Talk:Earnest Sevier Cox

Lead definition

The lead should state who the person biographed is and for what he is known in the definition sentence. Cox is known for his political activism (which was not for the status quo, because he was not only in favor of continued segregation but for "repatriation" of American blacks) and for being a promoter of White Supermacist thought. His activities as an author and preacher and businessman are not what he was known for. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Promote" does not adequately define Cox' political activities, sources describe him as lobbying, and as an activist. That is the language we should use.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are some descriptions from reliable sources on google scholar:

" Earnest Sevier Cox, a self-proclaimed social scientist and pamphleteer who was so convinced that the darker races were inferior to the white race that he championed the notion that all persons of African ancestry in the United States be shipped back to Africa"

"Earnest Sevier Cox, a prominent race theorist,"

"Earnest Sevier Cox, a self-proclaimed explorer and ethnographer"

" a native of Tennessee who settled in Richmond and authored the book, White America (Richmond: White America Society, 1923)"

"Earnest Sevier Cox, a leading racial separatist and proponent of repatriation since the 1920s."

" Like Earnest Sevier Cox, who would become his close friend, Bilbo belongs to both the Radical Racialists and the Scientific Racialists"

" Earnest Sevier Cox, an advocate of repatriating blacks to Africa"

"In a letter to the racist author Earnest Sevier Cox, Carto complained..."

" it was he who urged the prominent Virginia segregationist Earnest Sevier Cox to strike..."

"Earnest Sevier Cox, the Klansman and ardent white supremacist"

