Jump to content

Talk:African-American culture/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article content concerns

There is a bit more to black Americans than religion and food--this article needs work.

I disagree completely with the comment at Deeceevoice's edit. African American music is a subcategory under African American culture, and it quite rightly rates its own entry. Of all the possible splits, I think this one and History make the most sense. There is enough material out there for a separate entry on African American literature as well.Quill 00:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no disagreement between the two of us when it comes to the subject of African American music. It should be quite clear the disagreement is about the unfortunate hack job done on the article, which had more integrity as a whole. The article itself makes only a passing reference to African American music as part of an examination of African Americal culture. Appropriately, there is a link to a more substantial article -- as with many of the other subheads and topics featured in the AA article. Oddly enough, there is a link to a nonexistent African American Church, which is a curious notion, given the religious diversity in the AA community. Why such a clumsy division with clumsy introductory lead-ins to the hacked-off parts? Because it was felt the AA article was "too long." (What?) deeceevoice 11:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When you've been around Wikipedia a little longer you'll realized that linking to entries that do not yet exist is one way of noting a subject so that you yourself or someone else will notice its absence and write on it at another time. And you've GOT to be kidding--why is the African American Church a curious notion? Are you referring only to the name? By all means change it if you'd rather. I'm honestly not sure what your contention is. I'm referring to what has traditionally been referred to as The Black Church in America, not one religion, but a de facto cultural institution with a huge and influential history. It has nothing to do with the fact that African Americans belong to several different religions.Quill 21:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is my first time posting on Wikipedia, but I wanted to weigh in on the statement that African-American women's covering of their heads may reflect a remnant of Islamic practice. I have never heard that suggestion and thought it odd. My understanding is that Christian, Jewish, and Muslim women in the Middle East and elsewhere used to cover their heads regularly (in everyday life and in worship). This practice has fallen out of favor in most western Christian denominations and in Reform and Conservative Judaism, but many Eastern Orthodox Christians (for example, Egyptian and Ethiopian Coptic Orthodox)and others (such Orthodox Jewish women)continue the practice when they worship and even in everyday life, here in the U.S. Until a few decades ago, it was the norm for Roman Catholic and Protestant women, white, black, and other, to cover their heads at worship. The Bible states that "[E]very woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head." (NIV, I Cor. 11:5-6) Those Christians who believe that the foregoing scripture is not limited by time or culture continue to adhere to its command. Also, whether or not this impression was intended, I did feel that the article indicated that Africans were stripped of their "true" Islamic heritage, without mentioning how conversions to Islam came about.

This Page Must Be Deleted

This page must be deleted because the writer doesn't understand the difference between culture, race and racial prejudice. The reason the word culture does not relate to race is because there would have to be someone to dictate to their race what their culture is or is not without the opinion of the entire race(eliminating individuality); in other words if someone of a certain race created a genre of music and even though everyone of the same race (of the person that started the genre) hated this genre they would still be associated by this genre racially.

This is a form of racial segregation as well, which is racism and will not be tolerated on the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark667 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. You say that culture doesn't relate to race because someone would have had to dictate the culture. Culture isn't something that's dictated by anyone. It's a collection of behaviors and preferences that are developed over time by groups of people. To use your example: if someone of a certain race created a genre of music that was adopted widely by people of that race over a signifigant period of time then it would be a part of that race's culture. If it wasn't adopted, or as you say if everyone in the same race hated the genre then it wouldn't be a part of that race's culture. It would still be associated with the race because a person of that race created it but that has no bearing on the culture. CJ 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that you do not understand racism and how it works, how to fight it or, you are an actual racist person. What you said only promotes racism and prejudice towards racial groups. Once you segregate race by culture you promote racial stereotypes and eliminate ones individuality. A good example would be that if gangsta rap was done originally by a white person and many people liked it but it had lyrics that were degrading to women, promoted violence,drugs,pimping,prostitution and gang activity the majority of white people would not want to be associated with this music at all even though someone of a their race created this genre of music and was adopted widely by people of that race over a significant period of time.

