Talk:Racism against African Americans

Reflecting prejudice

@Robjwev: The current lead has at least tow major problems: ... comprises prejudice towards African Americans by members of other ethnic groups in the U.S., which have been reflected in various types of racial discrimination ... makes "prejudice" (or, in the older version "negative views") the cause of discrimination. I don't know of any WP:RS for that, and I don't think it's true. Black people were not enslaved because White people thought that they were inferior (prejudice), but because White people wanted to exploit them economically and sexually (see e.g. Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning). But since that problem is not discussed in the body of the article, we cannot discuss the causes of racism in the lead, since the lead summarizes the article (WP:LEAD).

African Americans have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms both during the period of enslavement ... Slavery is not just "a restriction on ... freedoms", it is much worse. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You're way off base here; your source used as an example Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning clearly tells readers "it not a history book. This article disputes your assumptions. " https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-brief-history-of-the-enduring-phony-science-that-perpetuates-white-supremacy/2019/04/29/20e6aef0-5aeb-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html " As far as this sentence ... comprises prejudice towards African Americans by members of other ethnic groups in the U.S., which have been reflected in various types of racial discrimination ... Since it's not In the article, I will not object to its removal at this time. Robjwev (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you reverted after writing that you will not object ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Read my last response the correction I made is what I agreed on. I agreed to it's deletion because it was not discussed in the article. Robjwev (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That means that you didn't give any reason why you think that "restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms" is a correct description of slavery. Not so important: "Not a history book" in that article refers to the childrens' book, not to "Stamped from the beginning" itself. The Washington Post article makes it clear that prejudice has its roots in "self-interested justifications" of

oppression, meaning the White desire to exploit was the first thing, prejudice the second thing. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It was prejudice/racism that was dominant over everything. Regardless of the original reasoning behind Europeans desire to exploit Africans for free labor, and That's the part where you seem to escape logic and reason, something no amount of text can fix. Robjwev (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you didn't reply to my objections against the previous lede, I assume you don't object to my recent changes. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You sought admin actions against me for no reason, so I didn't engage you until the outcome. I do object to this nonsensical change that goes against reality. You and have not explained any logical reason for the difference. Robjwev (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

African Americans have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms both during the period of enslavement ... doesn't seem to be an adequate description of the situation before emancipation. The freedoms of enslaved people were not only restricted, but denied. Not only in the political, social, and economic areas, but also in the private, family and sexual areas. Other basic rights were also denied, including the right of life. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you do understand that there were free black people before enslavement ended, living both in the north and south. Robjwev (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But for the vast majority of Black Americans the description I quoted is far from the reality. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion, not backed up with facts while you mentioned the "before," you left out the "after" Your change did nothing to address the area you're saying is inaccurate. At this point, it seems that you disagree only to be disagreeable, unwilling to compromise. You complained about two sentences, and I agreed with you on one. You are stringing this conversation out while offing no better alternative to the sentences than those already there. Robjwev (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If you wanted to say that "slavery was not so bad", I'd be indeed unwilling to compromise. But I hope and feel that that's not your intention. Since you mentioned the "after", I hope that I found a compromise that you can agree to. Note that I also re-added the phrase about the context of Racism in the United States - my intention here was to have a link to the article which was the original source of this article. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Awful lot of "whataboutism" going on in the above conversation, which leaves me deeply unimpressed. To me, this looks like an issue with wording, rather than an intentional misrepresentation of reality.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Racism against Black Americans

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Racism against Black Americans's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "":

• From Washington, D.C.: "Constitution Gardens". National Park Service. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
• From Non-Hispanic whites: Karen R. Humes; Nicholas A. Jones; Roberto R. Ramirez, eds. (March 2011). "Definition of Race Categories Used in the 2010 Census" (PDF). United States Census Bureau. p. 3. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 3, 2014. Retrieved June 15, 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. On consistency grounds. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Racism against Black Americans → Racism against African Americans – For consistency with African Americans, African-American culture, List of monuments to African Americans, and other similar pages. Ricciardo Best (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are some Black Americans who don't identify as African Americans, especially recent immigrants. But they are still confronted with the same kind of racism because of the color of their skin. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • While true, this doesn't stop them from being African Americans. The U.S. Census say "Black or African American", and most Wikipedia articles use "African American" rather than "Black American". This is because "Black" is used for Black people in general. - Ricciardo Best (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Well said. Andrewa (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with the primary article located at African Americans. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading language about current, legal slavery in the United States

Rsk6400, I was hoping you would see my recent changes quickly. Thank you for the edit. I was hoping you would revise with better wording that still clarifies the reality better than the previous text did. There is a tremendous problem in the United States caused by the cognitive distortion of almost all discussion of slavery being as if it were simply banned by the Thirteenth Amendment—which explicitly allows it. It banned only market chattel slavery and moved all slavery into state-sanctioned prisons, many of which are now private businesses, extracting forced labor from their populations of people fully in their control—property in every way but nominally.

How can this be better worded so as not to discount the reality that slavery is only legally restricted to the prison system in the United States without relying on an unstated assumption that slavery magically implies the much-more-specific market chattel slavery? Stephan Leeds (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, the exception of the 13th Amendment has never been used explicitly, i.e. nobody has ever been sentenced to "slavery" after 1865. That's why convict leasing, prison farms, chain gangs, and so on are called "slavery without the name". I didn't check if the link between these forms of oppression and slavery is already mentioned in the article, but I think we could surely find sources for something like "convict leasing, ..., mass incarceration are often seen as a continuation of patterns of racialized oppression stemming from slavery". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated addition of claim that racism against African-Americans does not exist in the US anymore

I dispute this content. It is (a) not true, (b) not proven by Four 4 play's point about Obama's presidency, (c) not supported by the source provided, and (d) in direct disagreement with the body of the article. This is the seciton to discuss this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus here that seeks to deny that a black man became US president in the 21st century. If you can find a source to show that Mitt Romney won the 2012 elections, or that blacks can't vote, feel free to bring them on. But your proposal which is to keep an UNSOURCED refuted point on display while removing sources to disprove it, means you are guilty of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Four 4 Play (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No one is denying that a black man cannot be president. But that is not the same thing as proof that there is no racism in the US in the 21st century. Those are not the same things. I will bring in some people from WP:WikiProject Discrimination so it is more than you and me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We could alternatively reach out to WP:NPOVN if no one from the project responds. By the way, there are plenty of news sources (especially if such are used in an attempt to "refute" it) and academic sources about racism. They directly confirm the issue too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Floq. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't, and as a Chicago-born black American now happily living in the UK, I think I'm more qualified to comment than anyone else. I'm not happy with the double-standards having been practiced, but the tide is against me and so I will not be pursuing this change I sought any further. --Four 4 Play (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)