Talk:Buffalo Soldier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Slaves or not?[edit]

the article doesn't specify, were the original/early "buffalo soldiers" slaves? Were they forced to partake in wars? --Ballchef 08:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI - many were former slaves, and most of the original group of enlistees were former Union soldiers in USCT (United States Colored Troops) units who fought during the Civil War. They were not forced to enlist, although once enlisted every soldier has an obligation to fight in wars at the direction of their commanders. This article really needs to be cleaned up and fleshed out. I've started the process, but there's a lot more needed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.149.243 (talkcontribs) 14:01, 27 February 2006.

Does it really add value[edit]

To introduce this subject with "The Spanish called them 'Smoked Yankees'?"

I just don't see what value this statement adds to the article, especially in the opening paragraphs?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.149.243 (talkcontribs) 14:06, 27 February 2006.

What did the French call them? How about the Portugese? Canadians? South Africans? Swedes? Irish? This statement in the opening secton adds zero value as it stands. If you really want to keep this sentence, how about moving it to it's own section and expanding that section by including slang terms from around the world?
A section unto it's own listing to the greatest reasonable degree of completion what every group called them (including terms which would not be used in polite society now) by other groups. Shying away from history becasue it's "uncomfortable" ensures it's repetion. A REDDSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.17.48 (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Gen Powell[edit]

As I recall, according to his biography, Gen Powell not only unveiled the Buffalo Soldiers statue, he spearheaded the project to create the monument. Someone with a copy of his book might want to add that and source it. SqlPac 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Origin of "Buffalo Soldiers"[edit]

It may be nice for us to think that Indians referred to these men as "Buffalo Soldiers" out of admiration and respect, but this is generally disputed by Native Americans themselves.


I agree with the statement given by the anonomous user above me, who/what tribe originated this alias to the comparison of Afro-American infantry soldiers, and is there belief that the unknown Native American group significantly described them as Buffalo Soldiers for other bias reasons, as if describing them racially to their comrades? if so, was this a racial slur? --Andres Flores 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive the extreme lateness of this reply, but as to the origins of the term "buffalo soldier" it would seem that it started out as nothing more than descriptive. Soldiers with dark skin and dark, curly hair....buffalo soldiers. It would seem that it was neither as derisive as to constitute a racial slur, nor as laudatory a term as many modern commentators would care to think. Simple as that.172.190.43.61 (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

While in Britain[edit]

I seem to remember a story that, while stationed in England (near Bristol, I think) some black US servicemen were being given an unfairly rough time by (white) MPs. This annoyed the locals sufficiently for them to come to their rescue and see off the MPs. Anyone have a confirmation for this? Also, there's no mention of black airmen in the USAAF. Folks at 137 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See also: Tuskegee Airmen ... OTOH, they were stationed in the Med theatre (North Africa and Italy) and were never stationed in England. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link: I've added it to the article. Your reply confuses me: are you saying that no black American unit was stationed in the UK or just that the "Tuskegees" weren't? Folks at 137 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There was already a link in the article (in the See also: section). There were black American units stationed in every theater during WW-II, serving mostly as cooks, engineers, and other support personnel (somebody had to dig the latrines, service the KP equipment, fix broken vehicles, etc.), but those units all had white officers, with the exception of the 92nd Division (colored). I meant that the 332d Fighter Group was never stationed in the UK. --141.156.240.102 19:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently read a book on African-Americans in the military and do remember reading of incidents in which English civilians came to the aid of black soldiers being unfairly accosted by white MPs. Similarly, there was another incident in which Nisei (Japanese-American) soldiers came to the rescue of some black soldiers in Italy. I'm not sure how to fit these particular incidents into the article, though. --Habap 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The US authorities tried to persuade English local authorities to designate black and white pubs for use by American servicemen. This was resisted, as there is no tradition of such formal segregation in Britain (though there is no shortage of racism of course). There would often be occasions when British troops and civilians would be drinking in the same pubs or dance halls as American troops and fights were very common. The British would usually side with with the blacks against the whites, partly because they disliked US racist attitudes but also because they resented and disliked American troops generally. The phrase 'over paid, over sexed and over here' sums up the attitude perfectly. The Brits supported black American troops on the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' principle. --Ef80 (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

New pictures added[edit]

