![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
How anyone can track what's going on on this page is beyond me -- people need to sign their edits/comments with four tildes. Jim62sch 00:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This page links to the disambiguation page Corn, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help me? Thanks. — Pekinensis 19:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I've just clarified link to maize. Peace. deeceevoice 19:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Corn has nothing to do with Africa as its origins are South America, so it is very strange that it is one of the symbols.
I myself am Cherokee and Cado. Virtually every African American I know has Native American ancestry. What? We gotta prove it to u? Don't hold your breath. *x* deeceevoice 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
-- Corn has nothing to do with Africa???? --
You obviously haven't been to Africa. It may have originated in South America, but for decades it has been a dietary staple in much of Africa in much the same way as Potatoes (also South American) are to the Irish and Rice is to Asia. - Cy—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.180.64 ( talk • contribs) .
Maize was introduced to Africa in the 16th and 17th centuries and was readily accepted by African farmers, partly because it was grown and used in a similar way to their traditional crop of grain sorghum. Maize displaced sorghum as the staple grain in all but the drier regions. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.180.64 ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 23 December 2005.
I believe corn is referred to in the bible as well. but the whole thing
about accuracy is laugable since so much in christianity, judaism amd islam is loaded with bad information and myth.
deeceevoice removes links to slate.com discussing kwanzaa, as if it were some kkk offshoot, and even then, a kkk offshoot might still have some facts.
deeceevoice also removes statements that kwanzaa is a race-based holiday. there is little to nothing cultural about kwanzaa. you burn candles, put out some fruit, lay down a mat, etc, none of which have anything to do with african american culture, unless you count the colors on the black nationalist (racist) flag.
Mine is in fact the correct definition. There is an American oracle bead chronicle which contains memory-perfect images of an ancient African volcanic eruption and the utterance 'Kwanzaa'. The holiday started with the discovery of the tiny archeological artifact -- it hasn't been contained and housed in a museum yet. >beadtot@aol.com
Its clear that Karenga is a convicted felon (some combination of kidnapping/torture I believe). What some editors are in essence claiming is that this is less important than his current employer. I don't know what grounds there are for that conclusion, but it is not something that is at all obvious. If yall are having a hard time coming up with convincing arguments, thats probably a good indication that this is fair to include.
Discussion won't go far with the behavior of some editors:
You're an idiot. Who gives a @#U* what you think? (deeceevoice) -- 69.110.47.109 01:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
What's the story on the assertion that the FBI had a hand in the creation of Kwanzaa? There is a column fairly widespread on the net, popular among mainstream political types and the more extreme self-described white nationalists, that claims this. The column is by a famous muckraking political commentator.
I like Kwanzaa, proof anybody can invent a holiday, even convicted felons.
The FBI targeted members of the US, including Karenga, and infiltrated various black community organizations in Los Angeles in order to foster division between them and the very popular Black Panthers. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificapanthers.html
Cobb 14:03, 27 December 2005 (PDT)
In an America in dire need of UNIFICATION, where blacks are being thrust back into the ghetto, back into a depraved culture by hip-hop and other cultural poisons, a holiday to separate one race from another is the last thing we want. How do we expect to combat racism when we're drawing such a clear race line?
Worse yet as already stated, the holiday has no relevance to anything. It celebrates the primitive past. If blacks want something culturally relevant to them they have RAMADAN!
++++++++++++++++ absolute rubbish! you got the nerve to talk about cultural poisons when whites parade around with the confederate flag and look the other way when black folks had their votes stolen in florida and complain about a observance that has nothing to do with whites? its not the separation issues, its the fact that whites dont own or control this holiday that burns you up, deal with it.
Face it yourself - this is not a holiday meant todivide people or to draw a race line. Anyone who wants to celebrate the race neutral qualities that Kwanzaa seeks to focus on, is welcome to do so. Besides - don't you yet understand it? We ALL come from Africa anyways, first of all, and Ramadaan is as culturally African as Christianity is, and as Kwanzaa is for rhar matter. THe point is to celebrate, to contemplate, and to act in ways that are positive and have a positive impact on the individual as well as community. - SL-- 71.250.88.213 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we have a picture of a kinara or a kwanzaa celebration so to give people a visual clue? Also could we somehow tie in the colors of the candles with the 7 Principles and give examples as to what it is meant by them, rather than the definitions? The definitions are fine but there's no examples as to what is meant by them.
