Talk:Black supremacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

	This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-Importance within African diaspora.

	This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents 1 First sentence 1.1 how to fix this article 1.2 Consensus 2 How to improve article 3 Black Hebrew Israelites 4 first section 5 George Lincoln Rockwell photo 6 NOI image 7 Black Supremacy in Academia 8 Other Groups 9 (1959) Black Supremacy Cult in the U.S. U.S. News & World Report.

[edit] First sentence

To SenseOnes, I'm confused as to what the issue is for you as to why you want to term "racist" to be not only at the end of the opening sentence but also at the beginning. There is no need for the first sentence of the black supremacy article to read exactly like the first sentence of the white supremacy article since they are not the same thing. Here are the two different versions we have so we can discuss them and figure out what works best.

Your version. "Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often thought of in connection with anti-white racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry towards non-black people."

My version. "Black supremacy is an ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often thought of in connection with anti-white racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry towards non-black people."

I have no problem mentioning the fact that black supremacy is racist in the first sentence (indeed I would have a problem if we did not do that) and my version does that as yours does. Unlike white supremacy (which is arguably a more capacious form of racism historically speaking), black supremacy is usually thought of primarily in terms of anti-white racism and anti-Semitism--facts which I feel we should mention from the outset. If we use your version and stick the word racist in the beginning of the sentence we are essentially saying that black supremacy is racist two times, and quite frankly the phrase "racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often thought of in connection with anti-white racism" is just not well written as it is repetitive. It is for this reason that I think we should stick to my version. It's hardly a whitewash (no pun intended) as the sentence clearly lays out the racist nature of black supremacy with the phrase "anti-white racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry towards non-black people." Your version just seems like overkill, and there is nothing which forces us to model the first sentence here on the first sentence of the white supremacy article (quite frankly, though I think white supremacy is incredibly racist, I don't know if I approve of having that word in the first sentence--maybe changing the second sentence to "political ideology rooted in racism" would be better).

If you have an alternate proposal for the first sentence of this article please discuss it here so we can avoid other reversions. Also bear in mind that this is purely a stylistic (i.e. not political) question for me--I simply think your sentence does not read well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I want to standardize the black & white supremacy articles, is because im tired of double standards in this area. For me it is a matter of bettering the quality of wikipedia. Usually the black supremacy article DID have "racist" in the beggining.

Now, you hinted about white supremacy being worse (lets face it, thats what you said) then black supremacy. This seems for me to imply the real reason you want this to be this way. I probably wont do anything more now, because im no vandal, but I want you to consider trying to make the black supremacy article with same standards as the white supremacy.

Now, im not talking about how many have died due to which ideology here, but black supremacy is often less seperatistic and more pro-violent and aggressive in nature then white supremacy, a good example is Kamau Kambon who not only advocated the inferiority of whites, the need for seperation but also the need for killing all whites in the world, yes racial genocide, he said that on C-Span, thats right, government television. Thats extremely rare for even white nationalists, and there was total media silence about it for a year and a half, when Hannity & Colmes took it up. What im trying to say, is just that you have to standardize these articles so that the message/point that both ideologies are considered SIMILARLY controversial and unacceptable is impossible to miss.

Because right now, black supremacy normally isnt taken seriously by the media. But it is real, its here & growing and we need to stop it and the only way to stop it is at least mention that its racist. Now I know things have gotten better, even on wikipedia, and this is mostly a matter of exact articulation, but its important anyhow. SenseOnes 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of Kamau Kambon (from Wikipedia actually) and find his comments completely disgusting. In the long, historical view (which is what I tend to take on questions like these) white supremacy is, however, absolutely worse than black supremacy. I don't think there is any way to argue with that. There is nothing that even remotely compares with Nazism, or what the Belgians did in the Congo, or apartheid in South Africa, or antebellum slavery and Jim Crow in the United States. Personally I could not find Kambon more repellent/disturbing, but he has not killed, tortured, or generally subjugated millions of people. But all of this is beside the point. Both white and black supremacy are racist--on that we clearly agree--so it is good that we refer to both as such in the opening sentence of both articles. As I said feel free to propose an alternate version for this article that moves the word racist closer to the beginning of the sentence without making the sentence repetitive. Otherwise I think we can leave it how it is, which seems to be your inclination at this point based on your last comment.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and even agree, with the point you're trying to make, Bigtimepeace, but I think you are wording things wrong. White supremacy isn't "worse" than black supremacy. White supremacy has been, historically, more wide-spread than black supremacy. But, in terms of morality, black supremacy is just as bad as white supremacy.

