Talk:Civil rights movement/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Why "African"-American Civil Rights Movement

The movement was for all Americans, the title should be changed to the American civil rights movement..Could someone please change this..Racializing everything has got to stop!68.34.12.93 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See the preceding section, in which a proposal to move the article was discussed and rejected. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Malcolm X was not a champion of Civil Rights till much later in his life (post-pilgrimage to Mecca). Prior to his pilgrimage, Malcolm supported Black Separatism/Nationalism, the complete opposite of Civil Rights. Because of this, he shouldn't be considered a Civil Rights leader, at least not a prominent one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.126.145 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on this. The term "Civil Rights Movement" is somewhat of a misnomer because it artificially limits the movement to narrow issues of certain legal rights. A more accurate term, and one that is favored by many of those active in that social upheaval, is "Freedom Movement," or in some academic circles "Black Liberation Movement." It is true that until shortly before he was assassinated Malcolm disparaged integration as a goal for blacks, but in his writings and speeches for years he clearly opposed segregation as a method of humiliating and suppressing blacks and he strongly supported black voting rights.

A "leader" is someone who others follow, or respect, or listen to. And by that definition, Malcolm was leader in the Freedom Movement. That's why he was asked to speak at Movement events --- Selma Alabama during the Voting Rights Campaign, for example. I know from personal experience that many activists with organizations such as CORE, SNCC, and even SCLC deeply respected Malcolm, studied his writings and speeches, and incorporated elements of his rhetoric and strategic analysis of Black realities into their own work. As did black students active on their campuses.

Brucehartford (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In ignorance of this point, someone has just removed the headline photo under the premise that two people in it [presumably Malcolm X and WEB Dubois] "were not part of CRM-II". I object to this, propose that the photo be restored, and furthermore I propose to list "Malcolm X Joins the Movement, 1964-1965" as one of the 'key event' sections. GPRamirez5 (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of editorial content

I removed the following content:

After the Court's decision, a myriad of things have come about to promote the education of all Black people. What was most interesting was the fact that, at the time, the Black press had taken the initiative to become involved in the encouragement of all Black individuals holding different professional jobs by exposing them in their articles. Not only that, but some of the poor Black people were used as examples as well and gained as much respect as those with a diploma. Regular praises were given out to people with very modest lives. For instance, a Black journalist named Ethel Payne interviewed in 1954 a lady called Mrs. Sarah Belling. Belling worked as a bookkeeper and had a son named Spottswood who “had been the plaintiff in one of the school desegregation cases consolidated as Brown vs Topeka Board of Education” Mrs. Belling was somewhat put on a pedestal for wanting her son to get a good education and for being involved in her church. Following her encounter with the journalist, Mrs. Belling's story was published in the press.[9]

The tone is unfit for academics; more importantly, the contentions made in the paragraph ("Regular praises were given out to people with very modest lives") read like they were written by a bitter white supremacist. Now really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.20.142 (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Emmett Till

I'm rewriting this article and there's a significant section you can read here that addresses Till's murder, the funeral, and the trial of his killers as being a significant flashpoint for the Civil Rights Movement. Till is not mentioned in this article. I don't watch this article so I don't know if he was and was removed, or there is some reason he is not in here. Does anyone know? --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. harej 04:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) → American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) — These pages were moved in 2006, and informal proposals to revert them back have been made repeatedly. Several reasons have been given. 1) As a matter of history and law, the rights of all Americans and not just African-Americans were at issue, and the movement addressed discrimination based on race, religion and national origin. After the 1960s this was expanded to include discrimination based on age, gender, and sexual orientation. 2) The term "African-American" was not in widespread use during this period, and is not found in contemporaneous documents from the movement. 3) Leaders including Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been abhorred by the notion that they were seeking what Wallace, Reagan and others would denigrate as "special rights" -- they were defending the rights of all by restoring the rights of the disenfranchised. 4) The rights of other minorities were similarly marginalized, including Jews, Hispanics and Asians. Leaders such as King made a point of crossing lines of color to build a broader movement, and recruiting labor unions, anti-poverty groups and white churches with gusto, yet avoiding paternalism within the tent. 5) Because the scholarly literature and Wikipedia links use the phrase "American Civil Rights Movement" having that name be the article name is more user-friendly. Racepacket (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) → American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)
• African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–1895) → American Civil Rights Movement (1865–1895)

