Talk:Black nationalism

critical view

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlV (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

your 'critical view' is (Personal attack removed). black nationalism has nothing to do with supposed superiority, rather combating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.68.150 (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

...right, just like white nationalism has nothing to do with supposed superiority. - Quirk 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps a comparison is in order

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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.172.37 (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.53.177 (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Frantz Fanon

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

Renaming the Criticism Section

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)

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)

Merge with African nationalism?

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)

Age of sources

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)

Promotion of violence?

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)

'black' vs 'Black'

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)

@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)

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)

Point of clarification: The term Black is often capitalised in this context not because Africans and African Americans have more in common with each other than Europeans and European Americans do, but because African Americans have more in common with other African Americans than other national or ethnic identities.

As this page says, Black Americans are often considered a singular ethnic group, even though they may have historically come from lots of different places, and are treated as such by the society they live in. Note that many Africans living in Africa do not consider themselves Black. That is the difference. They have no Black identity because they have a local ethnic identity instead (Somalian, Nigerian, Kenyan, etc). Lacking that local ethnic identity, Black people in the diaspora have a Black identity instead. This is due to the specific nature of the African Diaspora, where most Black people in America and the Caribbean do not know which African country they historically came from.

Meanwhile, most Irish Americans probably identify with Irishness before whiteness; their Irishness is more central to their identity than their whiteness. They certainly don't see themselves as having a shared culture with the English, for example. Ukrainian Americans probably see themselves as distinct from Russian Americans, and so on. Black Americans usually do have a shared culture that is specific to America, where that culture emerged, and ties them together through blackness rather than a specific African country. Ditto Black Jamaicans.

In this article, since we talk about multiple types of Black identity, I can see an argument for leaving it as is (just like there are multiple native groups, but we would use Native when referring to Native Americans specifically), but I wanted to clarify re the AP article and why capitalising Black and white isn't an equivalence. Lewisguile (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Black versus white nationalism

Thread retitled from "Rose tinted glasses for black nationalism".

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)

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)

The scientifically backed definitions asked for show that the concepts are not, in fact, the same. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not armchair logical analyses. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Opinion Articles are not reliable sources for definitions.

2. Using only the SPLC definition while ignoring how this issue is defined and addressed other organizations, such as the ADL, is so obviously counterproductive it is baffling and embarrassing that their word is being treated as gospel here. It doesn't even explain what fundamentally makes W and B nationalism so different in ideology and insteads skirts around it with "They don't have people in high levels of government (they have) or the WH." Somehow saying calling BN BS is a bad thing is also the same as directing less attention away from WN/WS because the FBI investigates these organizations? How are these things connected or relevant to the topic? The SCLP sources do not explain any further and I believe the bare minimum here would to find a source that actually attempts to go further in depth than this, which these current sources hardly do at all.

This is all just the SCLP. In other areas, you see some 'questionable' sources, to put it mildly, including one that is literally "The SCLP is everything Wrong with Liberalism." Again, another opinion piece barely connected to the subject.

If you have an actual defense of how this section of the Article currently is, give it. If you can't muster anything more than "Uh you're just a debate bro so no" then please don't chime in. BOBTHETOMATO42069 (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The article has over 200 references. So far, you haven't given any RS (or any sources at all?) to contradict what's written. Can you please provide your sources so we can take a look at them? A simple contrast with white nationalism isn't sufficient according to WP policy on uniformity. Lewisguile (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Distinguishing Black Nationalism/Separatism

> 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)

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)

Southern Poverty Law Center Appeal in Introduction

Why is the Southern Poverty Law Center being cited to restrict the definition of white nationalism, a group whose ideology they are opposed to, in an article that goes to great lengths in detailing the diversity within black nationalism? Again, the article is “Black Nationalism,” why are we giving a preferential spot in the opening exposition and summary, of a critical review of white nationalism in the first place? It speaks of anti-intellectualism and politicization on a platform which prides itself on being unbiased and intellectually honest. The article needs to be edited appropriately. Recommend removing SPLC’s “definition” altogether and simply linking the article to white nationalism, which can include their definition, under the “criticism” heading. J.P.Dill (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "to restrict the definition of white nationalism"?

Anyway, the comment is there in the lede because critics of black nationalism say "it is these things, and it is like this", while other groups have said "but it's not like that because..." I read it back to double check for tone and NPOV, and I do think it's okay. Both are very short references for the lede and are expanded upon elsewhere in the article.

As this talk page shows, however, people have asked how black nationalism is different to white nationalism. It seems relevant to include some distinctions even in the lede because of that.

Removing the SPLC section altogether seems unbalanced if we're to keep the various criticisms of black nationalism in. It's relevant to note when someone (or an organisation) mentioned as critiquing something later changes their mind, or you're giving undue weight to the critique alone.

If you have a suggestion for wording the opening differently (and even the SPLC section), I'd be happy to hear it. I'm sure we can find a consensus. Lewisguile (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Liton 103.156.166.4 (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)