critical view[edit]

70.22.49.218 :"Critics charge that black nationalism denies multi-racial unity and is therefore its own brand of racism disguised as self-determination"

Any nationalist, be him black / white / yellow / green will deny multi-racial unity, however this still is nationalism, racism / supermacy starts at point when one considers his race / nation to be superior despite scientific facts and therefore eligible of benefits, resorces and living space at expense of another nation / race.

your 'critical view' is inane and retarded. black nationalism has nothing to do with supposed superiority, rather combating it.

...right, just like white nationalism has nothing to do with supposed superiority. - Quirk 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Black Nationalism has to be analyzed as a response to imperialism, colonialism, segregation, apartheid, etc. and other activities of the Western (European Age's of Exploration and Imerialism in addition to thei non-democratic economic and governmental functionings in other countrys. Black Nationalism is essentially a response by peoples classifed as black (race theory) by the framers of the modern world toward a series of unilateral European (Including pre-1950's America due to its laws impeding many non-whites from voting) foreign policies.Aminatam 14:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That view by Aminatam is problematic for numerous reasons. One, saying that "lack Nationalism has to be analyzed as a response to (all these pejoratives associated with whiteness") then if race is a social construct, it means that modern black nationalism can only be defined by its opposition to white people and/or white nationalism (and the numerous pejoratives associated with white people), which in turn means that if white nationalism is ultimately a negative construction, so is black nationalism. You can't have your cake and eat it too, it comes across as taking one thing and using it to your advantage for similar aims. Two, it also means that if white people and whiteness is a construction, so is blackness and black people and the various pejoratives associated with black people and blackness are up for debate. Two, I also think that the issue of democracy is more finely tuned than you would like to admit and refers more to pan Arabic and pan African socialism, especially given that the links between Western civilisation and democracy are incredibly well founded and evidenced. Three, black nationalism is as unilateral and regressive as white nationalism is by it's very nature: it is exclusionary (even if you consider it reactionary) and by its very definition requires nationhood and foreign policy (as you say) based purely on race. Basically, when you still have political situations like Liberia and political examples like Zambia, you can't really complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.33.73 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If one is a nationalist, it does not mean that he/she is against other cultures/races. They just love their culture more than the others... Ko Soi IX 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very much agreed. Should be applied to all races across the board in order for truly equal policies and conditions to be achieved. Anything else is purely regressive. That's why I usually ignore any "two wrongs make a right" justifications by ignored any words that follow the word "Historically....." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.33.73 (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming the Criticism Section[edit]

The section which is currently titled "A White Supremacist View" implies that all criticism of Black Nationalism necessarily stems from a white supremacist perspective, while the section itself cites primarily Black sources. I'll wait a bit to see if any objections come up, otherwise I'm renaming the section. Crocodilicus 01:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow... Was it actually named that? Talk about POV. I notice that it's currently named "A critical view", perhaps to fit the usual formatting of wikipedia articles it could be named "Criticism". edit: I am changing it myself for now. 64.230.87.17 (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. The complicated truth is that "white guilt" plays a big part in allowing this to go on while black supremacists, like all genocidal sociopaths feel no such restrictions; they are unconcerned with reason or justice. Black America, all of the civilized world, will be bogged down by this racist madness as long as we allow it a voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.51.156 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps a comparison is in order[edit]

Why don't some of the more objective souls here take a gander at the WNism and BNism articles with comparison in mind? The WNism article begins with a criticism veiled as a defense, while the BNism article doesn't become critical until a small paragraph at the very end.

Does this strike anyone but me as unfair? The BNism article starts with history and description, while the WNism article starts with "'no no, I promise WNism isn't supremacy, honest' said the evil WN".


What is glaringly ommited from the above discussion is the fact that the developed political philosophy of Huey Newton's Black panthers was explicity against Nationalism of any form. Newton rejected the early Black Nationalist view of the Party and sought to promote a system of Intercommunalism, a philosophy of self-determination which could, he argued, eventually help humanity work through all of its internal contradictions and disputes and achieve unity by the rejection of all abstract barriers, particularly race. This relied heavily on both Kantian and Judeo-Christian ethics. The bigotry and inherent ideological shortfallings of much Black Nationalist thoguth should be readily apparent to most interested observers, as should the gulf between Black nationalism and the mature Black Panthers.