• Oppose: The rights of African-Americans were at issue, and I don't see anything on the page about any of "religion, national origin, age, gender, or sexual orientation", or about Asians (Jews seemed to be allies for the black cause, not for their self-interest). Indeed, there are already articles for those movements, whose eras are not coterminous with the African American movement's. The article that you may be seeking already exists in Civil rights movement. "African American" is not contemporary, but if it is the accepted designation after the fact, such renaming of historical events is common. Be wary of trying to interpret what Martin Luther King would "abhor" today. Black rights are not "special rights". And the common name within certain spheres is but one of the considerations for article titles. For Americans, this is the civil rights movement, but at Wikipedia, we have a more global view and so we disambiguate between this and the Irish Catholic civil rights movement for example. If you have historical documents to back up your claims that this movement was not primarily about African Americans, I will reconsider my opposition. Quigley (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your view point. However, King and the other leaders of the movement were careful to frame it in terms of rights due to all Americans, not a pleading for special rights for what he called "Negros". Some of the key court cases involved the rights of Oriental-Americans. (e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins) The Ku Klux Klan targeted religious minorities along with blacks. (To quote Wikipedia, "In reaction to social changes, the Klan adopted anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Communist and anti-immigrant slants.") The various civil rights provisions adopted in response to the movement covered more than just race. (e.g., Executive Order No. 11478 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by federal contractors and contractors performing under federally assisted construction contracts. 1964 Civil Rights Act outlaws employment discrimination on the "basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." ) The movement was more than a battle against anti-black prejudice. Racepacket (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) See also MLK's have a dream speech "when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands..." Racepacket (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we are projecting modern religious and racial diversity onto an era largely lacking in it. In context, "all Americans" most likely means black Americans and white Americans. Certainly not the mouthful of constituencies that are being mentioned more in such speeches nowadays; a lot of the vocabulary (ex. "Asian") didn't exist! To address the examples: Yick Wo v. Hopkins is not cited as a part of this movement, the KKK does not define the goals of the movement, and the laws that are claimed as victories of the movement also benefited from concurrent movements; the women's movement for example. The focus for the movement of this article was anti-black prejudice. Quigley (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: The movement was all about African-Americans in these periods. Racepacket mentions that AFTER the 1960s, the movement expanded to include other categories. None of these articles deals with post-1968 events. There is no way to know what King would have wanted, nor does it matter, as the opinion of the subjects of articles is not part of the naming decision. --Habap (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, before the 1960s, the movement targetted race, religion and national origin. After that it expanded to include age, gender and sexual orientation. However, it was always about more than just race, it was about combating mean-spirited prejudice that was directed at various groups. Racepacket (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support the move for some of the reasons given in the nomination, viz. #2 (the current title is anachronistic) and #5 (the current title is not the most common name). — AjaxSmack 00:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose First I disagree with the two above in a couple respects. It wasn't just African Americans, it was about women's rights and a variety of others as well as the ones listed above. It is true that MLK Jr. was an African American and that was his primary focus for obvious reasons however he did, on numerous occasions, state that he wanted equal rights for all Americans. One of his most famous quotes is "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." I would argue that he was referring to any color or racial demographic, not just White and Black. I The reason I oppose is because I believe that we should have a general American Civil Rights movement article that discusses the movement from a whole country perspective and a more specific one that discusses for race, in this case African American but we should probably have other races as well eventually. Also, just for