Talk:Black genocide in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

History information

This article was developed first in User:Binksternet/BG. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

Just to start with:

• Where is the transatlantic slave "trade" (more accurately, genocide) section? Or the section on the rape of slaves? Or on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study? Or, for that matter, on housing covenents, segregation, race-baiting...
• Lynchings and such organizations as the KKK are pretty much minimized by this article. That's pretty serious...
• On the other hand, there is an excessive focus on abortion, and on members of the "Black Power" movement; having every image be one of a Black Panther isn't exactly neutral, outside of an article on "Black Nationalism" or the Black Panthers themselves.
• The author of this article clearly either has a close connection to the subject or is heavily biased.

自教育 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well now, I have no close connection to the subject, nor do I think I am biased. I have great friends of mine who were raised in a Black Power setting in Oakland, and they hold various stances on this issue. Some are dismissive as was Angela Davis. Some are still convinced. I found the subject matter to be very interesting—quite new to me—and I researched it thoroughly, so the article is an expression of the sources that I found.

The Atlantic slave trade is certainly identified as "black genocide" by some observers, despite the fact that living slaves were worth a whole lot more than dead ones.

The lynchings are covered in the We Charge Genocide article.

I would caution against confusing violent or severe racism with black genocide. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Original research

While largely accurate and supported by the sources, I worry that some of the work boarders on original research. Take the “Prison” section, for example. Gathered here are several voices who argue that incarceration rates are part of a genocidal plot. These are the original sources of such a theory. There is no critique of these theories by critics, yet alone an article cited that this is part of a “conspiracy theory.” I’m not arguing it should be removed, only that more work is needed to bring a scholarly dimension to support the findings of this section. I looked but couldn’t find one at present. The “abortion & birth-control” conspiracy theory is adequately sourced as is the interesting history that those who charge "genocide," a diverse group of political factions that make for strange bedfellows. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have headed this discussion "Expansion needed in prison section" rather than "Original research".

Here are more sources discussing the prison aspect of black genocide:

• 2005 – "The Pampers to Prison Pipeline", a keynote address given by Dr. Rosa Smith in Boston at the 21st Century Black Massachusetts Conference. Smith said that putting black youth in prison is "educational genocide" which amounts to "killing the seeds of a people" (black genocide). [1][2]
• 2013 – Dr. Joy James has written many times about the U.S. prison system as organized black genocide. She writes in 2013 that the origins can be traced to the post-Civil War system of convict lease in which black men were worked to death on public and private projects. [3]
• 1993 – Dr. Coramae Richey Mann wrote about prisons as black genocide. For instance, she makes the connection in Unequal Justice: A Question of Color. She says on page 46 that black genocide is represented by the very high murder rate among African Americans; she describes the same cultural illnesses leading to black-on-black murder as those leading to prison. Back in the Foreword, she says that white American culture was always genocidal, starting with the near-elimination of the native peoples of North America, and continuing with Chinese immigrants on the West Coast in the late 19th century, and then the firebombing and atomic bombing of Japan in 1945. She says this white attitude is applied to the black populace.
• 1977 – Dr. John C. Thornton published Behavior Modification: The Road to Genocide in which he described how mental institutions and prisons were taking an over-representation of black men out of society, causing black genocide. He supplies many statistics, such as an average of 42.2 months of a federal sentence given to white men versus an average of 63.3 months for black men. [4]

So there are some pathways to explore toward expansion: the analysis of four scholars. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Split suggestion

I think there should be a clear split between the conspiracy theories (e.g. birth control) and actual historical violence toward African Americans, lumping these very different categories together doesn't make much sense.--Pharos (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the section documenting violence towards blacks were all added this year. Given there was no actual attempt to relate them to claims of genocide, I've removed them all – they're all covered adequately elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I suspect may have been copied and pasted from other articles. I'm sure their inclusion was well-meaning, but the article was just a mess. ¡Bozzio! 14:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but Black Holocaust (referring to the history of slavery) and We Charge Genocide (referring to modern history) both cover actual historical violence toward African Americans that has been characterized by non-fringe scholars as genocide, and I'm not sure if a search for "Black genocide" should go only to the article on conspiracy theories - perhaps some sort of disambiguation page is called for.--Pharos (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Either that, or perhaps Black genocide should be a summary article of these three topics, and the unsupported conspiracy bits mostly spun off as Black genocide conspiracy theories.--Pharos (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thinking further, I would suggest this article be divided into four main sections: Slavery as genocide (covering Black Holocaust), Jim Crow as genocide (covering We Charge Genocide and related), Systemic racism as genocide (covering things like Race in the United States criminal justice system) and lastly Conspiracy theories.--Pharos (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.metropulse.com/news/2010/jun/02/anti-abortionists-accuse-knoxville-planned-parenth/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66tdIRiR0?url=http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/NC/NC.html to http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/NC/NC.html