If you do not understand this concept and way of fighting prejudice ways of thinking I suggest looking into the writings of Martin Luther King Jr., he coined the phrase "I have a dream that my four 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.". This article is in fact judging people according to their race, and not by the content of their character. This article is essentially creating a stereotype and denying ones individuality based on their race. I support the deletion of this racist article because it supports a segregation mentality based on race and, it encourages racial prejudices(racial prejudices good or bad are unacceptable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark667 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In my time on this rock, I've learned a few things. Among them is the understanding that there are 3 manefestations of racism. The first is the outright hatred of a group. The second is stereotyping. The third is forced assimilation. You seem concerned about the second but at the same time you are promoting the third. By suggesting that cultural preferences of a group are only stereotypes, you first denying that group's unique history and shared experiences. Secondly, you are insinuiating that all other cultural traditions must either be assimilated into the dominant culture of society or be discarded.
Wikipedia's aim is not to provide content based on the moral opinions of any specific segment of society. It is instead an attempt to provide accurate, relavant, and neutral information on various, notable subjects. If you have actual concerns about the content of this article then either make edits or propose them on this page. Perhaps you'd consider providing a section on oppositions to identifications of culture based on race. Of course such a section must be documented. If you still feel this article should be deleted then you should nominate it at the articles for deletion review. Otherwise, this conversation serves no productive benifit. CJ 23:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Youre resorting to false accusations by saying that I am promoting "forced assimilation". In response I will just say that you lied and made attempt to make me look bad, there is no need for this.You said "denying that group's unique history and shared experiences" history is not based on race and I would never want our world to be that segregated. When im with a friend ,girlfriend or wife I dont want them saying "our history" without including me , thats segregation and a segregationalists mentality which is the foundation of racism, (any form of racial segregation is racism, anything that divides people according to race is racism).

You made another attempt to make me look bad by saying "all other cultural traditions must either be assimilated into the dominant culture of society or be discarded.". I dont like the fact that you like to paint people in a bad light like that, the discussion section is for discussing the main article, not for making personal attacks based on false accusations if you disagree with an individual. I was saying that culture is not based on race. This article is no better then racist people that say "white people are like this, and Asian people are like that, and blacks are like this". By saying that there are differences according to race you are promoting racial segregation and prejudice, I wish you could see this CJ. This will be my last post so, think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark667 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