User Signaleer (talk · contribs) has added a bunch of pictures to the page ... Too Many, IMHO. Does this article really need two photos of them from the Spanish American War, especially so far apart? And what's up with the saddle & holster as the Very First image? —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the pictures do add a lot to the article. Perhaps two S-A war pictures is a bit of overkill, but I think the article is far better off with the addition of the images. --Habap 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

I got this message on my talk page:

In reference to the Buffalo Soldier article, the user Beetstra has a bot called Shadowbot which is automatically deleting external links which I am trying to provide on the site for additional credible sources of information. The user Beetstra refuses to add the members.aol link The Buffalo Soldier Story which is featured on the official Fort Leavenworth Buffalo Soldier Monument website: http://garrison.leavenworth.army.mil/sites/about/Buffalo.asp therefore it should be credible to add on the Wiki site since the logic that the U.S. Army has approved it for their external link it should be on the Wiki site as well. In addition this user has tried to add a linkfarm on the site, where all of the articles are valid and credible sources of information in reference to the article. --Signaleer 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the article from editing under the terms of the protection policy due to rapid-fire edit warring. Put simply, you're both lucky I didn't block you.

A fundamental part of the design of Wikipedia was talk pages, and both of you should use this to discuss your reasons for including/excluding the content under dispute. This is listed as the "first step" in resolving disputes on Wikipedia, see this.

One other clarification: Beetstra (talk · contribs) does not have a bot called Shadowbot (talk · contribs). Please see User:Shadowbot for more details.

Talk, don't revert, or you'll very quickly end up blocked. See Wikipedia:Negotiation and Wikipedia:Edit war. Daniel Bryant 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to Daniel.Bryant's actions, first of all, I do not appreciate your threats in reference to being blocked considering the fact that article had not been fully protected.
I did explain my reasoning for adding the external link but I received clarification from another administrator on the reasoning why the members.aol site was blocked due to the Wiki policy. --Signaleer 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reformatted References[edit]

Verified web references and reformatted references. No major content changes, just minor reformatting. SqlPac 02:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Template[edit]

I created a template that can be fixed up, added to and used often. See Template:Buffalo Soldiers. – Freechild (BoomCha) 17:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Challenge: Date of Death of "Last Buffalo" Soldier[edit]

Per the event noted at the link below, I request a change in the notation in this article about the date of death of the final remaing Buffalo Soldier.

http://www.patriotguard.org/ALLForums/tabid/61/forumid/11/postid/580515/view/topic/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.97.45.186 (talkcontribs) 10:15, 15 July 2007

I don't think that messageboard qualifies as a verifiable source. Also there is nothing indicating that the soldier was actually a soldier in one of the Buffalo Soldier units, just a few mentions by various folks calling him a "Buffalo Soldier"; this might be an "honorary title" based on service in a different unit. Perhaps the local newspapers have more information in his obituary, or ran a story after his death with more details? SqlPac (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment from main article[edit]

Statement by 75.185.61.44 moved here by CosmicPenguin (Talk) 06:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC):

92nd infantry division WWII - this calls into question the statement about there no longer being anyone alive who served in units under this distinction.someone please feel free to delete my edit and put it in properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.61.44 (talkcontribs) 05:27, 26 January 2008
I'm inclined to agree, but I don't know of any reliable sources that would confirm it, so I'll leave it to more knowledgeable editors. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 06:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
There was consensus on the discussion page for {{Buffalo Soldiers}} that the distinction applies to post-Civil War through Spanish-American War veterans, not World War I and World War II era, so the 92nd was excluded ... Mark Matthews is recognized as having been the last of the Buffalo Soldiers ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is accurate. Several individual soldiers, and units, adopted the "honorary title" of "buffalo soldier" over the years; but they were never a member of any of the Buffalo Soldier units indicated. I think that the 92nd might be worth mentioning to clarify this, as they actually adopted the name "Buffalo Soldier Division", and this could cause confusion for a lot of readers. It might also be worth adding a disambiguation link near the top to the 92nd ("Buffalo Soldier Division"), and the 92nd Division article should probably be updated to provide clarification. SqlPac (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo Soldier[edit]