Zigra (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Zigra

Current reversion battling (9/28/07). This needs to stop. Some editors want my version posted above in this section, while others want the version offered by SenseOnes (incidentally that editor has not been involved in this current revert war). I've posted my rationale for the phrase "an ideology" (i.e. not "a racist ideology") above and repeatedly asked editors from the other side, in particular User:Rbaish, to chime in with their thoughts so we can come to some kind of consensus. So far no one has done so. Please do so now. Perhaps we can find a middle group on which all parties can agree. In any case, let's talk about it, and end these silly rv battles, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The white supremacy page says in the first sentence that it IS a racist ideology, This article merely says that it is "often thought of in connection with" racism. There is a big difference. By definition racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. If the white supremacy page says that it is indeed a racist ideology (not simply thought of in connection with) then so must this page. It's pretty clear cut and simple. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in here, but I have to disagree that it is "pretty clear cut and simple." White supremacy and black supremacy are not the same thing--we do not necessarily have to describe one the same way we do the other. This is even more so the case with Black power and White power, which are extremely different. As I said above, I have no particular objection to calling black supremacy "racist" more directly in the beginning of the sentence. I do object to creating a poorly worded sentence where racism is mentioned twice as I also mentioned above. Actually, if I had my druthers, I think the term racism should be taken out of the lead of the white supremacy article as well. As another editor mentioned in an edit summary for this article, the KKK article (obviously about an extremely racist organization) actually is a good model for NPOV writing (for example it says the KKK has "advocated" for certain beliefs like "white supremacy, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, racism..." but does not use these words as adjectives to describe the KKK). This is my preferred option for both the black and white supremacy articles, but I have a feeling regular editors of the white supremacy article would not go for it and I don't really feel like getting into an argument about that.

If some kind of parity between the first sentence of the black and white supremacy articles--i.e. where the term "racist" is front and center--is extremely important to some people I would not stand in the way of that happening, but at least rephrase the opening somehow so it does not refer to "a racist ideology" and "anti-white racism" in the same sentence. It's repetitive and sounds bad, so let's come up with an alternate phrasing if necessary, or just leave it as it is now, or try to make both the white and black supremacy articles more NPOV.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Black Power" and "Black Supremacy" are toooootally different animals. "White Power" and "White Supremacy" are not, which is to say "Black Supremacy" and "White Supremacy" are akin in a racist sense whereas "White Power" (maintaining or reasserting the power of whites over nonwhites in a manner consistent with America's pre-20th-century history) and "Black Power" (a demand for an equitable position in mainstream society denied for centuries) are not. I'm not saying Black Power does not have a racist aspect in some of its proponents, but White Power only has that aspect. There is no usage of White Power that is separate from its racist, American Nazi Party connotations. Ford MF 21:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For someone whose name derives from a British novelist, it seems strange that you think there is no meaningful usage outside America. However, you are, I think essentially right about the central point. Nevertheless, there is a difference between the Byron de la Beckwiths of the past and sone some 'white rights' groups today, who do seems to believe they are discriminated against. This does not alter the fact that black suprematism is racist, while black power movements are not (or not for the most part). Paul B 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how to fix this article

In some kinds of academic discourse it's considered incorrect to use the term "racism" to describe what are essentially racist actions by an oppressed minority. I understand, and even, in certain contexts agree with this. However, I don't see anything wrong with calling Black supremacy racist when were talking about the kind of Black supremacy that explicitly says that non-black people are inferior.

The problem I have with this article and the article on Black Power is that they both, at times, conflate the legitimate, if reactionary, anti-racist, black empowerment movements with cultish and fringe ideas and groups that have little or no currency in the greater US black community. A comparison would be if you equated all people who are pro-life with skin heads. I bet there are a lot of pro-life skin heads, and both groups have a lot of white people in them but they don't really have anything to do with each other. (!)

In order to fix this article and the article on black power we need to realize that there are racist fringe groups, and describe them, and their history and motivation fairly.

I have a few questions:

1. Is every group listed here a "self described" black supremacy group? Or are some of these groups concerned about "black power" (there is a difference!)
2. Do we represent the history of these groups and the racial climate they grew out of fairly?

futurebird 00:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The answers are obviously no and no. The Nation of Islam cannot be represented as simply a "black supremacist" group that believes in "sacrificial killing and ritualistic murder"--sans any caveats as is the case currently in the article--and anyone who thinks it can does not know much about the NOI (I'm no expert, nor partisan of the group, myself). And of course this article is completely lacking in any sense of history or any discussion of power differentials between whites and blacks historically. The article used to be be even more disastrous (with sections arguing that Lauryn Hill and other rappers are black supremacists, as is Congressman Keith Ellison), and I think all we can do at this point is keep out the worst nonsense. I don't see a whole lot of hope for this thing in the near term and maybe not at all, but in a way it's existence might be good as it keeps some of this stuff out of the Black power article which is actually important, even though currently it's also a bit of a disaster.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above for the most part. I personally would term the NOI as black supremacist based on some of their teachings on race, but I agree it doesn't support "sacrificial killing and ritualistic murder," and it certianly doesn't self-identify as a black supremacist group.Yahel Guhan 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

