|This redirect is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The tone of this page is thoroughly inappropriate for Wikipedia: contentious ("so-called men of science"), opinionated, making a diffuse array of assertions that are often tenuous at best (e.g., no explanation is given as to how Bush exploited the race of Willie Horton) and poorly supported, despite the perfunctory attempts at annotation. It has the tone of an angry, recently enlightend high school student, and needs to be entirely re-written from a more professional and neutral viewpoint.
While I agree that the article is poorly written, it does resemble the academic literature it uses as sources in both tone and delivery. Given that the science of eugenics has been proven egregiously false in every circumstance, the designation "so-called men of science" is appropriate, if not used nefariously. There is no excuse for the Bush section, even though it could be based in the specious observations of some cultural studies scholars. However, when writing about ideological ascriptions of race it is impossible to appear neural, or even academic, to someone who subscribes to those ideologies. Instead, it is the responsibility of the author to use the material in the primary sources as examples of the cultural theory. Since the theory is developed in a contemporary context, and since it illuminates a romanticized and sugar-coated period of history in a realistic light, the work should not depart into a foray of modern political diatribes. The material is racist, the language is racist, the ideals are racist; let them speak for themselves. By writing about these caricatures in a historical context, we can illuminate how they affect contemporary portrayals and depictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Could the Wikiuniverse please make a concerted effort to clean this page up, add meaningful content, and correctly explain its significance to create a stronger article? Muddbrixx (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Written from the perspective of an angry Black.
While, I am not extremely knowledgeable on the "Black Brute", this page lacks any objectivity and needs to be deleted and or edited to bring a sense of neutrality to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Written from a student of literature's perspective
This article, while not hugely accurate is not particularly biased for or against blacks. It is attempting to portray information about a racist stereotype. THis means that while it does not seem neutral, provided it doesn't support the stereotype it should be considered neutral. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Writer is making various arguments throughout the article
The writer's own arguments comprise many of the important points made in the article. The article touches on an important topic, but it must be heavily revised to ensure its neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
redirected, merge welcome
Per the merge request I've redirected to the destination article. This article looks to be a dump by an editor with only one contribution. There's a good chance that this was a copyvio, and baring that the article quality was quite low. If anyone thinks the references or content can be salvaged, I invite them to take an active role in merging (or possibly restoring this article if notability can be established). aprock (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)