"eugenical propagandist Earnest Sevier Cox"User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Repatriation of freed African slaves and their children was not a novel idea. Abraham Lincoln was in favour of it, as were many colonialists before the Civil War, including many planters. Segregation was not a novel idea either, as it was the status quo even prior to the war (African slaves lived in separate cabins, etc.). Cox was indeed known as an author (of books about racial differences, sic). The term "advocate" seems far more neutral and thus more encyclopedic than "activist" to me. I also think his avocation as a Methodist preacher should be included in the lead as it may have influenced his political/theological views, though perhaps one could (hopefully will eventually) add more info about this in the article (where did he preach, etc?). The difficulty here lies in the fact that this man's ideas are strange and unsavoury (to me anyway), and definitely anachronistic. On the one hand, I think this article and the lead should be neutral if we are to remain encyclopedic. On the other hand, anybody can have access to Wikipedia, and I am concerned that young adults for example who may not have been educated sufficiently to understand that this man's ideas are terrible, would read this article and come away being influenced by it. Is there an official Wikipedia policy to prevent this from happening?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether the idea is new is irrelevant. Revolution is not a new idea either. The sources dont describe his ministry and ergo neither does the article. The only policy governing the representation of terrible ideas is WP:V and WP:NPOV which states that we need to describe ideas and people in the way that they are described in mainstream sources. NPOV does not mean that we cannot describe people in ways that may be considered unsavory, rather it means that if mainsream literature describe them in ways that may be considered unsavory, we have to follow that way of describing them. Now, in this case all the sources about COX that I have been able to find describe him as a racist engaged in racist political activism. To some people it is unsavory to call someone a racist, but when it is in fact the case and the sources agree that they were we have no choice. As for not influencing susceptible minds with his unsavory ideas, the only policy is WP:NOTCENSORED, we do not censor the representation of terrible ideas, but describe them in the same light that it is described in reliable sources. The only people we would be helping by not describing Cox as a White Supremacist and a right wing political activist are White supremacists and right wing political activists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I can settle for removing right-wing because it is of course true that racism is not only found on one side of the political spectrum and he could well have been a socialist or at least left-wing on many other issues (and todays left/right axis is different from what it was then when segregation was a platform of the southern democrats). I do not agree with using "advocate" because what he was doing was not only advocating but also engaging exactly in lobbyist activity, working to gain broader support for specific political bills. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Articles of this nature are always going to be tricky. The subject matter is contentious, and it can be hard to maintin a neutral POV when viewing the material through modern eyes. My opinion on the issues that I can see here: 1) The "right wing" comment should be removed unless it can be verified with a direct quote from a clearly unbiased source. If the man was a member of the Republican party, then by all means say that, but trying to ascribe terms like "right wing" to someone born 150 years ago is unlikely to be accurate or helpful to a modern reader. 2) Mention of his work as a preacher seems like it should be included. This person is notable for their views on ethical issues, that they were a clergyman is hardly irrelevant to that. This is even more important if his work as preacher was where he was making his money. For a comparison point, look at articles like Rodney King or Fred Phelps where the occupation of the people involved is noted in the lede even though that is not what they are primarily notable for. 3) I don't think that applying the term lobbbyist is helpful to someone who dies 50 years ago before the term really existed. Calling him a "proponent", "campaigner for" or something similar is just as accurate without being excessively modernist. 4) I tend to agree that "promoted segregation between blacks and whites" is a little clunky. It's not a major issue, but promotion makes it sound like he was trying to encourage change. We wouldn't, for example, refer to his modern equivalent as "promoting a lack of gay marriage". This man was opposing changes to the status quote, not promoting them. I would prefer something along the lines of "He supported racial integration between blacks and whites and opposed integration reform." My writing of the lede would be something along the lines of: "an American Methodist preacher, political activist and white-supremacist. He is best known for his political campaigning in support of racial segregation and his opposition to civil rights reforms that promoted racial integration." Mark Marathon (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no real mention in the sources of him having been actually working as a preacher, he was just educated as one. It is incorrect that he merely supported the status quo, he was actively campaigning for MORE segregation that existed anywhere in the US, and for repatriation laws relocating African Americans to Africa. This is not just a conservative position, but an activist one. I nonetheless think your proposal is fine and I like the wording of "political campaigning" which does fit his actual activities.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:Mark Marathon when he says, "This man was opposing changes to the status quote, not promoting them." Repatriation was the traditional view as was segregation. It seems strange to us now, but that's what people believed before the civil rights movement. This article should not be an activist re-writing of history.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That is simply not true, repatriation was an extreme view, and it had never been put into legislation. That is not defense of the status quo.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It was supported by many planters and even by President Abraham Lincoln and other Unionists. It was the traditional view. The process was started before the war, with planters freeing their slaves and paying for their journey to Liberia. See Isaac Ross (planter) and Mississippi-in-Africa for example. Btw, there were also blacks who agreed with Cox on repatriation, like Peace Movement of Ethiopia.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It was A traditional view not the. So was civil rights so the argument that he was just out to conserve the status quo is spurious.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No, civil rights activism was not the traditional view. It was a novel idea. The traditional view was discrimination through slavery, segregation, repatriation. The status quo was the objectification/dehumanisation of blacks; the new idea was to give them civil rights and treat them as human beings. Similarly, the traditional idea was to repatriate them; the new idea was to assimilate them as American citizens by letting them vote, attend university, get high-paying jobs, etc. That's a historical fact.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure John Brown and the abolitionists will be sad to hear that the ideas they died for in the 19th century were new in the 20th. BArtolome de las Casas was advocating for civil rights for Africans in the 16th century. BOTH ideas have long histories, segregation and Jim Crow was the status quo, but Sevier was working to go further than that. Even in his time that was all round extremely racist, he was an extremist. You should try an read some of the sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Alas, it is my understanding that those very few abolitionists were complete exceptions at the time. Cox's views reflected the status quo and were thus conservative, and widely shared among the population and most Presidents, like Unionist Abraham Lincoln. Thus the article should reflect reality, not turn into a re-writing of history. Mark Marathon seems to agree with me.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Then your understanding of US history is extremely limited. If granting rights to Blacks had been limited to extreme exceptions then blacks would have still been slaves without rights in the 1920s and segregation would not have been limited to the south. If it had been a mainstream view among the entire political establishment to repatriate then Bilbos repatriation bill would have passed. You are being disingenious in the extreme when you refuse to recognize that Cox was in fact striving for social change, just in the opposite direction of what the civil rights movement was. I dont actually believe that you have read any of the many sources that I have used for writing this article. And neither has Mark Marathon.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