he NOI first came to public notice because of a ritual murder, but it was committed by one individual. Paul B 12:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This article describes "Black supremacy" as the belief that Blacks are superior to other races. This by definition is a racist belief. The American Heritage: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Saying that the belief that Blacks are superior to other races is not racist is utterly wrong and it needs to be changed immediately. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying it is not racist and the article does not say that either. What gives you that impression? My concern is with the wording of the sentence, as I believe I have already explained. Please propose a wording that would work for you and let's discuss it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This (current) wording works for me: "Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often thought of in connection with anti-white racism, antisemitism and bigotry towards anyone not of African ancestry." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I'm getting the sense that you're not reading the talk page comments above very closely. The problem with that sentence (see above when I described this in detail) is that it is repetitive and mentions racism twice which is just unnecessary and not very good writing. I'm wondering if we can find a third version that works for everyone. I think it makes sense to mention specifically that black supremacy is associated with anti-white racism and anti-semitism (as opposed to, say, anti-Japanese racism) in the first sentence. What if we removed the phrase "most often thought of in connection with" and replaced it with something stronger. For example how about something like this:

Black supremacy is an ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people that is usually manifested in anti-white racism, antisemitism and bigotry towards anyone not of African ancestry.

Would that, or something similar, work? I think the point that it is racist comes through loud and clear there but it avoids using the word racist two times in one sentence. If you have another proposal I'd be happy to consider it--I'm really just interested in ending the rv wars here. I would note that Rbaish has again added in the "a racist ideology" term though he (again) refuses to discuss it here at all. I won't revert him but will instead discuss the situation here on talk, but I will note that this is par for the course with this user, who is very interested in pushing his POV but not interested (apparently) in talking about it here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is usually manifested in bigotry towards anyone not of African ancestry.

That fixes the problem of repeating the "racism" yet still makes it clear that it's a racist ideology. It also removes the details of which specific races and generalizes it to all races not of African ancestry. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds doable to me, though personally I think it is good to mention that the bigotry is directed against whites. This is clearly the case, and indeed probably some forms of black supremacy would not have any problem with other non-white persons who are not "black." The content of the article makes clear that most of these groups have a problem with whites, and this also speaks to the fact that "black supremacy" usually comes out of societies which are white dominated but with an oppressed group of blacks (a point which should be stressed in the article, but I'll leave that to the side). So how about this:

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is usually manifested in bigotry towards persons who are not of African ancestry, particularly members of the white race.

I would be okay with that, though it might be good to add a sentence about anti-semitism afterward. We should also probably adjust the second paragraph, which mentions racism yet again. I still think that both this and the white supremacy article would ideally avoid the label "racist ideology" in favor of a more NPOV construction, but I don't see that on the horizon so I'm fine with the above as a stop-gap measure to end further edit warring. If a couple of other folks are okay with it I think we should go ahead and insert it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would object to this because of clear NPOV construction. I think the old construction is much more neutral and much better written. I fail to see the logic that black supremacy msut have the 5th word be "racist" just because the 5th word of the white supremacy article is "racist." The mistake of this is that white and black supremacy are different. It would be inproper to havee the two articles be exactly the same with the words "white" and "black" switched. My second issue is the new version ignores antisemitism, which is equally as much a characteristic of black supremacy as much as anti-white racism is. I think a better solution would be to phraise it as follows:

Black supremacy is an ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often characterized with anti-white racism, antisemitism and bigotry towards anyone not of African ancestry.

I think the white supremacy is generally more associated with racism than black supremacy, as there are no forms of white supremacy (as far as I am aware) which cannot be termed "racist." Most forms of black supremacy are "racsit," but not all forms are. Many things associated with black supremacy are not in fact racist per se. That said, racism is a prevelant characteristic of black supremacy in most cases, but it isn't cut and dry.Yahel Guhan 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

By definition "Black Supremacy" is racist. Any belief that holds blacks superior than other races is racism, by definition of the word "racism". If an ideology does not hold blacks superior to other races then it's not Black Supremacy. Moreover, antisemitism is racism. Your version makes it only appear as if prejudice against whites is racism but Antisemitism is different. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