clarification the term African-American didn't become the preferred salutation until the 1988 Presidential election of Jesse Jackson so you are correct that it was not in use during the 60's. MLK usually used the terms black or negro if he mentioned race t all. Since the articles primarily discuss the African American demographic though I recommend a new article be created that discusses the movement from an American perspective rather than a move/merge of these. --Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain. As some may know I have a history of objections to the current naming of this article. I think it is historically inaccurate (the term did not exist and was not used), politically inaccurate (inasmuch as King's success was driven by his strategic alliances with broader goals, e.g. the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom), and extremely misleading as to the contextual position of this movement, which spurred in its wake feminist, gay, and other minority rights movements. Let me begin by saying that this series of articles is wrongly framed. Perhaps these two articles would be best titled something encyclopedic and neutral, if the actual name the movement was given and used is not to be its title. I would propose History of African-American civil rights (xxxx-yyyy) (although it would be nice to get "in the United States" in there, to conform to a style of some other articles in the project, it's redundant if we agree on the A-A term at all). Certainly the period before King, back into the 19th century, was not known by this name. Certainly the period under King's leadership had only [American] Civil Rights Movement with the first word optional. As I have said, I think this series is wrongly framed and would require a massive rewrite to really communicate the viewpoints of the era. If there is to be an article American Civil Rights Movement, it should then begin with a summary of the work for black civil rights, then move on to women, gays, and so forth. I simply hate this title because it's wrong. It's not what was used contemporaneously, and it has only slightly wormed its way into the scholarship of the last two decades as the term A-A began to be accepted (polls show -- if you are unaware -- that American blacks prefer either "black" or "African American" in roughly equal numbers, and few that express a preference find the other term offensive). I don't know what I can write, again, that will be at all persuasive, except that I find it acutely embarrassing that the Wikipedia process necessarily result in a term which is wrong in so many demonstrable ways and has only the slightest support as an umbrella term outside the project. It reeks of ivory tower politics. --Dhartung | Talk 04:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Even though others benefited from the movement, clearly it was first and foremost one for black Americans. This page should stay as it is now. Footnote: As stated above: See the preceding section, where this same proposal (to move the article) was discussed and rejected at that time. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the title supposed to reflect who benefitted from the movement or who participated in the movement or the location of the movement? "American Civil Rights Movements" addresses all three meanings accurately without using a historically inappropriate term. In 1950, there were 10,347,395 foreign-born people in the United States (US Census Tech paper 29). There were 15,770,000 "non-white' Americans. In 1940, there were 12,865,000 Negros and 11,419,000 foreign born whites, 77,000 Chineese-Americans, 126,000 Japanese-Americans, (Census Table 16), and there were 25,286,000 Catholics and 4,641,000 Jews (Table 40).[1] So, of the groups targetted by the KKK, African-Americans were not the numerically the largest. Racepacket (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Sources by far prefer the term "American Civil Rights Movement" over "African-American Civil Rights Movement". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Good Olfactory about widest usage, Also, Martin Luther King always defined his struggle as part of a larger struggle for human rights. Perhaps because he was inspired by Ghandi's struggle in India, he understood the movement in larger terms than just dark-skinned people in the American South. I also agree with the spirit of Racepacket's comments and quotes above. Again, why was MLK's struggle not for "Negro Rights" or "Black Rights?" Because of the desire to imply that ALL oppressed people deserve their natural rights. This article about such an important movement deserves a name that expands--not constricts--it's meaning. It should be "American Civil Rights" and not "African-American Civil Rights." The article should also necessarily include Women's Rights, Native American or Indian Rights (I'm not taking sides on that one!), struggles against Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Semitism in the U.S, and Gay Rights. Ynottry (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Ynottry