It was my understanding that the name did come from indians, but it was because the soldiers were ordered to kill off as many buffalo as possible to starve the indians and kill those they couldn't starve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.185.202 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear how the term Buffalo Soldier came into existance, there are many theories and debates but there is no definitive nor conclusive story as to how the name stuck. -Signaleer (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You may have forgotten that the members of the 9th and 10th Cavalry were issued buffalo robes in the late 1860s which were made ad hoc into over coats. Why? Because the better overcoats were for other troops. Indians who saw these soldiers with their black faces were instantly reminded on the black faced American bison which is called a "buffalo" in America. It is not hard to imagine some one asking, 'Who are those blackfaced buffalo robed soldiers.' Quickly the term "Buffalo Soldiers" was coined. Whether this was by Native-Americans (likely), frontiermen or settlers (less likely) is unknown. While facts are sketchy, the idea of the curly black hair of the African-American or "Negro" in the venacular of the times, being like a buffalo was first printed by the eastern press only in the mid to late 1870s. Yet the term "Buffalo Soldier" had been seen by the late 1860s in various documents. It would be an interesting study for some young college student to work on! Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually buffalo overcoats came into fairly wide use within the Frontier Army, but mainly in the 1870s. It might be better to state that the general historical consensus is that the nickname originated with Native American tribes in the late 1860s and related to their tight, curly, dark hair. Also, Grierson was not shy about claiming additional publicity for his regiment, hence the overall idea that only the 10th Cav were called Buffalo Soldiers might be incorrect.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

10th Cavalry Regiment (United States) has the following story, one of many, how the Buffalo Soldiers got their name.

In September 1867, Private John Randall of Troop G of the 10th Cavalry Regiment was assigned to escort two civilians on a hunting trip. The hunters suddenly became the hunted when a band of 70 Cheyenne warriors swept down on them. The two civilians quickly fell in the initial attack and Randall's horse was shot out from beneath him. Randall managed to scramble to safety behind a washout under the railroad tracks, where he fended off the attack with only his pistol until help from the nearby camp arrived. The Indians beat a hasty retreat, leaving behind 13 fallen warriors. Private Randall suffered a gunshot wound to his shoulder and 11 lance wounds, but recovered. The Cheyenne quickly spread word of this new type of soldier, "who had fought like a cornered buffalo; who like a buffalo had suffered wound after wound, yet had not died; and who like a buffalo had a thick and shaggy mane of hair."[1][2]

You may find the Regimental song interesting. Click here. Jrcrin001 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fort Huachuca[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't feel comfortable editing too much yet, but I'd suggest adding some information or a link to Fort Huachuca and/or Camp Naco. Both are in Southeastern Arizona and have a long history of association with Buffalo Soldiers going after Apache and in the Spanish American War. Also I heard from a reliable source that they were called Buffalo Soldiers because the Native Americans thought the black soldier's hair felt like buffalo wool. ~~Lyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.93.158 (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Race[edit]

Due to the date of the forming it is strongly possible that the majority of recruits would have been African, not African-American. Is this worth changing on the main article? Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to pretend that you didn't even go there. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

While there is a political discussion of the alleged role of Buffalo Soldiers as "genocidal shock troops", there is an absence of discussion of the long-held perception that segregated units were useful for only menial duty because of perceived combat failures in World War I (93rd Division), World War II (92nd Division), and Korea (24th Infantry). The counter argument was that poor and hostile commanders, inadequate training, and parcelling out of black units to foreign and support commands (all racism-related) led to the alleged failures. An unpleasant subject, true, but one necessary for a complete picture, and no one balked at alledging they might have been genocidal tools.--Reedmalloy (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If this "shock troop" viewpoint (belied as it is by the consistent reluctance to actually use African-American soldiers in combat) is only held by a "small minority" of historians, it should not be included as it gives undue weight to what is a fringe belief.172.190.43.61 (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Outdated Links in References[edit]

As of April 22,2009, the following references have problems with links - 5,6,9 (Dead Links) and 14,15,16 (Links have moved). I understand how to edit articles but not the references. I did find the new location of reference 6 at http://www.nps.gov/goga/planyourvisit/upload/sb-buffalo-2008.pdf Trippio (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheerleading?[edit]

I have an objection to the last sentence of the introduction, but I'm finding it difficult to express what the problem is without sounding like an asshole.

It is now used for U.S. Army units that trace their direct lineage back to the 9th and 10th Cavalry, units whose bravery earned them an honored place in U.S. history.

That I can't put my finger on it may indicate that I'm wrong, but if anyone agrees that it doesn't sound right then perhaps they can say what the problem is. Bppubjr (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "bravery" - it is always subjective. How about the following?