"Bias" and "Preachiness" in Religion

Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough, but I didn't see any bias in the original. Nor did I read any substantial changes in that regard. Did I miss something? deeceevoice 00:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Several issues presented themselves to me. To my mind it was glaring, and I’m glad you didn’t read any substantial changes, that means I achieved the subtleness I was after.
  • I thought an ignorant person (meant literally; not as an insult) reading the passage would get the distinct impression that Islam was an indigenous African religion, when as we know Christianity is an older religion and in fact Christianity in some parts of Africa predates conversion to Christianity in some parts of Europe. Some Islamic conversion was peaceful but some of it was ‘convert, or die…’ which in its own way is just as subjugating as imposed Christianity (or, just as liberating?). Further, as written, Christinity appeared inherently subjugating when in fact one of the major objections to Jesus was his egalitarian approach to people of different cultures and his insistence on recognizing the dignity of every human person. Also, Arabs who were Muslims were the chief perpetrators of the slave trade in East Africa, and I think one would have gotten the impression that only European Christians were slave traders. Moreover, (some) West African muslims assisted in the slave trading of persons from other religions and ethnic groups (tribes)—I think it’s reasonable to assume that they did not have a framework for fully understanding the ramifications of what they were doing, but on the other hand, some people are just greedy.
I haven't gone back to read my original language, but you're absolutely correct that Islam is not indigenous to West Africa and in that geographical and historical context was, like Christianity, a religion of conquest and occupation. But my passage said nothing of Christianity being "inherently subjugating." That's something you must have read into it. Not being a Christian, I have no such sensitivities. I wrote only of Christianity being used as a tool of subjugation and the brutal, forced conversion of blacks, which, of course, is a matter of historical record. And I also spoke of Christianity being used by enslaved Africans as a tool for spiritual and psychic survival. All that business about who did and who didn't participate in the slave trade, again, is not germane to this discussion. I didn't feel the need to insert any kind of "sharing the blame" information. I'm not white, so I have no such sensitivities. I'm simply and honestly addressing the subjects at hand. If someone wants to know about all that, there's likely a Wiki article on the trans-Atlantic slave trade -- or, better yet, something truly learned on the subject available elsewhere on the Internet or in the world ouside of cyberspace. Whatever your concerns, I read no "bias" or "preachiness" in the original language -- which, in this case, happened to be my own. deeceevoice 10:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Further, with regard to your observation that "...Christianity is an older religion and in fact Christianity in some parts of Africa predates conversion to Christianity in some parts of Europe": Actually, Christianity originated in Africa -- that easternmost extension of the continent commonly referred to as the "Middle East." To my knowledge, the oldest Christian monasteries are in Egypt and the mountains and caves of Ethiopia, where many Coptic Christians believe the Ark of the Covenant still rests. Nothing new there. :-p deeceevoice 10:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have reverted this back to the original language, which, it seems to me, if read without certain presumptions, is fine. deeceevoice 17:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the change here. In composing online, there's a tendency for one's thoughts to get ahead of one's fingers and do mental shortcuts (at least in my case). The connection to the Second Vatican Council was a mental one related to the rising debate of the time about "liberation theology," which the Second Vatican Council did address. Anyway, using a date reference is probably better -- especially for people unfamiliar with the history of the debate about liberation theology, which was then treated as a new concept -- when, in fact, Christianity has been used throughout the ages in such a fashion. Again, I see no "bias" or "preachiness" in the original passage -- which also happened to be mine. deeceevoice 10:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There may be any number of reasons for the practice of head covering among black churchgoing females. African women cover their heads for a few reasons: lack of time for daily styling, to keep out vermin and ward off disease and as accessorizing. African American women covered their heads for the same reasons, and unfortunately, because of shame. When it came to church, were they merely aping the customs of their white counterparts? Did it become a source of pride—certainly appeared to in the 1930s and 40s, a positive example of (I forget the word for it, but urban historians make note of it, when a minority group can’t compete with the majority culture i.e. can’t make the same achievements so define themselves by standards that they CAN achieve—it’s usually used in the negative, like young black men and machismo drug or gun culture). :Quill 00:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You lost me on this one. The reference is to head covering in the context of worship only and not as a general cultural phenomenon. After all, the subject is "Christianity." I guess you'd have to be somewhat familiar with the culture, but a lot of black women who don't cover their heads on a daily basis -- and would never think to do so -- would never, ever go to church without covering their heads. Hundreds of thousands (at least) of African slaves who ended up in the Americas were Muslims, and historians have noted this particular parallel in worship practice. From my simple, factual statements about the history of Christianity, we've come to black women being ashamed of their nappy hair, blacks not being able to "compete" and gang banging? Aren't you the one who complained about the original article being too broad-ranging? From the looks of your remarks herein, it may be a good thing you weren't involved in the writing of much of it. This "discussion" thread is beginning to sound a bit like the old one. deeceevoice 10:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And that's where you really lose me -- the business about "competing" and "achievements." If you're saying what I think you're saying about the tragic internalization among many blacks of white supremacy and white racism, including white standards of beauty, then I'd have to say you're way off the mark in this context. The period of which you speak had everything to do with the legacy of the Harlem Renaissance, "negritude" and race pride -- very similar to the late '60s and '70s. At the height of the Black Pride/Black Nationalist movement, black women were wearing huge afros, but also took to covering their heads again, wearing geles (African headwraps), as external signs of inner values. What to someone who quite naturally holds a Eurocentric aesthetic might seem to be some sort of compensatory behavior on the part of another group is, in fact, something quite different. One of the first steps of self-identification is negation. If one wishes to put on a new