• Oppose While I understand the reasons for moving this article, it is becoming custom to think of the African-American struggle as part of wider social causes for civil rights, such as women's rights and Native-American rights. To the point made by Good Ol’factory, the fact is that this article is exclusively focused on the African-American situatuion, as opposed to wider change for other groups and communities. The Celestial City (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposal to move was identical to one made by the same editor within the last year. My reason for opposing it then is spelled out in the archives (see Requested move 2010) and has not changed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mild Support. The current title is a clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME. We do have articles with descriptive titles, but that's generally only for topics that don't have clear and obvious names, and I have not seen a good reason to make an exception here. The topic of this article does have a clear and obvious name, the Civil Rights Movement, however, that phrase is a homograph with respect to other meanings covered in Wikipedia, and so requires disambiguation. The proposed title is an improvement over the current title, in that it is closer to conveying the topic's name, which is why I give it mild support, but it's descriptive and does not accurately reflect the topic's most common name.

  What I would strongly support is Civil Rights Movement (United States, 1955–1968) (etc.) because that title would (1) clearly convey the name of the topic properly (Civil Rights Movement) and (2) the disambiguation is appropriate in that it accurately indicates what distinguishes this use of the homograph Civil Rights Movement from other uses of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Since there appears to be no clear/strong consensus in support of this proposal, I just notified everyone who has participated in this discussion so far (hopefully I did not miss anyone) about this alternative name, in case there is consensus for that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Mild support. Although I support the move I also think that there should be seperate articles for the Civil rights movement in general and articles that specify the specific discrimination (ie African American, Asian, Gender, Age, etc). IMO there is more than sufficient info for an article on all of these. --Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about the title of this article that prevents someone from writing an article about civil rights movements in general. The proposal is to change this article into that proposed article and eliminate this article as a separate article about African Americans. Since you indicate that you favor a separate article on African Americans, this proposal seems like a step backwards rather than a move forward. What would you suggest should be the title of a separate article on the African American civil rights movement? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for contacting me. Unfortunately, I would have to oppose that proposal as too ambiguous. The 1950s and 1960s saw significant civil rights advances for other minority groups, such as Native Americans, Jewish Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans and LGBT people as well as women, which are not covered in this article. I would also disagree that there is a problem with the current title; "African-American Civil Rights Movement" is widely used terminology. The Celestial City (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised at the high ghit count for that phrase, but I note the dearth of its use at reliable secondary sources like the NY Times. Still, it alleviates my concerns about the current name, though I still think the most common name is the homograph Civil Rights Movement and the title should convey that by distinguishing the name from the disambiguation information by putting the latter in parentheses. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the good faith effort, Born2cycle. I concur with The Celestial City above. Oppose renaming and moving. I don't see any problem with the title or contents of the article which relates to same. If other editors want to write separate articles as to "other movements" that is fine and what should be done. Kierzek (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Still Oppose. There should be no confusion to editors that the existing article about a specific movement should be changed into a catch-all article covering many different movements. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think another issue being missed here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Civil Rights Movement. If I do an unbiased google search (unbiased by adding &pws=0 to the url to remove personal and regional bias), it's quite obvious that the primary topic, by far, is the topic of this article. I realize there is a lot emotional momentum behind keeping this article here, but it really clearly is the primary topic for Civil Rights Movement, and nobody should be surprised to find the article at Civil Rights Movement to be about the American one some fifty years ago. No it's not a unique use, for there are other uses, but the use of the homograph to refer to other movements, or such movements in general, pales in comparison to usage to refer to this topic, and that is the essence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

  It is surprising that a search for "African-American Civil Rights Movement" results in a couple of thousand ghits, but a search for +"Civil Rights Movement" "Martin Luther King" - limiting the results to those that reference that Civil Rights Movement in which King was involved (the topic of this article) is almost a million. There is no comparision. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