by definition according to what/who? Second, not all groups labeled black supremacist technically hold blacks to be superior per se. Second, all black racist organizations do not believe blacks are superior, but are still called black supremacist groups. Some just want to even out the playing field, and do so through racist means. And second, antisemitism is different, Jews are a race, ethnic group, and a religion. Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews as a race, as a religion, and as an ethnic group, so no; Antisemitism in itself is not just a form of racism. Blacks and whites are just a race. Yahel Guhan 20:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's baloney. The word "supremacism" means an idelogy of superiority. If a group don't "hold blacks to be superior per se" then they are not supremacists by definition. Anti-Semitism is rather beside the point, but it is not used to refer to any disagreement with or objection to Judaism. Otherwise every non-Jew would by definition be anti-Semitic. Paul B 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No. That depends on what the sources state. If what you say is true, that black supremacist groups have to hold blacks superior, than the term is greatly overused in our society. As far as our article is concerned, we present what is presented by the sources, so if an organization is characterized as being black surpemacist by the sources, it is black supremacist by wikipedia's definition. The organization may not, however, believe blacks are "superior" to some/all other races even though it has the label of black supremacy. Yahel Guhan 04:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Racist) The American Heritage: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. You say that "all black racist organizations" do not believe that blacks are superior? Then how exactly are they "racist"? Also, Anti-Semitism based on race would be racism. Discrimination against Jews unrelated to culture or religion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For example a black person/group may understand that white people are dominant to them because of racism and/or persecution, in which case they may want to be equal, and act in a racist manner to acheive equilization (i.e randomly killing white people to get revenge for a hate crime against black people). No supremacy here, but racism nontheless.Yahel Guhan 04:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so relevant to the heart of the matter, but according to the Wiki article Antisemitism "is in practice used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group." In other words antisemitism can be about religion. This of course does not mean that "every non-Jew would by definition be anti-Semitic" as Paul suggests, it means that one could be deemed antisemitic if they expressed hatred toward the Jewish religion. But whatever.

I'm wondering if Yahel would consider dropping his objection to the phrasing I proposed and Wikidudeman agreed to above. Mainly because it's not that big of a deal given how many other problems there are with this article. I completely reject any claim that black and white supremacism are the "same thing" or that "racism is racism" and that's all we have to say about it, but it's difficult to argue that black supremacy is not inherently racist (though I agree theoretically there could be exceptions, I just can't think of any). What should be elaborated on is the societal conditions which generally produce black supremacist groups/thought, as these are vastly different from the conditions which produce white supremacy (white supremacy, for example, was the de jure or de facto official ideology of the federal and state governments of the US until basically the 1960s). So there's no reason to make the leads of this and the white supremacy article identical (there's at least as many reasons not to do that), but I also don't see much point in fighting over whether the term racist/racism is the 5th word or the 12th. If we can agree on a sentence we can stop discussing and reverting and just move on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll see; prehaps we should work on the rest of the article first, but for now no. I objected because I have issue with labeling all black supremacy and related concepts a "racist ideology," especially when certian aspects may not be racist. I may drop my objection once the article is fixed. Yahel Guhan 04:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I was the original person to even start this discussion, by requiring some kind of standardization with the definition of racism. I havent checked up on the discussion for a while, but now I'm here nevertheless. I like this version best:

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is usually manifested in bigotry towards persons who are not of African ancestry, particularly members of the white race.

No matter what you try to say or do, you cannot deny the definition of racism: a belief that holds one race to be superior to other races (the simple version), all respected encyclopedias agree on that, "even" wikipedia does. So black supremacy is by definition a racist idelogy. What you associate with the word racist other then the definitive meaning of it is your own business, Wikipedia should not deal with that since the rules clearly state to stick to the facts and a NPOV. SenseOnes 04:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As we have already stated, but you wouldn't know, since you didn't read the discussion, it isn't that simple. Standardization is inappropiate; it is the equivilant to stating both forms are identical when they are not. Yahel Guhan 05:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the discussion, but there is no argumentation for why standardization is inappropriate when it comes to definitive racism. I am not talking about 'two forms', I am talking about the word racism, its meaning and any racial supremacys definitive racist nature. SenseOnes 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

First of all, a small clarification: black supremacy is per definition a racist ideology. Racism: noun 1. belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others, 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination, 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Related forms: Racist, noun, adjective. That is out of the question. The discussion here is whether to include the word racist in the first sentence, which it currently, is not. I agree that it should, because it per definition is a racist ideology, so its the definitive truth, and its a very significantly racist ideology since it matches the exact definition (as all other forms of supremacy) of racism. Very simple. My suggestion:

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is usually manifested in bigotry towards persons who are not of African ancestry, particularly white people and Jews.

White people and jews, because black racists and supremacists often are antisemites, with violently racist anti-white oppinions (example: Kamau Kambon, Khalid Abdul Muhammad). Tell me what you think. SenseOnes 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That one looks good also. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I will wait a day or two to see if any other editors are interested in discussing this, before I do anything. SenseOnes 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like only 1 person disagrees with it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

... usually manifested in bigotry towards ...