coat, one first must remove the old one. A rejection of European values, of European aesthetics, European practices was/is the first step in embracing/reclaiming one's true (African) self -- of which the return to head covering to which you refer was an external manifestation. The desire/propensity to hold on to whatever one can of one's own culture is a natural thing. Combine that with the defiance and resolve of a captive in enemy territory, and there's no wonder the signs of our Africanness are all around -- and always have been. It's simply that only relatively recently (within the last 40 years or so) have we begun to see the kind of true historical scholarship, unclouded by old, often racist, presumptions, necessary to uncover truth(s). Again, no "bias" or "preachiness" in that passage, simply restating what historians have observed. deeceevoice 10:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could headgear be a remnant of Islamic practice? Sure it could, but to state that it definitely is is not NPOV. Nor is it okay to only mention one group of women or even ‘Southern Women’. Churchgoers in the North have a serious millinery tradition and industry as well. I would very much like to see this section tweaked. :Quill 00:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here's what I wrote: "The so-called 'hat queens' of the Church of God in Christ, women known for their striking millinery in worship, also may be [emphasis added], at least in part, a continuation of this Islamic tradtion." Please take care to note what you obviously failed to previously -- that I never said that it "definitely" was. Nor did I ever say that "hat queens" was strictly a southern tradition. Indeed, COGIC has a huge following all over the country, particularly in the Northeast (and a growing one internationally). The business about elderly southern black women covering their heads is mentioned because, when one wishes to go back to African-American roots culture, one has to go below the Mason-Dixon line, where the signs of our Africanness are strongest -- particularly to Georgia and the Carolinas -- where old black women still eat dirt (or cubed starch), where cornrows never went out of style. I think a lot of what you're "reading" simply isn't there. Still, no "bias" or "preachiness" that I can detect. deeceevoice 10:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Now, all of this certainly didn’t need to be in (what was then) one paragraph, but to maintain a NPOV the larger picture needs to be kept in mind when writing. :Quill 00:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As well, the larger picture needs to be kept in mind when reading. Be mindful that there are often certain internal, knee-jerk biases -- a kind of intellectual inertia/stodginess -- that can cloud one's assessment of possibly new or different information, which also need to be held in check. :-pdeeceevoice 10:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Deeceevoice, I really think you need to read comments in their entirety before responding, because it's really frustrating to start reading what you've written and then find that you haven't finished 'hearing' what the other person has to say before reacting to it. I'll say it again: I'm not here to enter a spitting contest. And you're taking every comment/suggesting/edit very personally. Here's an example--the hat queens comment above. The section began with one broad assertion--you're right, the one sentence you've indicated you wrote didn't, but taken as a whole, the paragraph did. I don't find it helpful to engage in, and I'm sure other Wikipedians will be bored with, a one-on-one argument, and I'm not going to continue it. Quill 11:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Quill, I DID read your comments in their entirety and responded, I thought, thoughtfully and carefully. You, however, stated the religion section was characterized by "bias" and "preachiness." It is certainly not unreasonable to ask which sections you found to be so -- and then to respond to the curious examples offered. Yes, the paragraph began with a statement about African cultural practices within the context of Christianity as practiced among African slaves. What's the big deal? You further charged that I had written something which I clearly had not. What you see as an "argument" I see as a discussion of statements made -- in the article and in the discussion threads. So far, I see no evidence of "bias" or "preachiness" or of inaccuracies in the passages to which you referred. If you are, indeed, interested in improving the accuracy and content of Wikipedia, then I would assume you are prepared to make honest and forthright contributions (substantively or criticism-wise) and give solid rationales behind them. So far, you simply haven't -- but I'm still listening/reading. Further, as far as my "taking every comment/suggesting/edit very personally" -- no. I'm simply responding to your comments on the passages which you've thought important enough to BULLET (lol) and then responding to each bulleted item. That you somehow feel that my addressing these items frankly and without animus is somehow frivolous or personally motivated I find even more curious than your initial commentary.  :-p deeceevoice 12:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The bulleting was simply an attempt to respond to your request for specificity, as was the detail. You do, too, take things personally: "I wrote this, you said that." I didn't make any 'charges'--what a choice of words!--about what you wrote. This process is not about you, particularly. You also embroider on my words. I don't know how to respond to such tactics, so I won't. Quill 21:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"You ALSO embroider"? H-m-m-m. Sounds like, "If I'm one, then what are you?" LOL Actually, no. I haven't misrepresented or mischaracterized anything you've said. And, yes, I did request specificity -- for obvious reasons. But when I respond with specificity, you seem to think I'm nitpicking. Funny. But the fact remains that you still haven't pointed to any actual instances of "bias" or "preachiness." Have you? And, gee, have you noticed? You keep responding. :-p deeceevoice 22:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is my first time posting on Wikipedia, but I wanted to weigh in on the statement that African-American women's covering of their heads may reflect a remnant of Islamic practice. I have never heard that suggestion and thought it odd. My understanding is that Christian, Jewish, and Muslim women in the Middle East and elsewhere used to cover their heads regularly (in everyday life and in worship). This practice has fallen out of favor in most western Christian denominations and in Reform and Conservative Judaism, but many Eastern Orthodox Christians (for example, Egyptian and Ethiopian Coptic Orthodox)and others (such Orthodox Jewish women)continue the practice when they worship and even in everyday life, here in the U.S. Until a few decades ago, it was the norm for Roman Catholic and Protestant women, white, black, and other, to cover their heads at worship. The Bible states that "[E]very woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head." (NIV, I Cor. 11:5-6) Those Christians who believe that the foregoing scripture is not limited by time or culture continue to adhere to its command. Also, whether or not this impression was intended, I did feel that the article indicated that Africans were stripped of their "true" Islamic heritage, without mentioning how conversions to Islam came about.