While that may be your position (it is certainly mine), the fact is that the originator of the initial proposal takes the exact opposite position. The difference between your naming proposal and his naming proposal is so small that people would be tempted, even encouraged, to change the focus of the article. Why open the door to possible confusion and edit warring when we have an existing name that leaves the reader (and the editors) with no doubt about what the article is addressing? Policy arguments are nice, but isn't the primary concern the reader? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Supporting Alternative I would support "Civil Rights Movement (United States, 1955–1968)" for the same reasons that I gave for supporting "American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)". Racepacket (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is about the civil rights movement that fought for the rights of African Americans. The title has the benefit of being completely unambiguous. During the 1960s there were also civil rights movements in the United States that fought for the rights of Latinos, women, and lesbians and gay men. Why would you rename an article so it becomes less clear what its subject matter is, instead of more clear? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. As noted above, the term African American was not used during these time periods. Also, as noted above, more Catholics, Jews and immigrants had their rights at issue than African Americans. Also, the resulting curative Civil Rights legislation was not framed in terms of just racial discrimination. Nor was it framed in terms of African ancestry. Do you have any reliable sources to support the claim that it was limited to "African Americans"? The movement was about American values and rights guaranteed for every American regardless of race, color or creed. Racepacket (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem with renaming the article. Racepacket claims, "Also, as noted above, more Catholics, Jews and immigrants had their rights at issue than African Americans." This seems like a blatant attempt to minimize the actual issues at play in this era. Catholics were not being lynched, denied the right to vote, denied the right to marry non-Catholics, forced to ride in the back of the bus, forced into Catholic only schools, or barred from restrooms, waiting areas, drugstore counters, or department stores. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholics and Jews suffered discrimination, were denied employment, were denied educational opportunities and were targeted by the KKK. Asian immigrants were exploited in the 19th century, and Japanese Americans were sent to camps during World War II. However, litigation by all of these groups helped advance the rights of other minorities as well. Similarly, the Civil Rights legislation addressed all of them. Again, we are talking about the proper naming of articles covering 1865 through 1954. If the articles don't disucss these elements, it is not covering the full story. Racepacket (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if the articles remain titled exactly as they are now then they are covering the full story. Your intent is to set the stage to radically alter the entire focus of this article. People who support your proposal and Born2cycle should realize that this is precisely the door they are opening. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're suggesting that the article title circumscribes the scope of the topic. Titles are much to succinct to server that purpose. The introduction does that. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No -- I'm taking what Racepacket says at face value. He claims that the current article is flawed because it doesn't provide coverage of civil rights issues related to Catholics, immigrants, Jews, Japanese-Americans etc. WP:SCOPE is only an essay and has little value in any debates. The introduction defines the scope of the article only until someone changes it. Your proposal could make it easier to do so. It certainly will encourage people desiring to minimize the uniqueness of the problems faced by African Americans to try. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User North Shoreman misreads my position. The articles aleady cover "The American Jewish community and the civil rights movement," Yick Wo v. Hopkins, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so it is already much more than about racial discrimination. If we took out everything that addresses the rights of non-African Americans, the article would be incomplete. From a numerical basis, African Americans were not the predominant or numerically largest group affected by the Civil Rights Movement. Racepacket (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The section you mention refers to Jewish supporters of civil rights for African Americans. Your attempts at rewriting history and OR notwithstanding, I can't think of any reliable sources writing about the Civil Rights Movement which don't emphasize African American issues to the virtual exclusion of others. This article follows that pattern. There are eighteen subsections under the section "Key events" -- I don't see aything there that applies to Jews, Catholics, immigrants, Japanese-Americans etc. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There was really no need to "re-list" the discussion of this matter. The points are clear and for the second time in the same year, no consensus to move and/or rename was reached. However, since this matter has been raised yet again, I state again: Oppose: Even though others benefited from the movement, clearly it was first and foremost one for black Americans. I don't see any problem with the title or contents of the article which relates to same. If other editors want to write separate articles as to "other movements" that is fine and what should be done. This page should stay defined as it is now. Kierzek (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

But there was a movement that everybody knows as the "Civil Rights Movement". When people talk about the Civil Rights Movement (at least in the U.S. context) we all know which one we're talking about. It was not called the African-American anything, at least not at the time - it probably is now, sometimes, but not nearly as often as it is called simply the Civil Rights Movement. To give it a different name on Wikipedia smacks of an attempt to rewrite history. Support move either to "Civil Rights Movement" or "American Civil Rights Movement". (The fact that it concerned the rights of what we now called African Americans is true, but not relevant - we want to identify the movement by what it's called, not a description of it.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Until there is some other American civil rights movement which users are likely to be searching for when typing those words, this article should be placed at its common name. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the movement was African American, when it is not commonly referred to as such.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Communism, The CRC, Robeson and the Civil rights movement

As this is a survey and there was zero mention of the CPUSA and the many battles they fought in the pre-1955 era, I feel that history warrants the inclusion. To call the CRC a "fringe" group is to show a paucity of history of what led up to 1955. Civil Rights historians have been scared and embarrassed or ignorant regarding the huge amount of work that Communists, The CRC, Robeson did vis a vis groups such as the CRC. This history is documented and it is CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY even if Eyes on The Prize left it out. Also not all the members were Communist many were the same folks who went on marches and who were suffering injustices in small KKK towns in the South. Also the distancing from CP was key at the time. I'm ready to add sources but would like to hear from Malik etc. ThanksCatherine Huebscher (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Catherine, please take a look at the title of this article. Its intended scope is 1955 and later. There is another article, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954), that covers the period in question.

Also, despite your protestations to the contrary, the CRC was a fringe group that left little impact on the mainstream civil rights movement. It's not a matter of being scared, embarrassed, or ignorant. Robeson, the CRC, and the CPUSA operated in their own sphere, apart (for the most part) from the mainstream civil rights groups of the day. If you disagree, please bring some sources—beside Paul Robeson Jr. and the fellow travelers at Freedomways—that asserts the Robeson/CRC/CPUSA left any lasting impact on the civil rights mainstream. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Malik's point that Robeson/CRC/CPUSA activities pre-dated the 1954-1968 time frame of the article is, I think, quite valid. But I also think that the actions of the Left --- Robeson/CRC/CPUSA and so on --- were significant and they should be included in the 1896–1954 article.