1) I don't appreciate your aggressive tone and personal attacks. 2) Accusing anybody who disagrees with you of not reading sources, or being misinformed, is neither constructive nor collegial. You've accused two editors so far. 3) I don't want to repeat myself. The historical norm in the United States was discrimination towards blacks; thank goodness, more civil rights were later granted to them (mostly as late as the 1960s), but that was the novelty and social change.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not collegial, but it was clearly factual. I still dont believe you have read them, but you were apparently able to find the passage where it mentions Garvey much more prominently than the Peace Movement of Ethiopia. But only after accusing me of inserting unsupported material. You started this entire exchange by removing the phrase "white supremacist" stating that "he was only a segregationist" that demonstrated that you had not read any of the sources about Cox, since they all mention this very prominently. I have seen very little to suggest that you have read more at this point. So yes, I am responding to your aggressive an uncollegial behavior in kind. I am quite aware of what the historical norm was, but I have also read enough of the sources to be aware that what Cox was advocating was not the norm at the time, except among a vocal and invested minority of political activists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I have been aggressive or uncollegial at all. Neither was User:Mark Marathon. We just disagreed with you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with Mark Marathon, who by the way also disagreed with you. But you came here with no prior knowledge about the person who is the subject of the article and rewrote the lead to no longer reflect accurately the contents. When this was pointed out you aggressively edit warred to insert your deficient and misleading definition of the topic, all the while still not having read any of the sources. That is a bad way to approach an article if you want other editors to be friendly and kind to you. I have no trouble with people correcting me or rewriting what I write to better fit policies or facts. But I do have a problem with people who rewrite my work without knowing about the topic or even having had the common courtesy to check whether the facts they take offense to are in fact supported by the provided sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting unpleasant. I took the conversation here after you kept reverting editorial changes, but now I'm not sure this is worth it any more. I just ask that this not be a rewriting of history with a false pretence that everyone was an abolitionist and civil rights activist at the time, because that's just not true. Mark Marathon agreed with me that Cox's views were conservative, not engaged in social reforms. As he said, "This man was opposing changes to the status quote, not promoting them."Zigzig20s (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you are feeling it too. Yes that is what Mark Marathon said, but he and you both are contradicted by the sources. Cox consistently campaigned for new and even stricter racial legislation, some of which was passed but not all of which was. If Cox-style repatriation had been the norm in 1930s then the repatriation bill would have passed, and there would be no African Americans in the US today. If a one drop rule of any "non-white" blood had been the norm, then Cox' version of the racial integrity act would have passed (it did not, because the version that passed allowed a portion of native american blood to accomodate the descendants of Pocahontas, who would have been considered black under Cox' version). I am fully end entirely aware that not everyone was a civil rights advocate or abolitionist, but even a cursory reading of the sources would show you that Cox was going far beyond beyond the status quo in an attempt not only to conserve segregation and discrimination but to introduce even stronger measures. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 16 October 2014

Sorry, still unpleasant and apparently pointless. By the way, the lead is redundant. We don't need to say he was a "white supremacist" twice over three lines. Which one would you like to remove?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2014

Weighing back in here against my better judgement. First, let me say that I know noting about Cox beyond what is in this article. I haven't even read the references. So it's very likely that I could be completely wrong about him. However if I am, then that is due to a shortcoming in the article. If Cox did campaign for noticably stricter levels of segregation then that really needs to be added to this article. ATM it reads, IMO, as though he was mostly interested in codifying the social norms into laws in response to social changes. To use the same analogy, present day bills opposing gay marriage are really about codifying what is/was the social reality that gays don't marry, they aren't an attempt to make it harder for gays to marry, they are about making it has hard for them to marry as it has been for the past 2000 years. If this isn't the sort of thing that Cox was doing, if he was proposing changes that would have led to a significant change in the social circumstances of Blacks, then that should be noted.

As a side note, it's worth rembereing that there is never a clear-cut line between being a conservative and an activist, in practice or in time. The person pushing for a more economically liberal society akin to the 19th century is considered a radical Libertatrain activist today, but they are economically conservative. Just 80 years ago they would have been considered strongly conservative both economically and socially. The position of the environmentally active Beatnix of just 50 years ago is now mainstream, and anyone espousing the mainstream environmental viewpoint of 1960 is a radical free marketeer. That's the way the world works. Views shift, "the establishment" pushes against that by seeking to legally entrench what was once taken for granted and the progressives fight back. Everybody on all sides are always striving for social change. This makes it impossible to ever define whether most people are radicals, conservatives, activists, lobbyists and so forth. Just because the concept of the legalistion of marijuana was "a traditional viewpoint" that had been around for a long tome, that doesn't mean that John Lennon was a conservative activist. People who lobby for anti-gay_marriage bills aren't fighting for social change in any meaningful sense regardless of how much effort they put into it. Fighting to legally entrench de facto social norms isn't fighting for social change. The criterion point should be whether the viewpoint was held by the majority. The majority of White Americans in 1920-1940 did not support racial integration. The majority of them did support racial segregation. That doesn't necessarily mean they were all as passionate as Cox, I imagine that most didn't care because segregation was the de factor, and often de jure, reality. Cox wanted it completely codified legally completely, but I see no evidence that his views were anything other than mainstream or that he was fighting for anything other than maintaining the status quo. If he was promoting something that would have changed the on-ground reality of the USA, then we should note this in the article. But at this stage it's not there. Note, this obviously excludes repatriation, which is listed seperately in