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) 12:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Rename

This article should be called Black genocide conspiracy theory in a way that matches the parallell conspiracy theory by white supremacists.

This move will be in no way controversial as the very first line of this article describes it as a conspiracy theory.

I dont know who on Wikipedia renames the articles but this should be recommended — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion should have preceded the article move. (By the way, the mover, who commented above, was soon blocked as a sockpuppet.) In any case the current name is not so good. As I have recently seen in the case of "GMO conspiracy theories", the term "conspiracy theory" is hard to define, and carries the connotations of unwarranted and derogatory. Wikipedia need not endorse all of the ideas presented on this page, but neither should we condemn them without strong reason. I would recommend a name change, perhaps to Black genocide accusations. Best, groupuscule (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree having this content under this title is problematic - see the ideas in #Split suggestion above.--Pharos (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pharos, I agree there is a lot of material here which would divide well into separate articles. I have some ideas about how to do that, but for now I suggest we move the whole article to "Black genocide accusations" and then use it as an umbrella article from which these others can fork. The word "accusations" seems appropriate to me because it doesn't imply (as much) judgment about whether each accusation is true or false. What do you think? groupuscule (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The word "conspiracy" fits better than "accusations" in the article title, as the focus here, the topic of the article, is the idea that white people of European heritage in the US have conspired as a race to reduce or kill out black people of African heritage living in the US. That idea has been put forward by many which is why it's notable. If there's any moving of the article to be done here, it ought to be moved back to simply Black genocide, the way it was first brought to mainspace 3.5 years ago. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be ALL WELL AND GOOD if persons of European descent didn't openly hold these beliefs that African-Americans should be eradicated. Many of the alleged "conspiracy theories" are, in fact, not theories but actually conspiracies by groups like the KKK and other White Nationalist/Supremacist organizations. The ONLY accusation in this article that fits "conspiracy theory" is the one about birth control. I would support moving it to Black Genocide and striking conspiracy theories - and listing the birth control conspiracy theory under its own heading. 47.153.29.247 (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Reorganized sections

I've reorganized into sections by era. I'm not sure this is the best way to do it, but I do think it clarifies things a bit. Having a new structure suggests some obvious gaps, including a summary section on 1970s-era ideas, and more on mainstream scholarship of systemic racism and its relationship to the genocide concept.--Pharos (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your organization work. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Questionable source

A biography for juvenile readers, Maya Angelou: Diversity Makes for a Rich Tapestry, is used as a source twice in this article, including in the first paragraph. I encourage editors to review the source, which is available on Google Books, and decide for themselves whether it is a reliable source for what Malcolm X said about "black genocide".

Consider whether the author or publisher has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, whether the publisher has a reliable publication process, whether the author is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, and most importantly in my mind, whether these qualifications are demonstrable to other people, especially our readers. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Google books says of the book that it is "Juvenile Nonfiction", for that reason alone I'd consider it a less than perfect source. Given the number of academic works on Malcolm X, we should be using those, and not a juvenile non-fiction work. Amazon classifies it as "teen" for an additional data point. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing for someone to bring a better source. Certainly the basic statement is true, that Malcolm X said a black genocide had been underway during the last few centuries. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This law review article looks like a good summary of Malcolm X and this subject. There is no mention of anything as early as 1961, or the specific phrase "black genocide". In 1964, he was working on a United Nations petition as a follow-up to We Charge Genocide, and apparently planned to launch a formal case in international court (draft of petition text). This is much closer to We Charge Genocide than to the conspiracy theories that came later, and I think it would be good to separate the two.--Pharos (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting law journal article. I'll rephrase the two sentences to remove the direct quote "black genocide" (which I can't find in any biography or Malcolm X or collection of his speeches) and add the law journal article and the draft UN petition as sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: Conspiracy theory?