Is this the most important part in every case? I don't know if that is true. The goal of many of these groups tends to focus more on puffing up how great black people are rather than hating whites and sometimes Jews. But I'm far from an expert on this, just speaking on the limited reading I've done, I don't think that this works. futurebird 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The article describes Black Supremacy as the belief that Blacks are superior to other races. Regardless of actual "discrimination", Belief that one race is superior to another is Racism by definition. If a group does not believe that Blacks are superior to other races then that group isn't a black supremacist group. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But is the main expression of this bigotry towards others? That is do they spend most of their energy promoting hatred for white people or are they focused on black people most of the time? That is it is usually manifested in praise of the black "race" and calls for retaliation for the perceived wrongs and evils of "whites." ? futurebird 17:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter as far as the definition goes. If they think that blacks are superior to other races then they are racist. Regardless of if they discriminate against those other races or not. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But, we're not talking about racism, here, were talking about "bigotry towards" people, an aspect of racism. And I'm asking if this is what the usual manifestation of "black supremacy" is? Is it the primary activity and purpose of these groups? Or is it one of many purposes? That's why I'm objecting to the way this is worded. futurebird 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it says "usually manifested towards". We could change "usually" to "often" or even "sometimes". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races. It can result in bigotry towards persons who are not of African ancestry, particularly white and Jewish people.

Maybe this???? I don't know. futurebird 17:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"It can result in" sounds like we're talking about a drug or something, not an ideology. How about:

Black Supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is sometimes manifested in bigotry towards persons not of African ancestry, particularly white and Jewish people. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it won't work. I've just been thinking about this sentence for WAY too long. Let's see what the other editors think. futurebird 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much the agreed upon version at this point. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with this. We can tweak little things but I think this is serviceable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. SenseOnes 07:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I liked it too, so where did "racialist" suddenly come from. Racialism completely negates the supremacy aspects of black supremacy. Lofichic 00:53, 18 December 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.56.228 (talk)

This was some undetected vandalism going against consensus. Its corrected now. SenseOnes (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to improve article

1. Please format the references. You can use this tool.

More coming soon. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Progress? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think formatting the references is a rather low priority. The actual content of the article is quite bad--for example casually labeling rastafarianism, Marcus Garvey, and the Nation of Islam as black supremacist with no discussion of the complexity of those individuals and groups--and it would be much more important in my mind to work on the content first, though I for one have no plans to do this any time soon. If you feel the references are a priority feel free to work on them, but some of the references are pretty crappy and would be removed in the future if the article ever received a major facelift. Whether or not anyone will be inclined to work on this thing and improve it is another question--it's a fairly POV driven article as written and might be difficult to move in a more NPOV direction.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a problem, and I think the best solution is outright removial of them from this article. I am sure there is a much better article for the Rastafari movement to be mentioned, so I'm removing that section. Yahel Guhan 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm let's look at the content removed by Yahel Guhan (emphasis added):

The Rastafari movement was originally founded on principles that included a belief in the inherent wickedness of the white race and the superiority of the black race, though these beliefs rapidly evolved into a more universalist approach which accepts converts from all ethnicities.

Calling one race "superior" is clearly supremacist.Bless sins 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to overlook this section (dispite the fact thay you quoted it): "...though these beliefs rapidly evolved into a more universalist approach which accepts converts from all ethnicities" First, notice it is an unsourced claim. Second, the text clearly states that the group changed its beliefs to become more tolerant, as stated in the part right after what you bolded. Yahel Guhan 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Hebrew Israelites

Yahel- That is not a good enough reason to take something down. There is factual evidence that they preach black supremacy. Your declaration that it is not true doesn't cut it. I am not sure whether you are a Hebrew Israelite yourself (noticed the name) but partisanship shouldn't qualify over factual evidence. Raa7 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

you haven't provided a single reliable source which labels them as black supremacist. See my post below. Yahel Guhan 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely have Yahel, you erased them, and I wasn't done with the article. Your partisanship shouldn't interfere with the article. See my post below. Raa7 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The black hebrews are not black supremacists, so they do not belong in this article. Yahel Guhan 02:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To Yahel Guhan- I saw that you removed the Black Hebrew Israelites in the Black Supremacist Group. Although they don't label themselves Black Supremacists, they are widely recognized as this. The preaching of racial superiority by the general leaders and population allow this to qualify as true. I have sourced areas in which this shows to be true, and I will continue to. Unfortunately your removing of my information left me to redo my sources which may take time. I find it important to categorize things by fact and not opinion for the integrity of the site; I also believe the preaching of racial superiority and declarations of Jews and whites being descended from the devil only reiterates this. The fact that the nation of Yahweh derived from The Black Hebrew Israelites ideology also reiterates they both need to be here. I saw that you claimed not all Hebrew Israelite sects are like this. I don't doubt you, but until you provide legitimate sourcing that proves this and my statements otherwise do I think it is necessary or right to alter this, let alone remove the whole thing like you already have done. I would appreciate if you did not remove this information until you have found legitimate sourcing that proves otherwise. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raa7 (talk • contribs)