Stuff to Add?

Juneteenth, music, quilts as signals (maybe a separate section in history on rebellions/insurrections)...? Religion - Noble Drew Ali Moorish Scientists, "Sweet" Daddy Grace? deeceevoice 00:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Juneteenth—certainly here as the cultural celebration, also in African American history if it’s not there already. Definitely a section in History on rebellions/insurrections. Care needs to be taken to avoid repetition; decide in which article the topic should be placed and in which one it should be just mentioned in context and cross-referenced.
There is room for a lot of expansion in the section on Religion, particularly active, empowering congregations of note. And/or separate, specific articles on large, politically and culturally active institutions.
Quill 00:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, it doesn't get lost, this from a previous entry in the old article discussion thread. These things should be included (in the appropriate divisions):

Notes to self (or anyone else with time to contribute): Noble Drew Ali's Moorish Scientists (religion), Juneteenth (holidays), Congressional Black Caucus (political empowerment), disparities in sentencing & sentencing guidelines--three strikes (issues), fleshing out of Culture to include mention of and links to jazz, rhythm & blues, etc. And subheads!deeceevoice 08:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

African American vernacular dance

I have started an article on African American vernacular dance, in part as a way of expanding issues which developed in the lindy hop history and lindy hop articles. This article is really just a beginning point, and certainly need more work. Some of that material might be of relevance to this article, or perhaps - more likely - some of the folks contributing to these African American articles could give some useful feedback/contributions to the dance article? Thanks in advance. PlainJane 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Spirtuals - more trouble with nomenclature