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

---

}} Should this article describe the black genocide conspiracy theory or the general topic of black genocide in the US? Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Black genocide conspiracy theory. If someone wants to write a new article documenting the extensive white racism against African Americans, then I welcome that effort. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Black genocide conspiracy theory. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Black ??? conspiracy theories per the threaded discussion, with the understanding that sourcing will have to be impeccable or it would be AFD bound or stubbed. There is a lot of potential for abuse in articles like this, but there is also a wealth of potential to make a good article, so I support the principle, just not in love with the title. Genocide may indeed be the wrong word and is such a broad claim, I see problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Black genocide, for the article as written. The article as written doesn't describe a conspiracy theory. It describes a set of events ranging in validity from documented history to conspiracy theory. Capturing all the sections under the heading of "conspiracy theory" is not justified by the article. For example, the article makes a strong case that the government enforced involuntary sterilization and that this is genocide. This would be confusing if it were all called a conspiracy theory. As I see it, either a cleanup collecting all the conspiracy theories under the proper header with current article title is in order, or a reframing of the entire article as strictly the conspiracy theory ideas. In the latter case, I would support Black genocide conspiracy theory. TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Black genocide conspiracy theory. (summoned by bot) in my view the topic of black genocide is quite narrow, and the scope of the article would be broader if it includes concepts generally referred to as conspiracy theory. I don't see a single mainstream reliable source that frames the ideas put forward in the article as anything other conspiracy theories, even though the theories are based on the very real racial discrimination. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Black genocide conspiracy theory, with massive dilution of the text. At the moment it looks like a lot of WP:SYNTH of information on well-known racial policies with the occasional reference to "conspiracy", but no actual narrative showing how everything is connected. In other words, it looks like the article itself is the conspiracy, rather than just an article describing one. The clearest way to deal with this is to move the uncontended parts to their respective parent articles (eg. African-American history, Racism in the United States and Racial segregation in the United States), leaving just the content on "conspiracy", and retitle the text as suggested. François Robere (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Black genocide conspiracy theory because there is an article called white genocide conspiracy theory article with a similar structure. this article is about the United States, where there never was any real genocide against blacks, which makes any allegation of that kind a conspiracy theory. --Spafky (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Black genocide I agree almost entirely with User:TheGreatConsultingDetective. Many of these events actually happened, and per UN standards constitute genocide. The only change in name I think would be warranted would be Black genocide in the United States to differentiate it from other similar genocidal plots in other countries. But being that most documented cases happened in the US, even that seems odd. But the article as written details all forms of genocide committed against African-Americans, and the conspiracy theories, most notably the birth control pill conspriacy are listed under their own header. I don't think there is enough examples of conspiracy theory to warrant its own page. Gstridsigne (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Split between Black genocide in the United States and either Black genocide conspiracy theory or Black abortion conspiracy theory. There's material for either article. Black genocide in the US would cover historical facts that are interpreted as genocide without no allegations of conspiracy, the conspiracy theory article would cover allegations of conspiracy. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This article was started in my own userspace five years ago, focusing on the black genocide conspiracy theory. I searched for instances of "black genocide conspiracy" in books, magazines, news articles, etc. My development of the topic was a reaction to seeing 2010 news articles like the Los Angeles Times' "Antiabortion activists see a racial conspiracy", The New York Times' "To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case", and Mother Jones' "Conspiracy Watch: Is Abortion Black Genocide? Are pro-choice policies decimating the African-American population? MoJo examines the myth." Some anti-abortion activists were getting traction in the black community with their false depiction of Planned Parenthood in the political pseudo-documentary film Maafa 21 (2009). This article about the black genocide conspiracy theory was intended to counter in some small way the 2009–2010 disinformation campaign, and to lay out for the reader the main themes of this complex topic.

When the article was ready for mainspace, it was published as Black genocide conspiracy theory in April 2014.[5] Other editors such as MShabazz helped to develop it, also reverting the occasional editor who removed "conspiracy",[6] as did EvergreenFir.[7] Some now-blocked editors also tried to remove the conspiracy theory aspect, including HuntClubJoe.[8] However, the various good-faith reworkings of the article by pro-life editor Motsebboh (sock of Badmintonhist) never removed the conspiracy theory aspect.[9][10] Another editor went so far as to change the first sentence into "black nationalist conspiracy theory".[11] In December 2017, Pharos changed the focus slightly, saying that the conspiracy theory as described in the article was "in the modern era."