The group is not recognized as black supremacist. The sources you added only verify that they believe the Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi jews descended from the Khazars. Besides, they view themselves as a religion, and they are are not racists. Only one group is (Nation of Yahweh) which is an offshoot of them. Yahel Guhan 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel I had additional sources that provided evidence of mass preaching of racial superiority and you took them down. Being a religious group or not has nothing to do with one qualifying or not qualifying as a Supremacist group. If you find sources that show not all are, then it can be edited and mentioned that not all are, but it still needs to be mentioned that many are, because it's true. Raa7 02:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

the source you probided to label it as black supremacist was [1], which has two problems. One, it isn't a reliable source. two, the source does not in itself label the group as black supremacist. Thus it violates WP:V. Yahel Guhan 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"In many ways, Black Hebrew Israelite beliefs are a mirror image of the white supremacist Christian Identity religion, which holds that northern Europeans, not Jews, are God's true chosen people. Both see Jews as the spawn of Satan and accuse them of secretly controlling society by Machiavellian string-pulling. Tom Metzger, leader of the White Aryan Resistance, has said, "They're the black counterpart of us." -Site I sourced Maybe you should read the article more consciously. It is more reliable then many of the other sources involved in this article, maybe even more than Wikipedia itself. In research it is much more preferable to find something that ends in .org rather than .com because .org's are non-profit sites. To continue and reiterate, you cannot make an article in an hour, it takes time. In my view, you didn't remove it because of bad sourcing, you removed it because you personally oppose it, and that was your excuse. You should allow more time for an article to be developed before you just completely remove it.Raa7 03:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it reliable? Because you say it is? If other things are not sourced to reliable sources, they should be removed as well. Please read WP:RS, and explain to me how it is reliable? No, an article isn't created in an hour, however when you add a section to an article labeling a non-racist group as "racist" and don't provide reliable sources to make that claim, you should not expect the edit to last long on wikipedia; it will either be removed by those who hold a different POV than yours, or those who think the source is just unreliable and don't have a POV on the issue. As for your .org arguement, .org does not mean reliable, and .com does not mean unreliable. .org means it is an organization, and organizations often have a bias. (see Stormfront (website), http://www.martinlutherking.org/ for examples) I doubt you'd consider these to be relaible sources. http://www.cnn.com/ is a reliable source for news, and that is a .com website. Websites are judged based on their merit, not their address. Yahel Guhan 03:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I said .org's are more desired in the subject of research because it indicates being non-profit. Most publishers and professors for non fiction books and research papers do not accept .com sources simply because there is an absolute partisanship and compromise of the site because the motivation for profit is involved. Secondly, I was preparing more sources, and you immediately erased my article. It is a racist organization at its contemporary core. There may be sects that are not, and if you source that, then it is fine. However, your hasty deleting of my article only implies partisanship to me. I will find more sources to back up this well held verity. If you are going to deny that most Black Hebrew Israelites believe that Ahskenazi, Mizrahi, and Sephardic Jews as impostors and evil, and deny that they call white people "the great deceiver" and "the devil", then prove that most don't. If you found my sources didn't hold up, you should have brought it up in the discussion page and not deleted the whole thing. I will continue to find sources to back up the idea that the majority of Black Hebrew Israelites believe these things. I also mentioned in my article to begin with that this is the general belief not the whole belief. Raa7 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

well thats the problem. You think the whole religion is racist, so you are pushing your POV. To label some organization as racist or black supremacist requires a source that is reliable that calls it racist, especially since their claim to racism is denied by the group, and lacks evidence. Wikipedia articles must present these organizations in a neutral manner. And if it is a general belief, you include the specific sects within the black hebrews that are black supremacist, and not the entire religion. Yahel Guhan 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To chime in on this, the "Black Israelites" are absolutely a "Black Supremacist" group. They claim Biblical "prophecy" predicts that one day Blacks will enslave "the white man". I don't know what the policy is on using Youtube clips, but there are a number of their Times Square "sermons", etc. that illustrate this well. There must be more literature available somewhere. What was wrong with the sources Raa7 already provided? EyePhoenix (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] first section

must specific black supremacy dont like arabs either constitutes many native north africans who are not black,because they think thay have stolen there culture so it should read black africans not all africans are black thats that and i will keep switiching it back to "state black africans"there are large native populations in north africa who are from countries in egypt ,morocco,algeria,libya,and tunisia.who come from no where else in history and theses places have always been there home.and only are called arabs because they speak arabic.--Mikmik2953 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "black" ? futurebird 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A correction. There are no non-blacks indigenous to Egypt. Arabs came to Africa from the east, conquering Egypt in 700 A.D. Get your history right. deeceevoice 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