Here’s a curious case: The Hymnal 1982 (American Episcopal) and Lift Every Voice and Sing II both call them ‘African American Spirituals’, but Wikipedia refers to them by the old ‘Negro Spirituals’—Why? Maybe pipe [Negro spiritual|African American spiritual] or MOVE and pipe: [African American Spiritual|Negro Spiritual]? Opinions? Quill 00:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't guess it really matters. I changed the more politically correct "AA Spirituals" to "Negro Spirituals" because that's the way I've always heard them referred to, and have always referred to them, as a genre. It's been my experience that people who've been involved with the music itself (who tend to be purists/very protective of it), though they (as I do) no longer use the word "Negro" to refer to themselves or other black folks in general, still all seem to use the old tag. But it's been a good 15 years since I sang those songs as part of an all-black chorus. Could be the nomenclature finally has caught up with the times? 'Cause it doesn't really make much sense -- does it? No more than still calling early blues and jazz "race music." Change it back, if you wish (and, upon reflection, I think it's a good idea) -- but I notice that a Wiki user can key in "Negro spiritual" and be directed to a "Spiritual" page. But when one keys in "African American spiritual," they get zilch. If the change is made, it should be done across the board. deeceevoice 09:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added Juneteenth and Malcolm X Day to the Holidays. -Eurytus

Christianity and Slavery

Main article: Christian views on slavery

Slave masters did not encourage slaves to convert to christianity, at least not in the first centuries of the transatlantic slave trade, because a slave could become free by converting to christianity.

"The corollary was that when a slave was converted he became free. Up to 1660 or thereabouts it seemed accepted in most colonies and in the English West Indies that baptism into a Christian church would free a Negro slave. Masters therefore, were reluctant in the seventeenth century to have their slaves receive Christian instruction." The Negro by W.E.B. Du Bois

This was true until Virgina enacted a new law in 1667:

"IV. And also be it enacted, by the authority aforesiad, and it is hereby enacted, That all servants imported and brought into this country, by sea or land, who were not christians in their native country, (except Turks and Moors in amity with her majesty, and others that can make due proof of their being free in England, or any other christian country, before they were shipped, in order to transporation hither) shall be accounted and be slaves, and as such be here bought and sold notwithtanding a conversion to christianity afterwards.

WHEREAS some doubts have risen whether children that are slaves by birth, and by the charity and piety of their owners made pertakers of the blessed sacrament of baptisme, should by vertue of their baptisme be made ffree; It is enacted and declared by this grand assembly, and the authority thereof, that the conferring of baptisme doth not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedome; that diverse masters, ffreed from this doubt, may more carefully endeavour the propagation of christianity by permitting children, though slaves, or those of growth if capable to be admitted to that sacrament" Laws of Virginia, September 1667

Pervasiveness of Islam in Slavery?

Can someone help me out here i was under the belief that the majority of slaves brought to America were originally from the west coast of Africa, an area dominated by Animist beliefs compared to eastern Africa where Islam was more predominant. Therefore did muslims actually make up a siginificant porportion of slaves? I've read articles claiming that on occassion there were slavemasters reporting of educated slaves who spoke arabic, but that those only represented a small minority of the greater slave population.

For starters, check out the article on the Islamic influences on the blues (melisma).
Recent scholarship suggests that the influence of Islam and the presence of Africans in the Americas who were Muslim were far more pervasive than originally surmised. Lots of old churches in the South were built facing east (towards Mecca). The name Bailey, which was/is a prevalent one is thought to be from "Bilali", after Bilal, the Muhammad's black second-in-command (so to speak). The tradition of women covering their heads. Do not underestimate the extent to which Islam had spread to West and Central African cultures by the time of the trans-Atlantic slave trade -- an unfortunate occurrence, some historians think, because it was conflict over the spread of Islam that weakened traditional African societal structures to such a point that made them vulnerable to the slave trade, which, incidentally, went deeper into the interior of Africa than most people generally think. Captives simply were marched to the coastal areas. A quick Google of the subject should reveal ample information. I've been intending for some time to revisit this subject here and in the section regarding religion, specifically, but haven't had time. deeceevoice 05:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a citation for the "early black churches faced east" claim? Jim Apple 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Many other churches face east as well. [1], [2], [3]. I don't see the "Visitors to Sapelo Island are always struck by ..." as convincing. Jim Apple 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
See also Cathedral diagram#Liturgical east end Jim Apple 23:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nation of Islam