This all changed on December 28, 2017, when ChiveFungi moved the page from Black genocide conspiracy theory to Black genocide,[12] removing "conspiracy theory" from the first sentence, and cutting out the Mother Jones reference.[13] ChiveFungi changed the text to say in the second paragraph that "Some accusations of genocide have been described as conspiracy theories."

Wikipedia has other articles which discuss the racism against African Americans in the United States. Certainly Racism in the United States is the main one, and African-American history covers it, too. Institutional racism gives a global view, while the articles about Racial segregation in the United States, Black Codes (United States), and Jim Crow laws get into the historical methods used by white Americans to keep African Americans from thriving. This article about the black genocide conspiracy theory was never intended to be an exhaustive account of the negative effects of institutional racism against African Americans. Such an article can be written, for sure, but this one is not it. The instances of widespread racism that are found in this article are provided as background to the genocide-affirming or -dismissing conclusions made by observers.

Wikipedia's black genocide article was presented as a conspiracy theory for 56 months, then changed to present a historic fact for 2 months. The sources calling it a conspiracy theory are still relevant. I think the article should return to its original focus, based on the following sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The article as it stands (and when I moved it [15]) mentions slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow laws. These are not conspiracy theories, but the title and lede were implying they were. I have no strong feelings about whether the article should cover just conspiracy theories or facts too, but I do believe that whichever option is chosen we must be careful to avoid accidentally wording the article in a way which implies something which is untrue. --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps it could be changed to Black abortion conspiracy theory. That is more precise. Under the broader definitions of genocide, American treatment of blacks does qualify as genocide. I myself don't agree with those broader definitions, but there are some serious scholars and activists who do. So a title change might reduce confusion.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• To be quite honest, when I saw the title, I assumed it was about the genocide of blacks in slavery and the Atlantic slave trade. While I agree that the "theory" that abortion is a plot to carry out a genocide against blacks is notable and also a conspiracy theory, I don't think that the title of "black genocide" is the best choice of a title for that topic. There is academic discussion about the whole subject of the Atlantic slave trade and whether that trade and the associated slavery of black peoples in up until the late 19th century was a genocide. See, for example, Adam Jones' discussion of it in Genocide: A Comprehensive Discussion (2006 - isbn 978-0-415-35384-7) (pp. 23-24) where Jones lists the subject as a "contested genocide", meaning there is continued scholarly debate but that some scholars support it as a genocide. Not sure how to best solve the issue of two topics which share the same name. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• The main thing for me is to differentiate the conspiracy theory from other uses (historical debates, UN activism). To frame it as a proper conspiracy theory article, the most useful thing would be to pinpoint the context: when, where, and by whom the conspiracy theory was started, and how it progressed over time.--Pharos (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

One more article on Wikipedia about this topic is Maafa, which is the redirect of Black Holocaust. Perhaps the Black Holocaust article can take some of the parts of this article that are not specifically named as being a conspiracy theory, the parts I included as background information. I'm willing to pare this article down to just the conspiracy theory material in order to get it back to its intended subject. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest perhaps the first paragraph of the intro should be directly about the modern conspiracy theory with its contraception/abortion focus, and the second paratagraph could briefly explain and contrast it to slavery, historic forms of oppression, and the UN activism.--Pharos (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Another option might be to make Black genocide one of the Wikipedia:Set index articles.--Pharos (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

To give a sort of example of a set index article that explains an ambiguous term with a related series of meanings, I'd suggest New Jersey English. It gives brief sections (and pointers to the main articles) for the several distinct dialects that may be given this name.--Pharos (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• After reading your summary of events, it seems that this page really spiraled out of control in the last few months. In December, I remember stumbling upon this article when it was still called Black Genocide Conspiracy Theory, and almost all examples within the page were well documented, substantiated events that actually happened. The only one's that could even be considered conspiracy theories were the abortion/birth control theories. Now, reading your history of the topic, it seems that was the initial focus of your article 5 years ago. If it were to return to just the abortion/birth control conspiracy theories, I would support renaming it - but probably if the name was more precise like Black abortion conspiracy theory. But in its current state (and the state it was in December), the article is describing Black genocide, which has been confirmed by the UN. It seems that people just want a parallel article to White genocide conspiracy theory. Well, there isn't one. There is either the abortion conspiracy theory or actual black genocide. I also think the article and name is acceptable as is. Yes, it could be expanded and improved upon, but it is acceptable. Gstridsigne (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I am confused to how this was considered a consensus decision. It seemed completely split down the middle between keeping it just Black Genocide and changing it to Black Genocide Conspiracy Theory. And, unless I am misinterpreting the decision, it seemed the consensus was that: As it stands, the article describes Black Genocide with a few examples of Black Genocide Conspiracy Theory, if it were to be rewritten to only include the abortion claims, then most would support the renaming - but to a more precise term like Black abortion conspiracy theory. But as of the current state of the article, it describes legitimate black genocide. How was this decided in favor of renaming the article? Gstridsigne (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Post-RfC