thats your pov not fact the people in north africa now have been there since the pleistocene--Mikmik2953 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the Maghreb -- not Egypt. deeceevoice 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you answer my question about what you mean by "black" in this context? Who is in charge of defining who is black in the context of an article on black supremacy?futurebird 20:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

when you put african decent you are making an assupmtion that all africans are black which they are not. so unless you put black africa you are generalizeing all africans as black and anybody who as been to north africa has been there knows this i have and i know what i saw and most north africans refer to themselfs as middle eastern because if they say african decent they will be confused with the black africans because of things like the ignorance in the opening statememnt in this article and there is no purpose of this page and i suggest this page be merged with afrocentrism because that is what black supremecy falls under --Mikmik2953 20:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have a problem with your edit, Mikmik. It makes sense to me. Your equation of black supremacy with Afrocentrism, however, is way off-base/completelyoff the wall, but that's another article, another discussion. deeceevoice 04:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Lincoln Rockwell photo

I've been trying to upsize it. It's weirdly undersize in relation to the other photos on the page. Besides you gotta love it. The body language says it all. ;) Anybody got a format fix? I can't get the usual codes to work. (Maybe I'm not doing them in the proper order. Dunno.) deeceevoice 04:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

hows it now? Yahel Guhan 05:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Better. For my money, I love it full size ;) -- but that's clearly too big. Besides, the reader can click it. Thanks. :D deeceevoice 06:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOI image

Image:Savioursday041.jpg I am not sure if the image is fair use for this article, so if it is, please add the fair use rationale. Yahel Guhan 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It says the fair use is for illustration of Nation of Islam in general or specifically Malcolm X's participation in it. That is justified with using it in this context, since the Nation of Islam well-known to be associated with black supremacy, and all we're using it for is to illustrate the Nation of Islam in the article. SenseOnes (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Supremacy in Academia

(Remove again-doesn't represent "Black supremacy" nor is it related to "US politics"--address on TALK before reevrting)

The above edit summary tells me to go here. The subject of this paragraph is a black supremacist, who calls white people 'niggers' and incidentally calls for their genocide. Why is US politics relevant? His infamous speech, and reason for his notability was due to a political speech, given in the US, on CSPAN. That's pretty much US politics. the_undertow ^talk 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I vote for the use of the word politics. Rbaish (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem with that. the_undertow ^talk 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with politics - just because something appears on CSPAN does not make it political - so no we should not use that word. And was Kambon in academia at the time of the speech? If not it makes no sense to call the section that either. Quite frankly I'm not sure this belongs in the article. Obviously Kambon is a black supremacist, but he's just one dude, not the leader of an organization or something like that. Also the Jesse Lee Peterson quote must be removed. It adds nothing to the section, and is simply a dig at civil rights leaders. I'm actually going to remove that now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the more I think about it the more I think this simply does not belong in the article at all. While I assume Kambon could be safely classified as a black supremacist, his actual statement was not really a statement for black supremacy, rather it was a call for genocide (which is far worse obviously). I'm going to remove this again (thus making me the third editor to do so) - please provide a justification for its inclusion rather than simply adding it back in.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Lack of consensus to remove. the_undertow ^talk 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That "ok" was rather cryptic - I have no idea what you mean by that. There are three editors who are arguing this should be removed, and I have provided a rationale for that. You need to provide a rationale for keeping it. I have no idea what the comment in your edit summary ("the quote states that he's representative of this behavior") means so please explain why you think this belongs in the article. Kambon is not a very prominent person, and his statement does not relate directly to black supremacy, so why would we keep it? You can't just say "no consensus to remove" - I don't think there was any consensus to add it in the first place so the fact that it was here for awhile is irrelevant.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were determining consensus right about now. Three editors arguing for removal. Where? Consensus occurs on talk pages. So far, I see you. How many different people have re-added this? You failed to mention that. So actually, I'm really quite fine with leaving this out of the article, until such consensus is in favor of its inclusion. I won't revert your edits. I don't see a consensus here either way, and it's not really vital to the article. the_undertow ^talk 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, obviously we're trying to work out a consensus right now. Boodlesthecat and Yahel Guhan both removed the section from the article (not an "argument" per say - though Boodlesthecat explained why in the edit summary - so maybe I should not have used that word) and so have I. Of course you had added it back, as has Rbaish (and a couple of anons in the same range each with one edit - but I don't put much stock in that for obvious reasons). Rbaish has been on this article for awhile and routinely avoids discussion (the above brief comment being a rare exception), preferring instead to edit war over whether the word "racism" is in the opening sentence (see the talk section above on that issue) and similar matters. To be frank I don't care all that much about that user's view given their history (though if Rbaish is willing to talk things out rather than edit warring I will listen).

