown, after being taken from their homes and transported from the Portuguese colony of Luanda, modern-day Angola onto the slave vessel.^[6]  The people were being transported aboard a Portuguese slave ship named the São João Bautista, when it was intercepted by a Dutch “Man of Warr” vessel. The captain of that Dutch vessel that commandeered the vessel decided to transport the human cargo to Point Comfort where the group of enslaved Africans was purchased by the governor of the colony Sir George Yeardley.^[7] This event was captured in the letter from John Rolfs to Sie Edwin Sandys.^{[8] [9]}This transaction marks the first documented record of Africans involuntarily migrating to the north American continent from Africa.

----

^[1] https://www.historicnavalfiction.com/general-hnf-info/naval-facts/letter-of-marque

^[2] https://www.historicnavalfiction.com/general-hnf-info/naval-facts/letter-of-marque

^[3] Kauffman, Miranda (2018). Black Tudors" The Untold Story. Oneworld Publications

^[4] https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/twenty-and-odd-negroes-an-excerpt-from-a-letter-from-john-rolfe-to-sir-edwin-sandys-1619-1620/

^[5] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2953279

^[6] https://weareili.org/timeline/a-portuguese-ship-the-sao-joao-bautista-brought-captive-africans-from-angola-to-the-american-colonies/

^[7] https://www.loc.gov/item/2021692283/

^[8] https://library.schlagergroup.com/chapter/9781935306672-book-part-064

^[9][9] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2953279 RFAvaria (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

EXAMPLE OF INACCURACY

The reason my main attempt was to just put what is already there in chronological order and just do housekeeping was because right out of the gate I had concerns with this statement;

African-American history started with the arrival of Africans to North America in the 16th and 17th centuries. Formerly enslaved Spaniards who had been freed by Francis Drake arrived aboard the Golden Hind at New Albion in California in 1579.

However you and I know that St. Augustine was before this and is a notable part of history,... technically there was San Miguel de Gualdape which was a settlement before St. Augustine but it did not last long so I think it could be "ignored".

its just odd to me because maybe the writer was choosing to ignore St Augustine because at the time it was a Spanish settlement and not part of what we now call Florida, yet it is considered today a significant part of "US" history. Then if we consider that the actual statement is making reference to the "Spaniards", it makes me believe as the reader that the contributor was ok with Spanish settlements, which is what St. Augustine was.

This is just one example of incorrect or slightly misleading history on this page. I can share others if you'd like or we can just set about trying to clean the page properly together.... thanks again for having an interest in helping get it right and not just beating me up.... RFAvaria (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It is odd not to see St. Augustine mentioned, at least in the body of the article. There are reason historians tend to focus on the pre-revolutionary history of the British colonies specifically, but I would definitely support some body content on the Black people that came with the Spanish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

2ND EXAMPLE

After arriving in various European colonies in North America, the enslaved Africans were sold to white colonists, primarily to work on cash crop plantations. A group of enslaved Africans arrived in the English Virginia Colony in 1619, marking the beginning of slavery in the colonial history of the United States

- The enslaved Africans arrived on the White Lion and were taken to Point Comfort in VA Colony there is no record (that I am aware of) that they made other stops

- white colonists - is inflammatory in my opinion and not accurate as the settlers were "English" nationality but we have no record of the ethnicity of the various people. We just know that the first boat was men and boys and the colony was top heavy.

- they arrived in Point Comfort, which is in Virginia Colony as is Jamestown. I think this is one of those examples where it gets confusing how the language vacillates between areas, regions, settlements etc.

-Am not sure if it is entirely accurate to say the enslaved people were brought on primarily to work on cash crops, (maybe if we were discussing how South Carolina was formed), however when speaking about the colonies the issue was documented quite a bit that because they were top heavy with not a lot of hands-on deck , as was evidenced in the near extinction of Jamestown, the enslaved people were there to be free labor for any task needed to help sustain the colony. Cash crops were one however subsistence crops were also necessary and then there was the whole issue of infrastructure building etc.

- not sure if this is splitting hairs but this was not the beginning of chattel slavery in the US there as no defined legal framework around their existence until around 40 or so years later with the John Punch case (judicial ruling), but not codified into legislative law until the Virginia Codes.

Maybe I am just thinking too robustly about the topic....but again this is what I mean when I say its difficult to provide citations because the page seems like a lot of piecemeal facts sat next to one another RFAvaria (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While it's often a lot of work to really unify all the material in an article like you say, it's more important to avoid original research, including improper synthesis we might be tempted to do to connect what we feel is important material. Each point you want to make has to be explicitly stated in a reliable source, and if sources disagree then the viewpoints need to be proportionately balanced according to their prominence. Remsense ‥ 论 09:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The colonists were White and I don't think it's inflammatory to say so. The part about cash crops is referring to the 388,000 enslaved Africans, not the 1619 group specifically. We don't say the 1619 group was the start of chattel slavery. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers the 388K, were used for more than just cash crops yes? Especially in the Carolinas, everything from building to horse tending to domestic services. Neither here nor there, just sharing things that jump out as being inaccurate based on much research.

Regarding 1619, agree wholeheartedly, which is why I raised the 3 settlements before the Golden Hind which included St. Augustine. I am not married to it one way or the other i am fairly confident that anyone that has ever so much as flipped through a history book will immediately recognize that as inaccurate. However, it will speak to WikiPedia's credibility as a legitimate source of information. Which from recent conversations I am coming to learn this is probably not news to anyone RFAvaria (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Primarily, not exclusively, cash crops. Is that controversial? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Not controversial just not sure it's accurate... depending on the region determined the major industry. For example, upper country VA was more livestock and farming and not majority cash crops, those were the Deep South's claim to fame... States like NC were diversified almost equally between cash crops, timber, and raising livestock...and of course, these industries and the major focus shifted with time as well.

We could go state by state but the reality is that one Wiki page is not going to reflect the reality of this period, but the point being raised is that language trying to fit a 240-year multi-state industry of slave trafficking and its focus into a one-sentence summary of "primarily cash crops" is a bit misleading and depending on intent intellectually dishonest.

That said, I hope that the average person is not relying on Wiki to frame their understanding of this topic, and God willing no elementary school children are using this information to point them in the right direction regarding what concepts and themes they need to scratch past the surface on to write a school report. lol

Imagine some poor child following a path for cash crops only to get a mid-level grade back with a note from their professor that they completely overlooked 6-7 other major industries. But again, hopefully, ppl reading these pages have the good sense to not rely on them too much or at a minimum to verify the information they are being presented. RFAvaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)