The RfC was never quite followed up on. My suggestion post-RfC was for Black genocide to perhaps be a Wikipedia:Set index article, and for Black genocide conspiracy theory to have the first paragraph of the intro be directly about the modern conspiracy theory with its contraception/abortion focus, and the second paragraph could briefly explain and contrast it to slavery, historic forms of oppression, and the UN activism. I'm not sre if people think this might be a good idea?--Pharos (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Expansion suggestions

This article can be expanded on several issues. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

AIDS infection

• Operation INFEKTION
• Jeremiah Wright controversy
• "Black Communities Hit Hardest By AIDS, Researchers Say". Philadelphia Daily News. August 25, 1988. 'The Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome virus is striking blacks twice as often as whites,' said Bill Jenkins, chief of evaluation and assessments for sexually transmitted diseases at the Centers for Disease Control.
• Horowitz, David (April 28, 1997). "Myths and stereotypes caused the L.A. riots, and there will be more unless reality takes hold". Salon. Archived from the original on March 28, 2010. Retrieved February 20, 2013. Surveys show that a large and perhaps growing portion of the African-American community is indeed convinced that whites—with 'their' government behind them—are plotting genocide against blacks through the distribution of crack and the AIDS virus.

Drugs

• Gary Webb (1996). Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras and the Crack Cocaine Explosion. Webb describes a crack epidemic initiated in the U.S. by the CIA, one which targeted blacks.
• Rapper Ice Cube says in The Predator's "When Will They Shoot" that whites caused black genocide by introducing crack.[16]
• Clarence Lusane wrote Pipe Dream Blues in 1991. The foreword is by Jesse Jackson. Lusane writes, "Many believe that either a section of the government or a group of White racists is carrying out a plan of Black genocide via drugs."

Poverty

• Dr. Elijah Anderson said, "Some black people have begun to see the condition of poor blacks as part of a plan by white people to commit black genocide. That plan involves AIDS, gentrification, high unemployment, crack, even the Korean grocer down the street."
• Erma Clardy Craven wrote in 1972, "Abortion, Poverty, and Black Genocide: Gifts to the Poor".

Brazil's form of black genocide

• Abdias do Nascimento (1989) Brazil: Mixture or Massacre: Essays in the Genocide of a Black People.[17]
• Joao H. Costa Vargas (2010) Never Meant to Survive: Genocide and Utopias in Black Diaspora Communities[18]

Unfair housing practices

Black scholar Nathan Wright, Jr. (1923-2005) wrote in 1969 that the 1967 National Conference on Black Power identified unfair housing practices as a form of black genocide. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wright, Nathan (December 1969). "Black Power vs. Black Genocide". The Black Scholar. 1 (2). Paradigm Publishers: 47–52. doi:10.1080/00064246.1969.11430663. JSTOR 41202828.

Proposed Topic

I would like to work on this topic for my Wikipedia assignment. I want to add two sections, one on deprivation of resources, and another on housing. I've included the link to my user page here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AHall08 AHall08 (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Good proposal. You can flesh it out in your userspace, writing out all the prose with citations. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Edits Summary

My goal with the Black genocide article is to fill in the missing sections with information from credible sources. I will refer to the “Genocide” article for help in determining how deeply I should explore each subject of the “Black genocide” article. I plan to elaborate on each of the already present sections, which are as follows: slavery as genocide, Jim Crow as genocide, systemic racism as genocide, and conspiracy theories. If, upon completion of those edits, I feel there isn’t enough information regarding the issue of housing in the Black community, I will add a section on that. In my sandbox I've included my breakdown of what I plan to do with each section of the aforementioned article. Please visit the following link for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AHall08/sandbox AHall08 (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