It is now used for U.S. Army units that trace their direct lineage back to the 9th and 10th Cavalry, units whose history earned them an honored place in U.S. history.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I could go for the word "service" in there:
It is now used for U.S. Army units that trace their direct lineage back to the 9th and 10th Cavalry, units whose service earned them an honored place in U.S. history. SqlPac (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That also sounds good. Let's try that. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

27th & 28th Cavalry Regiments[edit]

The lede recently stated the 27th & 28th Cavalry regiments were part of the original units organized right after the Civil War. This is clearly in error. There was no 27th or 28th Cavalry regiments in the history of the US Army. For a quick historical list, please click here.

Yes, I know the 27th & 28th Cavalry Regiments are listed in the two following cites, but both come from one source - an article written for the San Diego History Journal that is scant on sources for these two units.

  • 27th Cavalry Regiment ref name=CpLockett {Citation

| title = Historic California Posts: Camp Lockett | url = http://www.militarymuseum.org/CpLockett.html | accessdate = 2008-01-17} ref

  • 28th Cavalry Regiment ref name=CpLockett ref name="28cav" ref {Citation

| title = Defending the Border: The Cavalry at Camp Lockett | url = http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/93spring/border.htm | accessdate = 2008-01-17} ref

Can anyone show me another source - like a US Army source? Please advise. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Official army register from 1876 and 1896 only show 10 regiments [1]. However, This shows that the 27th and 28th were raised in the 1940s at Fort Clark in Texas and Camp Lockett in California, so the above sources seem to be reasonably correct. The only thing I see here is that the 27th and 28th were not created at the same time as the other regiments so the leade was misleading but not incorrect. CosmicPenguin (talkWP:WYOHelp!) 20:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the original source - Order of battle, U.S. Army, World War II by Shelby L. Stanton, 1984, Presidio Press. I added this reference (citing US Army records) and placed the 27th & 28th back under (Historical) Cavalry units, see: Cavalry (United States)#Historical units. See what I wrote there. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

this stinks[edit]

dont print it print about 7 pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.112.216 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Teddy[edit]

I removed the following paragraph. 1) It was not cited nor supported by any documentation. 2) It is not supported in his TR's memoirs and it is a myth based on another incident. See the link and cite: Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919). The Rough Riders. Chapter IV - The Cavalry at Santiago. See paragraph 43.

"Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt was ambiguous in his assessment of the Buffalo Soldiers, in his memoirs recalling he had to "draw" down to force them up the hill. The Buffalo Soldiers present that day recalled the event differently in that the volunteer colonel had mounted an escaped horse which loped onto the battlefield and when the soldiers attempted to get the officer off the horse and back to cover he disuaded them by drawing his sidearm." (This was the paragraph removed)

This is an example where citation is so important on Wikipedia. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


References[edit]

  1. ^ 7-10 Cav Global Security.org which references “(Starr 1981:46).”
  2. ^ "Official 4ID History 4th Infantry Division Homepage: History". United States Army. 02-08-2010.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

TOC right - Yes or No?[edit]

Re: ... please don't float the TOC unless absolutely necessary!

At Floating the Table of Contents (TOC) right is described and rules for use given.

The TOC right template rules also gives its use and caution.

At the discussion for deleting TOCRight is given. The results ...

  • TOCRight vote as of July 8, 2005 19:50 (UTC)
  • Keep = 32
  • Delete = 14

For the Buffalo soldier article, having the TOC right helps the printing and reading of the article. It does not violate any rule for having the TOC in a different place. Those who insist that all articles in Wikipedia have the TOC in the standard place for all articles despite the readability, white spaces and print issues it causes, do not understand this.

In this article's case there is no Info box to offset the TOC in the standard position. In my opinion, the article is better with the TOC right. It is necessary for the article. Please do not change the TOC position without discussion here first. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it looks better on the right, though that is different than most articles.... --Habap (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Floating TOC is a problem for:
  • people using screen readers;
  • people using NoSquint or just using large fonts;
  • people using other skins than Monobook or Vector;
  • people using personalised CSS rules for the TOC;
  • etc, etc, etc.
Please RTFM:
--Wasell(T) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


  • The table of contents (TOC) automatically appears on pages with more than three headings. Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages. If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency. Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading.

I used my Palm to review this article and no problems were seen. I also sent a version (txt & pdf) to my Kindle and again no problems.

I cranked up the magnification to 400% and again no problems because the TOCRight is placed correctly for consistency. Actually there was more problems with the Wikipedia headers and sidebar than anything else.