Related topics[edit]

These could be include ... seems to have been cut out ... JDR 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Species" reference[edit]

I removed the reference to "species" in the phrase, "The term 'race', though held by many geneticists to be of little scientific value (the proper term in such a context being species). . ." because I don't think it's an accurate in this context. Species is not the proper term used in place of race, because in this context, race is used to refer to a subgroup within a species rather than a synonym for species. Thus, the term "race" is criticized because it is a psuedo-scientific conception. Species isn't a proper alternative for race in that context, because the problem is the idea, not the terminology. --JamesAM 18:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Frantz Fanon[edit]

Hey there, really don't know if i'm doing this right, and i don't want to head in there in case I muck it up, but i've noticed a bit of an error in the Frantz Fanon bit.. "A Dying Colonialism" is merely a translation of "L’An Cinq de la Révolution Algérienne", but the paragraph here makes it sound as though they're twow completely different texts.. 134.36.18.105 10:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll probably never see this, considering this edit was nearly a year ago, but next time (I'm guessing the article has been corrected? . . .) go ahead, do the edit yourself. You couldn't muck it up too badly,? And if something gets messed, there are millions to change it back. Millancad 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frantz Fanon was a Communist and a Pan-Africanist, he was not a Black Nationalist. I don't think the Uhuru movement can be considered Nationalist as they (or the APSP, I'm unsure) admit White people into membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Do for self (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't the mere fact that Wikipedia made seprate articles for Black Nationalism and White Nationalism make Wikipedia racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.58.186 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Bizzurp talking: I don't think that this article should be merged with African Nationalism. They are two distinct topics. Black Nationalism has more to do with the American Civil Rights Movement, than does African Nationalism. Black Nationalism was created when African descendants living in the United States were not comfortable and able to fully engage in the dominantly-white society during the civil rights era, so they became their own Nationalists and took pride in their own communities. But African Nationalism, after reading the article, is a separate concept all on its own. It's about the unification of African people who are living IN Africa. Just because "Black" and "African" are used interchangeably in the United States, that doesn't mean that the two terms have the same meaning. One is about a jurisdiction, and one is about a demographic. There is clear value in not combining the two articles. They are different concepts. Bizzurp (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I think that while the information on the wikipage comes from reliable scholarly journals or novel, it is important to note that several of the sources are 10 to 20 years old. I think that as a whole it can be updated to include more recent changes of what is occurring with Black Nationalism. Also, Marcus Garvey greatly influenced the Black Nationalism organization in the 20th century. The page did not include Farrad Muhammad, who also played an important role in the organization of Black Nationalism with the creation of the Nation of Islam. This would be great information to add and possibly could lead to more ideas being discussed on the page. Jantzenh (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, You make the claim that critics "that most black nationalist groups promote racial violence" perhaps citing which organizations and people have made this assertion will add the the credibility of this statement. Also, the section on Marcus Garvey is missing critical information about his views on Black Nationalism such as establishing the Black Star Line to encourage trade between people in Africa and the U.S., Caribbean and South and Central America.Naomiis (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what does it mean to be black[edit]

I think this article is well written there is so much more that can be link to it to represent black popular culture and their history Yivi29 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)yivi29Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope[edit]

This article is outside my scope of expertise, but it seems to me that it is in strong need of re-focusing - as well as re-structuring. The article seems to include all sorts of people whose claim to be "black nationalists" is pretty tenuous - the sections on Prince Hall, the Free African Society and African Episcopal Church are all interesting in their own right, but have no WP:RS to support their link to "black nationalism" as an ideology. On the other hand, there are some important gaps - Garvey clearly needs more space, as does the Back-to-Africa movement which has clear ideological links.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second the previous comment. It is confusing that 20th century organizations like the Nation of Islam and the NAACP come before the 20th century heading. It is unclear why Elijah Muhammad needs his own section, since he is already mentioned in the Nation of Islam section. And if we're going to keep the NAACP in this article, that section should at least make some mention of Black Nationalism and how it has influenced the organization. Womanbyday (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Nationalism vs Black Supremacy[edit]

May it be a good idea to say in the wikiarticle which is the difference. Sirslayercort (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a statement without any justification. I have added a citation needed for this. I also think for the article to be legitimate, they must be a comparison between white nationalism and black nationalism as similar arguments are made by white nationalists. The article overall seems to just implicitly accept black nationalism as valid in the first paragraph and beyond the typical "critics" section, there is no real justification of this point beyond a Britannica article (ironic) which is an editor statement with no evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.33.73 (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needed inclusion[edit]

There is nothing on Liberia and very little about from the 1800s until the Nation of Islam. It seems there are some large sections missing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NAACP?[edit]

I fail to see how the NAACP is relevant to this article at all. The organisation doesn't promote black nationalism, and in fact supports the integration black nationalism is stated to oppose in the article's lead. The information in the section is accurate, but isn't really relevant to the article's subject in any way. I'm going to remove it for now, but if someone can come up with a source that actually states how the NAACP is a proponent of or influential to black nationalism, they can feel free to rewrite it. (I wouldn't recommend a revert, as the text probably wouldn't pass a plagiarism test when compared to its rather low-quality source.) 73.65.146.100 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, good call. This was added May 2017, likely as part of a student editing assignment. The attached source says nothing about nationalism. Even if it did, Chegg doesn't appear to be a reliable source. That editor made several large additions at that time, and the WP:COPYVIO problems suggest that these will all need to be carefully checked, unfortunately. Grayfell (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close parphrase[edit]