Is it POV to call Nation of Islam a "cult"? Also, I'm sure there are plenty more African American Muslims who are part of mainstream Islam than those who would consider themselves part of the NoI. --Revolución (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I pulled the Other Religious movements section. It's only about the Nation of Islam. Despite varying opinions on the group, it's still Islam so separating it out is just strange. The Nation is mentioned in the Islam section in the same proportion as other religious groups are mentioned in the article. Anything else can go in the Nation of Islam article. CJ 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Art / Literature/ Music

This article needs art , literature , and music sections. --Revolución (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming practices

I've yet to find any articles in Wikipedia dealing with naming practices of "African-Americans". I'm referring to certain names like "Shaniqua", "LaToya", "Tomeka", etc etc given by blacks in the US to their children; names that are almost exclusively applied to black children, i.e., rarely occur within other groups in the US. I'm curious as to what their (diverse) origins are. Can anyone add any info regarding this? And I'm sorry if the examples I gave aren't totally accurate. --Cotoco 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer, I'm a European American married to an African American. My understanding is that the habit of using made-up names for one's child is not just African American but African American and poor. It's true to say "An African American mother is more likely to name her daughter Shaneequ than a non-AA mother," but the sentence misses the role of "class" or "status" in the equation. The practice of naming one's children names that don't mean anything in your own language (e.g., Mary, John) is unique to literate societies that have a sacred scripture in a language other than their own, such as Europe and India. Nonliterate societies, and socieities in which the sacred scripture is also the language of the people (e.g., Arab-speaking Muslim cultures) use regular old words for names, such as Dances with Wolves or Servant of God ("Abdullah"). To some extent this is original research on my part, but someone else besides me has got to have made the connection, too. Jonathan Tweet 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that its more a product of so called hip-hop culture, lack of education, illeteracy and misunderstanding of words, there was a TV program on the UK Channel "five", called "America's Stupidest Names", they were all taked from the last US Census, a lof of the names were corruptions of mens names to make them female or vice versa, but a lot were made up. There was a large habbit of sticking "De" "La" "Te" and other made up prefixes infront of words. The one that however won the top place was "Latrina". They could find no basis for it in any of the world languages as a name, the only similar word they could find was "Latrine" or a toilet, and they only reasoning is that some largely illiterate person heard the word, stuck an "a" on the end instead of the e to use it as a name because the thought it was pretty, and from that some 3000 odd people got named after a hole for sewerage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.175.104 (talk • contribs) 17:34, November 23, 2006

Ceanup tag

I removed the almost year old cleanup tag and replaced it with {{unreferenced}}. This article does not need any cleanup as far as I can see. The only thing it is missing is a reference section. If any one feels differently, go right ahead and replace the cleanup tag, all I am doing is going through the old backlogs and putting more specific tags or doing the fix-up myself. Eagle talk 05:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Language

I have altered the definition of African-American Vernacular English to reflect that in its main article. After doing a number of reverts due to the slightly contraversial way the piece in this article was worded I thought it would be better to clear it up somewhat. Was hoping that this would not cause issue - it was done in good faith to stop this section being a target for vandalism. --Twigletmac 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote Pass

I think this article meets all the criteria for a Good Article. I really liked it.

If I had to make a criticism, it would be that the History section of the article lacks a subsection on Afro-American culture up to 1930. The way that section is written makes it sound like African American culture began with the Harlem rev. I know that you cover earlier history in the various other sections, but perhaps a subsection describing development up to 1930 would be appropriate.

An issue that isn't discussed explicitly in the article (I am speaking as an absolute tyro in the subject) is the cultural diversity of slaves. The article presents "African culture" as though there was one such thing in all of Africa. Perhaps a couple of sentences describing some of the various origins (Swahili, Bantu, Islamic, and so on) might be in order.

These two comments do not impinge on my opinion that the article, as it stands is worthy of GA status.

--Ravpapa 15:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on African-American culture which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.cair-net.org/asp/populationstats.asp
    Triggered by \bcair-net\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on African-American culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on African-American culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 21:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on African-American culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 12:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African-American_culture/Archive_1&oldid=1029734089"