As far as repatriation itself, it wasn't a novel idea. It certainly had widespread support amongst both Blacks and Whites. It was looked at many times from the Civil War onwards. It was only ever rejected because there simply weren't enough boats to transport people faster then the population was naturally increasing. There was never any serious White political opposition to it AFAIK, objections were purely practical. So the fact that the bill didn't pass doesn't provide any evidence of the degree of support.

As far as the White Supremacist label, that clearly belongs in both the lede and the article. It's what the man was. In the same way as articles on Zionists mention that they are Zionist in the lede and in the article, and articles on conservationists mention that they are conservationists in both the lede and article. This man is notable as a White Supremacist. It what he most published, who he associated with in his activist activities and the explanation/motivation for his political activities. He wasn't segregationist on the grounds of child psychological welfare or because he believed it would improve the lot of Blacks, as many segregationists were (or at least claimed). He was segregationist because he believed that Whites had created civilisation, and that couldn't be sustained if they intermarried with Blacks. This man was a White Supremacist by any standard definition of the term, and that was the driver behind his political activities. It needs to be mentioned in the lede and it needs to be mentioned in the article in terms of his writings, his influences and his associations.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Right wing

Sources are unequivocal in locating Cox political allegiances on the extreme right wing. Some very good sources stating the opposite would have to be presented for any change to me made to the article in this regards. The notion that fascism is left wing by the way is a minority viewpoint that is only found on what mainstream political scientists would refer to as the extreme right. It is however a discussion that is wholly irrelevant for this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Mussolini called Fascism a movement of the Left, so it is not only the extreme right that think so. 86.148.53.121 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite right. It is hardly a 'fringe' viewpoint to call Fascism a left movement when its inventor regarded it so. Getting back to the article, the left/right distinction is not very useful for a man whose activities go back so far. The segregationists were an important part of the New Deal coalition, for example; only in Trumans time did they start to distance themselves from the segregationists. And the Communists, left by any standard, had nice things to say about shipping Negroes out of white areas, only dropping the idea in the late 1920's.

Better just stick to calling him a white supremacist. 86.176.175.254 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Inline citations for Jackson

The fact that something is "controversial" does not mean that we require specific citations to the same source after each sentence in the "controversial" paragraph. It breaks up the reading flow and is redundant since all of the "controversial" facts can be found on the same page of the same book. The relevant passage of the cited book is by the way accesible on the internet through the snippets in google books and can be ordered through interlibrary loan at any major library. Finally it is in fact irrelevant whether you are able to access the source or not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"The White race has founded all civilizations." - WRONG !

From an European aspect did the earliest known civilization began in Ur, Mesopotamia, in today's Iraq, then followed by Egypt and first thereafter did the whites in Greece became civilized. But India aswell as Eastern Asia - China, Japan and Korea were civilized long before the Greeks. And in America did civilizations emerge without influence of the white man in Mexico aswell as in the Andes. Actually the European civilization was sooner somewhere in the middle of emerged civilizations. We usually call our ten digits "Arabic figures", since the Romans got them from the Arabs. However they were originally invented in India and Sanskrit, then came to the Arabians through the Persians (Today's Iran). The Europeans, possibly affected first by Karthago and far later by the Mongols - which both had attempted to occupy European territory, became however extremely good in conquest of remote areas, from the latest part of the 15th Century until Mussolini's conquest of Abyssinia in 1934, which had been spared colonisation due to the fact that the population already were Christian. But for instance Japan has never become a subject of European conquest. Boeing720 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is not arguing this, it is reporting Coxs statements, that are of course wrong. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly civilization can be found in many places, however discussion should be on how to improve the article. But since you bring up Ethiopia, it was also under imperial rule - by the natives. Abyssinia expanded and conquered its neighbours, declaring the result the Empire of Ethiopia, ruled by an Emperor. It also owned and traded slaves. 86.148.53.121 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)