Per above, much of the content added last year seems to have been only minimally rephrased from the sources, some of which were not even reliable. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. I do not have the time to fix this now, but if anybody else wants to tackle this before I get a chance, go for it! Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black nationalism and SPLC source[edit]

73.71.251.64 keeps trying to remove from the Nation of Islam section parts of the current quote from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/nation-islam on the basis of https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/10/08/equity-through-accuracy-changes-our-hate-map from 8 October, and calling warnings "threats", "lame", and harrassment". I and Serols think this is wrong. Background is at User talk:Jeff G.#Black nationalism and SPLC source, User talk:73.71.251.64, and User talk:Serols/Archive 18#Black nationalism.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I refer you to WP:RS AGE: "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." The SPLC is distancing itself from the way that it has described black nationalism in the past. It is under no obligation to memory-hole the old sources before its new position is reflected here. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'black' vs 'Black'[edit]

This page appears to follow the AP Stylebook, while the Black people page appears to follow the ASA Style Guide. An effort should be made to ensure important pages within this subject follow the same style. In my opinion, the ASA style is preferred since neither 'black' nor 'white' carry the same meaning as 'Asia' does for the term 'Asian'. --Tsumugii (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tsumugii I hadn't known we were closely affiliated with the ASA. These changes must be rolled out immediately.
Kidding aside, Wikipedia MOS does touch on this. MOS:RACECAPS. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to point out that the article on white nationalism does not capitalize white in this sense. There should be a consistent standard; either capitalize both or neither. Part of the AP's reasoning for capitalizing black is straight up laughable: "AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa.", while simultaneously "White people generally do not share the same history and culture...". To say black Americans would, on average, have significantly more of a shared cultural background with an African than say, a white American to a European, and that this warrants capitalizing "black" and not "white", is absurd. I don't think this is the standard Wikipedia should follow. MeanMotherJr (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rose tinted glasses for black nationalism[edit]

White nationalisms page inserts presuppositions about theoretical individuals' motivations, desires, and ideologies. Black nationalisms page, instead of making the same presuppositions, is described in the most charitable way and any controversial dimensions of the ideology are instead separated from the page altogether and lumped into entirely different concepts like black supremacy.

This seems to be an instance of apologist astroturfing that is rather comical when you look at the two articles side by side. They are the exact same concepts, the only difference being race. If wikipedia is to be taken as a reliable source of information and not a pop-culture infused pseudo-atlas of politically motivated disparities that set entirely different definitions based solely on the race of the individual who holds the concept in belief, there should be some degree of consistency.

White nationalism is almost immediately connected to entirely separate theories like an ethno state, while black nationalism, conversely, precludes any such attributions by informing the reader that any controversial or dangerous branching ideologies are separate and therefore not part of nationalism.

The concepts are the same, it doesn't matter what race the individual who holds the belief is. Unless wikipedia isnt actually providing consistent scientifically backed definitions, and instead is drawing on pop-culture perceptions and politically-motivated interpretations and opinion. 76.171.171.176 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw in a Wikipedia reply, maybe to my own question or maybe to someone else's, that a News site source should be used rather than the source of the original Bill for a certain Law or something like that. To me, that does not make much sense, especially as the person that wrote that reply suggested CNN/The Guardian, or another one of those quite culturally-left NEWS agencies. The types of NEWS sites that will write related articles in a heavily biased view that skews the fact of the matter. It then used the opinion of the article rather than the text of the bill.
To me, it seems observable of a considerate bias in Wikipedia reporting.
This can also be seen in WN/BN pages, the Bias.
---
I am pretty sure the bill in question came from Colorado and was a number like "103b", and was about increasing punishments for child sex offenders, and the bill was shot down for being supposedly "targeted towards transsexuals", which was quoted in the article and then used by Wikipedia. Having read the bill myself, it did not appear that way at all, and the bill appeared to be purely about punishing CSA harder. 110.22.251.226 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distinguishing Black Nationalism/Separatism[edit]

> They are in fact very different philosophies: Black separatism is the pursuit of a "Black-only state";[5][6] and Black supremacism has been defined as the belief that Black people are superior to non-Blacks and should dominate them.

This fails to establish a difference between Black Nationalism (subject matter) and Black Separatism. I don't know what this difference would be, but if there is one, I feel that it would be important to enunciate, so that readers don't walk away with an inaccurate conception of separatism vs. nationalism. I'm not well read on this subject but I hope someone can clarify here, given the article's importance. Theodore Christopher (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Nationalism as I understand it is the ideology of forming a Black-only nation, like Zionism. Black nationalism is heavily entwined with Black-supremacy, just as White nationalism is entwined with White supremacy.
Black separatism as I understand is the separation of blacks to form its own nation. Black separatism inherently requires Black-nationalism, unless it is automatically formed by Asian and White Separatism/Nationalism movements that by nature then exclude blacks.
(note that the usage of capital letter in this comment is used in movements, but not race, and lowercase is used in race but not capital) 110.22.251.226 (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories