Talk:Herbert Aptheker

POV suspect

The article has slanted POV in at least two ways:

(1) It appears to overstate Aptheker's contribution to American historiography. In particular, I doubt that Aptheker's historical work on Black history (the excellence of which I am not disputing) single-handledly "demolished" previous accounts of Southern history that were biased for the Confederacy and racist, as the article suggests. What about the work of other historians of Black America, such as John Hope Franklin, who were Aptheker's contemporaries?

(2) The article ignores the most controversial aspects of Aptheker's Communist Party affiliation, and also ignores his later well-publicized break with the Party. Aptheker spent much of his political career as a Soviet apologist, generating particular fame for his publication "The Truth About Hungary," which -- contrary even to the views of Communist Party USA leadership at the time -- defended the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary. Aptheker penned a similar apologia for the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Yet Aptheker later recanted these apologetics and became involved with a pro-Gorbachev Communist Party group known as the Committees of Correspondence. See generally [1].

I have not attempted edits because I do not have access to good primary source materials. However, edits to solve these problems would improve the article substantially.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.6.189 (talk • contribs) 05:27, August 17, 2006

Mr. Foster wrote: The fact that you have not provided any sources buttresses the fact that you are stating merely polemics. And contrary to your assertions-the article does address Dr. Aptheker's involvement with the communist party and much more. Maybe, his work is considered watershed because the historian who you offer as a alternative did not write his ground breaking work "From Slavery to Freedom" until 1947, post 1943-the year that Dr. Aptheker completed his exhaustive study of the "Negro Slave Revolts." Another reason that could warrant Dr. Aptheker's enshrinment as the 'authority' is he was the first 'non-Negro' to dispell the William Dunning School of Racist Historiography. Furthermore, Dr. Aptheker graduated from the same place where Dunning was Chair of the Political Science and History Departments. This is relevant.

Dr. DuBois and John Roy Lynch had begun the so-called 'revisionist' writing of Black's contribution to American society and its' institutions--but as you might surmise they were of African American heritage. Dr. Franklin, whom I admire for is prolific impact--when you read his works always seem to explain away the treachery performed in some beardian way. Beard was a historian who spoke to the economic effects of slavery.

As Dr. Franklin stated on CSPAN recently speaking about his new biography "Mirror to America" he mentioned that Myrdal's work on Blacks in America was important because he was suppose to be a non-Black writing about the topic or race in America and was not an American per se, so his views were to have more weight-so to speak. I contend the same for Dr. Aptheker.

Because you chose/choose not to do the research and find articles that support your position is not defenseable-simply because you state the obvious-you offer no notes or sources! And if he was on the wrong side-so to speak, with Russia, he got the issue on Vietnam correct. The Vietnamese never attacked American interests-but becasue the French-a God fearing people like the so-called U.S., were getting their lunch handed to them-they cried for help from a hegemonic power as they were--America, enters the fray-and lost 50,000+ lives for nothing! One's beliefs --religious or otherwise should not be the reason for denouncing them-in America--after all, I thought this nations was founded on being anti-inquisitorial. Well, that is unless you are pro-slavery and I can very well argue that is untennable and should be arrainged at the bar of public opinion.

I would like see what you would have to say about this nation's embarrasing record on equality and civil rights for all-not merely African Americans. No anti-lynching legislation-what a shame. "With all deliberate speed." Give me a break!

One last note: the reason why Dr. Franklin probably is not mentioned here is because he is of another type of historian who believes in giving "generous concessions." Aptheker probably was known for being a didactic historian-one who would not give such concessions and one who will not hesitate to set the record straight without equivocation or cicumlocution, ostensibly, to be neutral or "scientific!" See Dr. Franklin's public address as the incoming President to the AHA in 1979.

For example, if we know that no American ever spoke out about slavery while in Congress before becoming president or after-with the exception of JQA--then why not say so--why go around the mulberry bush--to lay indiscretion at the foot of context!

Then, you sir, or mam, leave an anonymous article-real classy!

Mr. Foster, B.A., Cum Laude, History, NCCU, Phi Alpha Theta: Epsilon-Alpha chapter, c/o 2003. Multimillionairesoon@hotmail.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.84.72 (talk • contribs) 22:00, January 8, 2007

Link of little value

This link:

• Bettina Aptheker's accusations in the Los Angeles Times.

is not directly available. It links to the LA Times archive which, after a further search, charges to read full articles. What is the policy for this sort of thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgmccue (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Seven volumes, not three

I can't find the link that would let me edit the first paragraph. There Aptheker's Documentary History is described as consisting of three volumes, but the correct number seven. The New York Times had made that error in its obit and printed a correction shortly after I brought it to the editor's attention, which I recount in "My Communist Mentor" linked at the bottom of the Wiki entry. Anarchristian (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Prominent in scholarly discourse?