Certainly, judging by their over reaction, the U.S. State Department considered the Genocide petition significant. Left-led legal defenses from the Scottsboro case to the Martinsville Seven were another important aspect. Perhaps most significant was the Left's anti-racism work within some of the most important trade unions of the 1930s and '40s such as the UAW, ILWU, Packinghouse Workers, Mine Mill & Smelter, and so on. While the great majority of American unions either barred non-whites altogether, or maintained racially segregated locals, unions where the CRC/CPUSA had influence took quite a different path. And those unions then played a significant support role during the Freedom Movement of 1950s and 1960s. As for Freedomways, I reckon I'm one of them "fellow travelers" because I did read it regularly, and I know that many of my associates in CORE, SNCC, and SCLC did so too. And Jack O'Dell as an individual played a role during the '50s and '60s. (In the interest of fair disclosure, I'll confess that Paul Robeson occasionally had dinner at my parents home, so I come from that background.)

It's true, of course, that Robeson/CRC/CPUSA/Freedomways were not part of the civil rights mainstream (NAACP, NCNW, etc) and could be considered "fringe." But by that standard, Marcus Garvey and the UNIA could also be considered outside the mainstream. Just because a person or organization is not part of the mainstream does not necessarily mean their contributions were insignificant or unworthy of being documented in Wikipedia articles. Brucehartford (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your points and will provide proof, move things and create a pertinent, referenced set of additions. I don't think either article reflects how hard the CP worked to bring civil rights cases and the role of those associated. They also both erase Robeson. Thanks for looking.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

with all due respect, you are incorrect that Robeson operated "out of the mainstream" He was the voice of Black America before Truman and was active on behalf part of over half a dozen black trade union caucuses! He was offered the spokemanship of black America by the white power structure. Jackie is up article but and no Robeson? Are you ok with that? I just checked the first civil rights article. ZERO mention of Robeson. This most be rectified. The CPUSA too before the Cold War was a legitimate legal party being the most active on behalf of African American civil rights and immigrant civil rights than any other entity. Please see Matthew Fry Jacobson's historical survey, "Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race." Finally Martin Luther King and Lorraine Hansberry and many many other Civil Rights figures were connected to Freedom and Freedomways publication!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Are yous aying anything Commuinst asdaited can't be "civil rights?"

Title name

I can understand the current use of the title in an attempt to avoid ambiguity but WOW! what a compromise. I would have thought that Civil Rights Movement (US), with a disambiguation page to show the period 1955-1968 if needed, would have been a better choice since the Civil Rights Movement would be more the common use. That aside, there is a problem that needs attention when the WP:MOS hyphen-dash issue is resolved. There should not be anything between African and American. The people known as African American's do not use a hyphen or dash so the title should not. This makes it appear that Africans (the country) and Americans had a civil war and where would be a question to answer. Otr500 (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A minor point - when African American refers to a person ("she is an African American") or people, as a noun, it does not need a hyphen; when it is used as a compound adjective, as in "African-American novel", or "African-American civil rights movement," it does. Parkwells (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Six Dots?

Has anybody else noticed a series of six vertical dots on top of the picture of the march on Washington (left side)? Borg*Continuum (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Move Avoiding the "Communist label"?

The section Avoiding the "Communist label" is currently the second section of the article after the introduction. That seems to me to give it far to much importance and emphasis. I propose moving it down to become a sub-section of Section 5 "Other Issues" which I think is a more appropriate location. What do others think? Brucehartford (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

agreed and done --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reversion to passage of 1964 Civil Rights Bill

In this short paragraph, I reverted an edit that deleted the content of the bill and that changed the brief mention of the Southern block opposition (overwhelmingly Democratic Party, as the South was essentially one party Congressional representation) to opposition by Dixiecrats and Southern Republicans. It is important to tell something about the bill, not just that it passed. At the time, there were so few Southern Republicans that it is misleading to mention them unless also explaining how they were vastly outnumbered by Democrats. Most elections in the South were decided in the Democratic Party primaries, as it was essentially a one-party region.Parkwells (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Expanding history

I believe mentioning the American Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and President Grant destoying the Ku Klux Klan would be good. Reconciliation and the Solid South also prevented Civil Rights during the later 19th Century and early 20th Century. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding some brief references in the Introduction to what came before might be useful to place this article in historical context. But they should reference the existing articles, not duplicate them. (I should also say that I find the claim that Grant "destroyed" the KKK to be highly questionable, but that's a different discussion.) Brucehartford (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Change 1954 to 1951?