First Edits

I realized I have one of the books that was already used in the article, so I used that book (The Broken Heart of America) to contribute to the slavery and lynching sections. AHall08 (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Basically good stuff, thanks for the addtions. Please put italics around the book title. You can link to Walter Johnson (historian) instead of giving all of his credentials. The contraction "wasn't" should be expanded to "was not". Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments on recent contributions

Hi AHall08! Thanks for your great edits; your presentation of all the major perspectives in the abortion section was especially impressive. I wanted to suggest a few minor changes to the article that I noticed while reading through:

• The Analysis section seemed out of place to me and somewhat biased. Maybe it could be deleted and the content integrated into the previous sections?
• The section on wars could benefit from some images. There are probably some photos of old promotional materials from the War on Crime or War on Poverty that could be added here.
• I think you could link to other articles in the section on racial killings.

Thanks again for your contributions! 19jshi (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi AHall08, piggybacking off of 19jshi's comments, thanks for your additions. I think your contributions regarding slavery and the Wars on Poverty, Crime, and Drugs are extremely valuable. My further suggestions include:

• Incorporating more scholarship on the effects of slavery on African American populations;
• Giving each "War" waged by the U.S. government its own section, or perhaps creating a "Government policies" section with these three as subsections. This might improve conceptual flow and allow for more detail for each. I would also suggest providing links to the pages for each of these Wars.
• Any thoughts on including information on race riots/massacres such as Red Summer?

Thank you for your edits! MBJAnderson (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Hatred

@Robjwev: regarding your revert: in this discussion there was consensus about a split between Category:Hatred and (appropriate subcategories of) Category:Prejudice and discrimination. Since this article is already in such appropriate subcategory, namely in Category:Anti-black racism in the United States, the split has been executed correctly for this article. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam War Information

The sentence that's continually reverted does not fall on a WP:ReliableSource usage because it unverifiable WP:NOR Also, the wording of the sentence does not match the sourcing. I'm willing to help fix this issue but it needs to be addressed. Robjwev (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There must be a better source out there for Vietnam casualties by race. Even using this source, the data is being presented in a misleading way, with the "However" being used to editorialize. We're using a different source and slightly different numbers in the body of the article – we can probably do better than the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign source as well (I am having trouble accessing it, but it's at leas off-putting that the site's title is 'Modern American Poetry'. @Albertaont: could you please self-revert while discussion is ongoing? Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, Robjwev reverted, and you should have started this discussion before re-adding. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Albertaont: Upon further reading this article the disputed sentence is in the wrong area. This information is located in War's effects on black communities with better wording and references. therefore this sentence needs to be removed since it repetitive information. Robjwev (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pings for Albertaont (because I think Robjwev's ping failed) and Binksternet who recently reverted. I agree with Binksternet's reasoning, SYNTH is a good point, and am just pinging them so they're aware of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. We are here to tell the reader what has been written about this topic, summarizing all the arguments for and against. We are not here to make new arguments using statistics. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Of all enlisted men who died in V'nam, blacks made up 14.1% of the total. This came at a time when they made up 11.0% of the young male population nationwide. If we add officer casualties to enlisted then the black percentage is reduced to 12.5% of all casualties." (American War Library) Please describe why this is WP:OR, we can simply omit the phrase "however" and present as it is stated. Albertaont (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want to use the statistics, write a magazine article or publish a book about your findings. Don't use Wikipedia to argue the topic with your own new ideas derived from statistics.

Ask yourself "is black genocide mentioned in the source?" before citing the source here in this article. If it is not mentioned, you are creating a new connection between the topic and the rest of the world. The new connection is WP:Synthesis, a violation of "No original research".