"He was a prominent figure in U.S. scholarly discourse since the 1930s." He published articles in the late '30s and Columbia University published his dissertation in 1943 while he was in the Army in Europe, and that book was reviewed in The Journal of Southern History the following year, but I'm not aware of any evidence that would justify regarding him as prominent in scholarly discourse. As a target of McCarthy-instigated policies, he won some unwanted notoriety by losing his Army commission (not mentioned in the article) in December of 1950, and even more three years later when he testified at televised hearings on May 6, 1953. In scholarly discourse I would think that it would be more accurate to say he achieved something like "prominence" during the rise of New Left scholarship in the '60s and '70s, but in any case the phrase in question ("prominent in scholarly discourse") is vague to the point of uselessness.Anarchristian (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Work in the South"

I'm starting this section to discuss my objections to two sentences on the page, which follow:

`"Peons" in the South, the vast majority of whom were African American, were typically sharecroppers who became tied to plantations by the debt they owed to the plantation owners. This practice effectively maintained slavery beyond the Civil War in all but name.`

I deleted this section from the page because it is factually wrong and not at all sourced. User MShabazz has reverted my deletions, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Aptheker&oldid=783413667, and written "rv good-faith edit -- sorry, but you're mistaken -- the peonage against which Aptheker fought was exactly as described."

Still no source given for these statements. The foremost reason will be that contrary to many narratives, sharecropping was not a Black-only phenomenon in the American South. I plan on deleting those sentences again unless someone can properly source them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusselParty (talk • contribs) 02:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You neglected to indicate that when I restored your deletion, I linked the word "peons" to Peon#History. That section, which includes 18 footnotes, is about peonage in the southern United States, which mostly existed to continue to keep African Americans in a state barely above that of slavery. Have you looked at any of the 18 sources? No, I didn't think so. Have you looked at any sources about peonage in the southern United States? Somehow I doubt it.

You're also reading something other than what the article says. It doesn't say (as you assert) that all sharecroppers were African-American. That would be an absurd assertion. It says most peons were African-American sharecroppers. That's a historical fact, and you could look it up, if you cared to lift a finger to do some research. Or you could just belly-ache. Your choice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The wikipedia page for peonage needs some work and has a tag for un-encyclopedic tone. That doesn't reflect well on your arguments. There are no statistics or data to verify your statement that "most peons" were Black. So how do we know? Also, despite the large number of citations, almost all the relevant text is from a single source: Blackmon's book. If you think it's so important and you know so much about the subject, maybe you should work to improve that page. Finally, I don't appreciate your snide comments and I think they're uncalled for. MusselParty (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You're still not reading carefully, but instead appear to be making up "alternative facts". I didn't say that "most peons were Black". I said that this article says that most peons were African-American sharecroppers. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The question I have on this section is that much of it lacks relevance. It begins on point, but it quickly leaves Aptheker’s activity on the subject of “peonage” and moves into a general discussion of that phenomenon. It’s very nice, but after a basic description, the rest belongs on that subject’s page, not here. The last two paragraphs of the section should be deleted as off-topic and irrelevant. Sychonic (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Herbert Aptheker. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121040559/http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/14/2006/10/ to http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/14/2006/10/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121040559/http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/14/2006/10/ to http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/14/2006/10/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121040559/http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/14/2006/10/ to http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/14/2006/10/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Peonage

This recent edit by Parkwells consists mostly of good copyedits. However, it also contains an odd addition: the paragraph about "peonage" seems to have nothing at all to do with Aptheker (it refers to an event that took place 8 years before he was born, and doesn't seem to relate at all to the work of the Abolish Peonage Committee). (Also the accessdate for the reference is weird.) Unless there's some concrete connection, I suggest removing it. (Although it would be nice to get an actual reference into that subsection.) --100.36.103.248 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph on Arkansas and Percy didn't belong; it was just an example of earlier efforts to control peonage. I remembered the Arkansas and Italian worker example, so just picked it up, complete with the old access date. Parkwells (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)The Arkansas Encyclopedia has several references:

• Daniel, Pete. “Peonage.” In Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, edited by Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.
• ———. The Shadow of Slavery: Peonage in the South, 1901–1969. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972.
• Thompson III, Robert F. “The Strange Case of Paul D. Peacher, Twentieth-Century Slaveholder.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 52 (Winter 1993): 426–451.
• Whayne, Jeannie M., ed. Shadows over Sunnyside: An Arkansas Plantation in Transition, 1830–1945. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1993.
• Woodruff, Nan Elizabeth. American Congo: The African American Freedom Struggle in the Delta. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.