I am not sure about other skins like Monobook or Vector. Can some one check these out and report back here?

Using personalised CSS rules for the TOC is used very rarely on this form of Wiki. It is usually used on older wiki formats. So this should not be a problem. But, to play it safe, can some one please try to find out if it is a problem there?

Other than breaking the standard look of the pages, any other potential problem?

FYI the automated TOC is great and effective in 98% plus of articles. In this pacticular article, floating the TOCRight works better than the standard TOC for the reasons given above. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The skin I use is "Modern". It looks fine to me. In "Cologne Blue", "Chick" and "Classic", it's fantastic. "My Skin", "Simple" and "Nostalgia" work just as well, but they're ugly skins, so I don't like them. So, in the 9 default skins, it displays fine, so Wasell, perhaps that list you've got is out-of-date. If you ask me, keeping it static because of people who use personalised CSS rules is going too far. If you're smart enough to customize your CSS, you should be smart enough to figure out how to make it work (as all the default ones do) or flexible enough to not care. --Habap (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Buffalo Soldier[edit]

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 Buffalo Soldier'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 "4th":

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 06:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Systemic[edit]

"In addition, they were also subjected to indignities such as being issued worn out equipment, being forced to ride old or broke-down horses, given sub-standard rations, and had to deal with segregation on the bases where they were stationed as well as the surrounding communities."

Please cite exactly how they were treated differently. Most of the Army at this time used worn out Civil War equipment, hard tack rations and older horses. This makes a better article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Category "Buffalo Soldier"[edit]

I removed the category "Buffalo Soldier" from an article on my watchlist, Freddie Stowers. I'm not trying to start a categorization war, but I think the category is being over-applied. I'm copying my post from that pages talk page below.

"Buffalo Soldiers"

I have removed the Buffalo Soldiers category because Stowers and his unit were not, strictly speaking, "Buffalo Soldiers." I have included a note about the Buffalo Soldiers service during the war, which was stateside, although they did see action against...Mexico! One important difference, besides their founding dates and lineages, is that the 93rd had black officers, which the Buffalo Soldiers never did (at least not prior to desegregation: Their descendant units did, but they also had white troopers).

Although the information I have found online states that all the officers of the 93rd Division were white, I know that Vertner Tandy, serving in the 369th, was commissioned during the war (and I believe he was a warrant officer before that; the United States did not have Army warrant officers until 1916, so if he was, that would be another difference between the 93rd and the Buffalo regiments, which as far as I know had no warrant officers, black or white). I had thought that there were other black company-grade officers in the 371st, but I may have been mistaken---I will have to do some more research. In any case, the soldiers of the 93rd were not "Buffalo Soldiers." (Not all pre-1948 black soldiers were Buffalo Soldiers---and, since the units had white officers, not all Buffalo Soldiers were black!) Jpbrenna (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is the issue of the 92nd Division having a buffalo emblem, and black soldiers being called "buffalo soldiers" in popular parlance at the time, something which I overlooked until now. Was Lieutenant Jackie Robinson a "Buffalo Soldier?" Yes, because he was initially assigned to a traditional Buffalo unit before he became an officer. Were the other men in his eventual unit, the 761st Tank Battalion "Buffalo Soldiers?" Not the way I have seen the term traditionally used. Where does it start and stop? Was Jehu Grant a Buffalo Soldier? Are we going to call every post-Civil War but pre-1948 integration black soldier a "Buffalo Soldier?" To me, the term belongs to a specific period and type of a unit, and although we should mention later units of African-American soldiers or integrated units adopting the term, should we really put them in the same category? Has this policy been discussed? I hate to nit-pick, but I think there should be a category for all pre-integration units, with a special subcategory for the tradtional Buffalo Soldier cavalry units only.Jpbrenna (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Have we established criteria for the Buffalo Soldiers category? Jpbrenna (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Afro-Americans in the Korean War[edit]

In addition to what is on the "Buffalo Soldier" article under the heading,"Korean War and integration,(e.g., "the 24th Infantry Regiment saw combat during the Korean War and was the last segregated regiment to engage in combat."), I must add that there was another segregated combat unit which served in Korea - the 2d Ranger Company. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Rangers, "Korean War" section, which says, "October 28, 1950 would see the next four Ranger companies formed. Soldiers from the 505th Airborne Regiment and the 82nd Airborne's 80th Anti-aircraft Artillery Battalion volunteered and, after initially being designated the 4th Ranger Company, became the 2nd Ranger Company—the only all-black Ranger unit in United States history."