Original research isn't "bad", it's just not acceptable for Wikipedia. Outside of Wikipedia is where it is cherished and encouraged. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

But it’s not arguing the topic, nor is it original research, the statics and interpretation that total black casualties were largely in proportion to their population share at the time is clearly stated in the sourced New York Times article. Yes, the purpose of this article is not to make new arguments, but nor is it to present the reader with a one sided perspective of things either by just deleting anything that contradicts the theory of ‘black genocide’ . Including these statistics is simply providing a balanced view. 2A00:23C8:268C:8801:714F:5303:83E4:2363 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And I’m sorry, but your suggestion that people should ‘ask themselves if ‘black genocide’ is mentioned anywhere in a source’ before including it, is absurd. Firstly, that is not a Wikipedia rule, and nor is it your place to make it one, but more importantly, somebody that does not believe ‘black genocide’ even exists, is of course, not likely to use that term in their work, meaning only facts and sources that specifically support this idea can be used. It would be like trying to say the earth is flat, and therefore only sources that specifically mention ‘flat earth’ can be used in discussion about it.2A00:23C8:268C:8801:714F:5303:83E4:2363 (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The "absurd" suggestion is true; Binksternet already pointed you toward toward WP:SYNTH, part of WP:OR. Your point about bias in the sources is probably untrue, as people who don't believe in concepts frequently write works to deconstruct or debunk those concepts. The 'flat earth' example is revealing: many sources do in fact mention 'flat earth' so that they can debunk the idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

User Binksternet. Please explain your issue with the edits you have reverted. The one on Cardinal O'Boyle is properly sourced along with the mention of Lempkin, as well the final one under abortion which is simply a piece by the WHO on abortion with no bearing on African Americans in the US. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Bias introduced

In this group of edits, 3Kingdoms misrepresented sources to introduce bias.

The first example is the addition of a dismissal of the whole topic by Raphael Lemkin. Lemkin was only talking about the petition to the United Nations in 1951, not black genocide as asserted in the 1960s and beyond. The topic of black genocide has been discussed and expanded for decades beyond Lemkin's dismissal, making it irrelevant.

The second example is the insertion of Cardinal Boyle. Boyle is not represented so positively in Jet magazine who pointed out that Boyle's damning of abortion as black genocide was made in Washington, D.C., where the population was 71% black but only 21% of the blacks were getting abortions. Jet's calculation cuts DC abortions out of the black genocide because of this disparity.[19] This shows a cherry-picking of sources.

The third example is the removal of the very relevant paragraph about abortion choices, how blacks choose abortion on purpose because of all those reasons, rather than having abortion forced upon them. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no cut off point. Lemkin gave his view, your objection is irrelevant. Second Cardinal O'Boyle's statement was not given as fact, but his personal view. Given his status in the Civil Rights Movement his opinion on this area can be included. Your mention of Jet magazine is not relevant. Finally no this page is not about abortion of why people get abortion, so having a pointless statement by the WHO not addressing abortion or black Americans has no reason to be here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Lemkin's comment, giving it a larger meaning that it does not have.

The Boyle bit is an example of you cherry-picking your sources to introduce bias.

A major portion of the article is about why black people get abortions. The impetus for this article was nonsense such as this, the gross politicization of LBJ's simple plan to improve the lives of poor people by providing them with abortion assistance if needed. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No he said there was no genocide in the US against black people in the 1940s, his major points have not changed regardless of current views. There is no cherrypicking, I gave his view. Do you think its Cherry-picking to include Angela Davis's view against birth control being genocide? "the gross politicization of LBJ's simple plan to improve the lives of poor people by providing them with abortion assistance if needed." This is pretty clear POV on your part and incorrect because the Johnson admin did not push abortion, but birth control. Your reverts seem pretty clearly to be based around your personal view which is not how the site works. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

So it's my personal views, not yours, that are the problem. That's funny... I have tried to bring every kind of viewpoint into this article from every relevant source.

Lemkin had no idea whatsoever about the issue of abortion being part of black genocide. The authors of We Charge Genocide were railing against "the willful creation of conditions making for premature death, poverty and disease" along with the lynching and murder of blacks. Lemkin was responding to that, not the disproportionate black soldier deaths in Vietnam, or the forced sterilizations of blacks, or the access to birth control offered to poor people including blacks. Once again, you are misrepresenting Lemkin. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This page is not about abortion, it is only a small part of this. What has been my personal views, I posted statements from people, but okay. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Binksternet, that does appear to be misrepresentation although I don’t think we should automatically attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to a lack of competence. Perhaps their own POV on abortion overwhelms their ability to be logical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet and Horse Eye Back, above. There seems to be some (apparently good faith) rationalization that strikes me as going a bit beyond the sources. Cheers, everyone, and have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"easily be attributed to a lack of competence. Perhaps their own POV on abortion overwhelms their ability to be logical." What is illogical about my additions? 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• There is an essential problem with this sentence: "The claim of genocide against African Americans was dismissed by Raphael Lemkin" When did he dismiss it? The historical context matters. Dimadick (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kerri750.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AHall08.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Whitman and the "law of history"