The common practice and the current Wikipedia articles use the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision as the break point between different historic phases of the black civil rights struggle. But as the articles themselves make clear, the 1954 SCOTUS decision marked the endpoint of a process that actually began in 1951 when black communities began organizing themselves to file the cases that were lumped together and decided in the Brown decision. It was the people who filed the cases who shifted the struggle into a new historic phase, not SCOTUS. By making 1954 the break point it implies that what people commonly refer to as the "Civil Rights Movement" was started by the court, rather than the courageous African-Americans who risked life and living to challenge school segregation. Brucehartford (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move (WP:YEAR)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. The year formatting, at least, is apparently not controversial. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) → African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–68) – Per WP:YEAR. I'm also confused why African-American Civil Rights Movement redirects here. That should either be converted into a disambiguation page, a general topic page for African-American Civil Rights Movement from the beginning to present, or African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) should be moved back to that place if it is primary. Relisted, per Malik's suggestion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think this article is the primary topic for African-American Civil Rights Movement, and probably should be moved there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So we currently have:,

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–1895)

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)

Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

Given that a number of scholars are posing and debating the concept of a "long civil rights movement," it seems reasonable to me that African-American Civil Rights Movement should be a disambiguation type page and list all four of the above (and possibly additional pages).

Brucehartford (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

President Harry S Truman

It would appear that Truman's desegregation of the U.S. military was a significant part of the seedbed for further civil rights extensions. Refer to President Roosevelt's Executive Order 8802, which ended segregation of jobs for defense contracts, and Truman's Executive Order 9981, ending racial discrimination and segregation in the military. Comments and additions, please.Homebuilding (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that something about this would be appropriate in the "Background" section, which currently starts at Reconstruction. There are innumerable sources for the fact that one of the prime movers of this movement was returning veterans who'd worked in a desegregated environment and weren't going to take more shit at home. I think that's where it would be appropriate, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it would be good there, but it is a very important part of the progression of Civil Rights for African-Americans--and should be included, here.Homebuilding (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The actions of Black veterans returning from WWII and Korea were important events in the long struggle for civil and human rights, and Truman's order desegregating the military was an important milestone. But those events occurred 1945-1950. This article covers the period 1955-1968 (though, as I've said previously I think it should be 1951-1968). In any case, events of the 1940s need to be covered in the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) article. So while it may be appropriate to briefly allude to them in the Background section, the main place they should be discussed is in the 1896-1954 article. Unfortunately, that article currently does not discuss much of anything past the 1930s. It omits significant events during the war years such as Randolph's threat of a march on Washington and Roosevelt's employment-discrimination order, the post-war actions by returning veterans, Truman's desegregation order, and the "We Charge Genocide" U.N petition and Martinsville Seven lynch case of the early 1950s, and so on. Brucehartford (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I definitely had in mind only a brief mention in the background section. It wouldn't be appropriate for much more since it wasn't part of this movement, but given the length of time covered by the current background section and the relative importance of the Black vets in this movement I think it's worth a couple lines.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has raised any objections to a brief mention in the Background section, so my vote is that whoever feels competent to do so should go ahead. Brucehartford (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrected notes above on the Executive Orders; the first was issued by FDR in 1941; the second by Truman.Parkwells (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources

I'm going to collect them here as I find them; feel free to use them should you feel moved to write a couple lines. I'll get around to it eventually if not. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Raymond H. Geselbrach (2007). The civil rights legacy of Harry S. Truman. Truman State Univ Press. ISBN 978-1-935503-76-7. Retrieved 27 April 2013. -- see e.g. John Lewis's essay: "it is my belief that the actions of President Truman created the climate, created the environment, laid the foundation for the modern American civil rights movement." (other useful stuff in there too).