There is a book about the 2d Ranger Co (which I believe was also an Airborne Ranger Company) and it is on my Amazon "wish list." When I purchase it, I shall return and flesh out that article with more detail.

I also plan to talk with the Curator of the Houston Buffalo Soldier Museum and see if he can provide additional information.

Ranger Jim (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Ranger Jim 1/24/11


In addition to the above comment of mine, and after re-reading Jpbrenna's last two posts, I find that I agree - are we using the term "Buffalo Soldier" as a generic term for any all-Black Army (including the USAAF) combat units? If so, I believe more research needs to be done on WW II (and possibly Korean War) combat units. I have a copy of Seven Roads to Hell, by Donald Burger, who served in the 101st Airborne, which mentions a Black Artillery unit at Bastogne.

As a former professional US Army Officer (and a student of military history), I firmly believe that the history of all-Black units in the US Army is a very important part of US military history, but should we use the term, "Buffalo Soldiers," for all such units?

Ranger Jim (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Ranger Jim

There was nothing "Progressive" about Woodrow Wilson's racism[edit]

Wilson's racism and his Progressivism were completely unrelated. "Vandalism" is conflating the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.29.99 (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


The "Progressive" movement led by President Woodrow Wilson helped create the federal version of the southern states "separate but equal" policies that lasted more than 50 years years in the USA. Under Wilson, Federal law forbade those of color to use the same bathroom and drinking fountains as whites. When WWI came, it was the colored soldiers who were denied serving in combat with white Americans in France. The colored volunteers were given to the French Army where they fought with honor and distinction. If this is not racism, then you must be a Wilson progressive who re-defined terms to suits their own needs.
Let us not forget that President Wilson supported the "white agenda" of the southern states denying Constitutional rights to African Americans. He said the Constitution was premodern and outdated. He would often say one thing and do another to people of color. You should read his 1908, "Constitutional Government of the United States" where he clearly states the need for white domination in government due to its "natural order." And indirectly he supported the Ku Klux Klan by not attacking this racial terrorist group. He believed the the silent movie, "The Birth of a Nation" was special enough to be the first movie show in the White House. Take a gander at Woodrow Wilson#Civil Rights which just touches the anger and dismay created by his character.
Shall I say anything about how he supported Eugenics which led to laws like Racial Integrity Act of 1924? This last one led to "The Sterilization Act" which provided for compulsory sterilization of persons deemed to be "feeble-minded," including the "insane, idiotic, imbecile, or epileptic." And this included more of those with "one drop of color" than any other group combined. I will not say anything about "social engineering" encouraging the "dumbing down" of African Americans by breeding, disease or drugs to make then better unskilled and uneducated laborers to the state.
Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
All of this is irrelevant. There were plenty of progressives that were opposed to institutionalized racism, and plenty of conservatives who were all for it. There is nothing inherently racist in progressivism, unless you're going to claim that W.E.B. DuBois was a racist too. Or The Anti-Lynching movement. Those were just the examples that came immediately to mind. 76.255.29.99 (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I again reverted your "22:19, 12 June 2011 76.255.29.99 (talk) (39,543 bytes) (Again, progressivism is not inherenelty racist.)"

The citations used in the article are appropiate and cite "progressive era" championed or publicly led by President Wilson. The Progressive Era did have republicans, democrats and others. Many did not care about race, most did however. The separate but equal was appropiate per the progressives of the time. To paraphrase you, There is nothing inherently racist (or evil) in progressivism by identifying old ways that needed modernizing, and emphasizing scientific, medical and engineering solutions. Thus eugenics is "a natural order for all races ..." Separate but equal is "a natural order" ... Racism involves the belief in racial differences, which acts as a justification for non-equal treatment. The Progressives institutionalized this Racial segregation in the United States on a Federal level. For example; In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service. Progressivism is not inherenelty racist to the progressive, just to others. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WWI?[edit]

"In August 1918, the 10th Cavalry supported the 35th Infantry Regiment in a border skirmish, the Battle of Ambos Nogales, in which German military advisors fought along with Mexican soldiers. This was the only battle during World War I where Germans engaged and died in combat against United States soldiers in North America."