I am certainly interested in hearing your view, and am still hoping you can explain why you feel the Kambon stuff should be included. If there's a way we can do it that works better than what we had then I'm open to it. But in the end as you say it's not a huge deal, particularly because this article is rather a mess to begin with.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My first gut reaction was inclusion because it looks like sourced material was being removed with no clear reason - which can be disturbing. Like you, I question motives of editors who attempt to sanitize articles. Upon thought though, singling out this individual as a representative of the whole black supremacy movement isn't really necessary. I'd rather this article focus on the ideology, and not a random player. He's a black supremacist, but his only notability is his speech, so I'd fine with leaving it be, as I reverted my own edit. the_undertow ^talk 03:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included as an example of black supremacy in Academia.Ecojosh (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that he apparently was not an academic at the time of the speech. He was speaking at a conference at a university, but the university itself decried his comments. That's part of why this is not particularly notable—Kambon is just some guy who said some horrific stuff and happened to get covered in the press.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He was an 'academic' at the time of that speech, and he also mentioned that his wife is the president of the "Black Psychologists Association". It was noted then that he was an instructor at a University (which slips my mind at the moment.) He was speaking as guest on CSPan at the time, so he was viewed by someone? as having some academic credibility. I noticed the "Academic" section doesn't exist in the article, but perhaps including it and him is appropriate in describing the scope of this phenomenon. EyePhoenix (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He was an instructor at North Carolina State until 2005 according to his article. I'm not completely sure he was gone by the time of the speech but it seems likely he was. Though the speech took place at Howard University, the event was not sponsored by the school and the school utterly repudiated his comments. His wife's affiliations are irrelevant as she did not make the statement. He is no longer an academic, and his comments didn't really cause a stir in academia, so having a "black supremacy in academia" section over this one comment makes little sense.

More important are the arguments mentioned above. He is not even talking about black supremacy per say, but rather about genocide (he is wikilinked as a see also in that article). He is also not really a notable figure, and in fact is only notable for this one comment. Basically putting this in the article amounts to "and this one guy said all white people should be killed." I don't think that really works. His comments are awful, but that doesn't mean they belong here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, and I suppose without other sources it is difficult to include. However I DO think its important. He is not just "one guy who said all white people should be killed". He was schooled by and belongs to some group or collective ideology who taught and reinforced his beliefs. And this likely exists in "Academia" somewhere. But without more sources on him and where he is coming from, I must agree. Hopefully we can find out more about who and what motivated him. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Groups

Has anyone discussed and considered including the "Counter Racism" movement. There is a book called "The United Independent Code/System/Concept..." by Neely Fuller Jr. His followers promote the idea that African Americans are victims of "White Supremacy" commited by a "white supremacist system" in the U.S. They describe a series of strategies to counter this system. These strategies include the "Maximum Emergency Compensatory Action" which is basically a suicidal/terroristic act in which the "victim" of "white supremacy" must murder a white person and then kill himself. The followers of this group have a number of instructional videos on Youtube. While they argue that "victims" can't be "racist", they marginalize all "white people" as being part of the "System of White Supremacy". Seems to me this qualifies as a "Black Supremacist" group. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We had an article on Neely Fuller Jr. but it was deleted per this discussion. His book was from 1969, and in looking at the deleted article (which isn't very detailed) in doesn't strike me as being particularly black supremacist, probably more in line with the Black Power movement (I'm not sure though). If the book, Fuller, and/or the "Counter Racism" movement have received significant attention in secondary sources and been described as "black supremacist" (we cannot merely apply that label ourselves) then it might well warrant inclusion. We'll need some sources though other than the groups' own works or web page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, hard to believe they voted to delete that article. He is well known to African Americans, and quite controversial (much like Frances Welsing, who does have a Wikipedia article). Either way, its not "Black Power" because it pivots on the notion of victimization, though I think it is a supremacist group because it marginalizes a race of people and promotes suicidal terrorism and should be mentioned here. I will look for some sources which say so. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does he promote "suicidal terrorism?" Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In the "manifesto" I just referenced. Pages 207-233. 'Maximum Emergency Compensatory Action: The swift, efficient, unannounced execution/elimination of one or more racist/white supremacists by an individual non-white person acting openly and alone at a time and place of his or her own choosing, and after commensing such action immediately continues without respite or surrender until he or she is forced to eliminate self rather than be eliminated or captured by others'. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (1959) Black Supremacy Cult in the U.S. U.S. News & World Report.

that seems a little suspect for an important citation (labeling of black supremacy as racist) considering that in 1959 socially accepted views on blacks in the United States were quite different than something from the past few decades, also note that it is not available online and the title indicates that it wasn't NPOV (cult), far from a scientific study. I recommend this should be removed. Thisglad (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)