This appears to be a racist idea from post-Civil War Social Darwinism that was fairly widespread, and not particular to Whitman. I don't think it quite fits in this article, at least in the slavery section, as it arose after slavery; it was a racist "prediction" of what would happen to African Americans after slavery.--Pharos (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It wasn't Whitman's idea, nor was he a prominent advocate of the idea. I haven't seen an author compare the idea to Black genocide. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea was added in October 2020 by AHall08, as taken from the Walter Johnson book. Perhaps AHall08 can comment on how Whitman is chosen to represent the idea, and how it relates to Black genocide. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Cardinal O'Boyle

The previous section on this is a little too old and includes a lot of different topics, so let's start a new one. Do people object to including this line "After Washington D.C. legalized elective abortion in 1972, Cardinal Patrick O'Boyle, who gave the invocation at the March on Washington, said "no one can ignore the implications of genocide." This is not intended as a statement of fact, but an opinion by someone of note who claimed a connection between the two topics regardless of the merit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other sources that give weight to O'Boyle's view? Williams gives him a passing mention, and qualifies it with backlash from the community. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Doing a quick glance, there is an article from the New York Times at the time. [20]3Kingdoms (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No mention of genocide. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, too quick a glance, plus dealing with paywalls.3Kingdoms (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Source for Williams remark was William Willoughby. “O’Boyle Charges Genocide.” Washington Evening Star-News, 7 August 1972. [Google Scholar] 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Also in his biography "Steadfast in the Faith: The Life of Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle" on page 391-392. It mentions the genocide remarks and the stir it caused in the media for him saying it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 26 October 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Black genocide → Black genocide in the United States – Only discusses the U.S. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Is there another black genocide somewhere else? What is getting confused with this topic? What is ambiguous? Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per the hatnotes on this article, "black genocide" could easily refer to certain policies of European rule in Africa, or events such as the Herero and Namaqua genocide. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  A google search also indicates that its sometimes attached to events in Australia and New Zealand as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  If the concepts currently do not exist on Wikipedia, the current title is de facto unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  To elaborate, moving this article to "Black genocide in the United States" creates the unhelpful/confusing situation where there is a redirect, which will be named "Black genocide" redirecting to a title with a more precise scope. This is misleading for readers, considering that some may believe that if there is an article sitting at "Black genocide in the United States", then there should also be an article at "Black genocide" explaining the concept in more of a general sense. In other words, without a general concept article that can be placed at the current title, and/or the article at the current title being more in-depth and not US-centric, moving the article as proposed can result in the aforementioned issues (In other words, this akin to Wikipedia saying "this is all we currently have on the subject"); however, in the article's current state, it can be appropriate to create a redirect at Black genocide in the United States targeting the article at the current title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think its a stretch to call that misleading to readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree due to the potential WP:SURPRISE factor due to all I just said. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that you disagree, I just don't see a big surprise there. No more so than you could argue already exists with the status quo that is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm not comprehending what you mean by the second sentence. Either way, I believe a while ago, I argued this point previously with another move request, and the page remained at the ambiguous title; if I can find the discussion, I'll post it here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISE. The current title is ambiguous. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE unless the phrase "Black genocide" is determined to be ambiguous with other existing topics on Wikipedia (and this can somehow be converted into its own article in sort of a WP:DABCONCEPT fashion). At present, the claim is that the concept of "Black genocide" is exclusive to the United States, thus adding to the current title in the proposed manner is over-precision. In fact, the better idea at present would probably be to redirect the requested new title to the current title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support with the note that both supporters and detractors are citing precision but the page already has hatnotes for a few historical events that can be characterized as genocides of black people and this page is US-centric in scope. Killuminator (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, no excuse for that sort of US-centrism. Current title is currently ambiguous, the new title is more precise and has no significant downsides that I can identify besides "over-precision" (nor would I note has anyone opposed named any others) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The current title does not accurately reflect the subject of the article, which is explicitly limited to the United States. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support multiple genocides in Africa, perpetrated by European colonial masters. Clearly this is US-based If it was PRECISE it wouldn't need a hatnote -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom., others, and WP:PRECISE. This is clearly a U.S.-based article, and should be titled accordingly. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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