The Battle of Ambos Nogales was part of the Mexican Revolution rather than WWI. Unless you want to make The Mexican Revolution part of WWI (or viceversa.)193.9.13.133 (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Because it involved German troops agitating tensions along the border between Mexico and the USA, this border battle can be listed as WWI, Border Battles and as a side note of the Mexican Revolution. The key here is that Americans killed and buried German soldiers who were involved in the fighting. Don't forget the Zimmerman Telegram and the efforts the Germans conducted to get Mexico to disrupt the USA during WWI. Here is another example; would the German sabotage in 1918 be part of the Border battles or Mexican Revolution? No, it is listed with WWI. Because USA was in an active war with Germany, the involvement of German troops places the Battle of Ambos Nogales primarily as a WWI incident, second as a Border Battle and then part of the Mexican Revolution. I hope this helps. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Um wow... No. Jersey John (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Just because it happened before 11/11/1918, and yes even with two German advisors present, in no way makes it a part of WW1. This battle is not OFFICIALLY recognized either here nor abroad as having been such. I corrected this in the article. Jersey John (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

smoked yankees[edit]

I'm not an expert. I am studying history of the US. I am confused by the link for smoked yankees that redirects to this page for buffalo soldier. In my text "The American Story", combined volume 4th edition by Robert A. Divine, page 523, it refers to "smoked yankees" during the Spanish-American war. The "Spanish troops soon came to fear the 'smoked yankees', as they called them." Up until this time in history, we have not come across this term.

Thanks for checking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.40.142 (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Category[edit]

I've removed the "regiments of the U.S. Army" category since the article deals with several units instead of an individual regiment. As best I can tell, all the individual Buffalo Soldier regiments are listed in the "regiments of the U.S. Army".Ocalafla (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And, this page is included in the "Buffalo Soldiers" category, which is a subcategory of the "regiments of the U.S. Army" category, so no real need to include it both places. Ocalafla (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough! Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


"Respect"[edit]

I see the English wiki, as politically correct and subservient to the fringes as ever, lends a hand in encouraging people to continue believing the falsehood that it's "possible" (nice hedging of bets) the Native Americans referred to black soldiers as "Buffalo Soldiers" due to bravery and/or respect of alleged observed skill (a falsehood,) rather than firmly siding with truth and lending more appreciable weight to the connection in observed similarities the Native Americans made between the nappy hair and dark skin of black soldiers and the coarse, nappy hair and dark coloring of buffalo. Jersey John (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Buffalo Soldier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Female Buffalo Soldier[edit]

Cathay Williams [[2]](September 1844 - 1892) was an American soldier under the pseudonym William Cathay. She is the first African-American female to enlist, and the only documented to serve in the United States Army assigned to the 38th infantry, the "Buffalo Solders". There was precedent for granting a pension to female soldiers disguised as men, but Williams application was rejected. The exact date of Williams' death is unknown, but it is assumed she died shortly after being denied a pension, probably sometime in 1892. Her simple grave marker would have been made of wood and deteriorated long ago. Thus her final resting place is now unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.119.33.180 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What sort of racist POS wrote the controversy page?[edit]

First and foremost, there should not even be a section for bashing these heros of our countries as that violates NPOV. Secondly, the line "the Buffalo Soldiers were used as mere shock troops or accessories to the forcefully expansionist goals of the U.S. government" has no source on it and is written in a degrading way. This is a page about famous Military units that are well known by people even outside of the US.

Take your pseudo-racist progressive crap out of here. Leave only the important information in the article and have a moderator trim the extra fat off of this page. Yes I am angry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.255.49.47 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Popular Culture[edit]

In the American Frontier video game Red Dead Revolver, there's a black character named "Buffalo Soldier" who's clearly a reference to this phenomenon. Is this noteworthy enough to warrant mentioning on the section?

Cameron Nedland (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Buffalo Soldier. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Q: What does this article lack, that every WP article or WP stub must have?[edit]

   A: A lead sentence, stating the scope of the topic.
   An encyclopedic lead sentence cannot start out like the lead of a periodical's article, or the first topic sentence in the preface of a novel; rather it it must get right to that single task, looking a lot like (one of) the dictdef(s)

for the name used as the (un-dabbed) title of the article, or
for the phrase that is the title of the article.

   Specifically, in the accompanying article, it cannot start out

Buffalo Soldiers originally were ...

[emphasis added] bcz the topic is not limited to the origin of the name.
--Jerzyt 02:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Buffalo Soldier. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)