I know that I am new here but I would like to be able to contribute to the understanding of Kwanzaa and give people a chance to experience the holiday thru the eyes of a celebrant.
Thank you for your attention.-- hawk eyes 03:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Addedum:
Here is an email sent to me by a "young girl from Ghana". Is this legit? Or is someone trying to start something?
From: Adenike Aderinde <nikeaderinde@yahoo.com>
Received: from [140.180.130.97] by web30504.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:34:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Subject: Kwanzaa
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:34:12 -0800 (PST)
To: hawk.shango@verizon.net
X-Originating-IP: [68.142.200.117]
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-352256089-1135384452=:85173"
Message-id: <20051224003412.85654.qmail@web30504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kM1x2kSEK692hklpTWMP8kf5AP4cEQAGI18o7xnmMwSRiMVdXxxFSAMxvI/YiHhkWoXvzrWN+GWEDXfzAklDdJ7/+/tKnsmaMejp3zioYDHWhPBAmOTMVt90mRCZ3XcVf8zd/TuhZwL6tP2yifCRKDeO8vOy3QyGwE7wMcTg7Ag= ;
Hi, I am a young girl from Ghana, and I saw this email address on your website about Kwanzaa. I read through the site, and somehow got the impression that your site was trying to pass Kwanzaa off as a ceremony of considerable significance, not only in the African American community, but also in modern, present day Africa (e.g. the list of countries like Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, etc). As a well travelled African, I know Kwanzaa is of no significance on the continent, and Africans today (as opposed to African Americans) do not celebrate this "festival", or "holiday". Should the information on your website not reflect the present day reality? I find it offensive, insulting and downright rude to read websites like yours, depicting Kwanzaa as an African holiday. Please take the time to change the incorrect information on your website. Cheers and Happy Holidays, Aderinde.
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
Now I have nothing against people trying to get some facts straight but this is really nutsy! Could someone please tell me if on my site I am trying to pass off Kwanzaa as an African based holiday? True I do provide a few facts about Africa but that is it. The website is Happy Kwanzaa [2]
It seems anyone who wants to have anything to do with this article is biased towards one of the extreme POVs. Does anyone know about this subject who isn't biased? -- Boothman 16:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
"Jon Stewart ... gave Bill the Kwanzaa gift of saying that he hated Christmas ". Seems like someone inserted his/her POV into that statement. I doubt that Stewart said "I hereby give you the Kwanzaa gift of Christmas hatred." Silently to myself: what do I know, maybe he did. Never know with them Americans -- Ezeu 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Remove it, if you wish. I don't get the string of pop culture anecdotal references. They add absolutely nothing to the article and come off as inane. I mean the list could go on and on and on and on and.... Well, you know. deeceevoice 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I just removed the whole dumb section. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I defy anyone to tell me why the following facts are continually deleted from this page, with the aid and comfort of the officious moderator:
The continual removal of these facts is a POV violation that the moderator is not willing to police because he has an idealogical axe to grind.
The continual censorship of facts is vandalism, which the moderator tolerates and abets.
This is why this page is about as useful as a Scientology website -- idealogues run wild unpoliced by those in power who sympathize with zealots and idealogues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.141.170.190 ( talk • contribs) 03:40, December 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, please. Grow up, already.
Beyond that, please, all parties, do learn to evaluate and cite your sources before jumping to write articles and enter into these discussions. Much uncessary name calling, flaming, and other annoying, immature, anti- and pseudo-intellecctual drivel, and POV attitude could be quickly dispelled with a firm, yet respectful, unrelenting demand for good documentation to support one's positions.
If you are not familiar with this idea, you might want to review the following sites to learn how to make better decisions about what kinds of sources to cite and how to cite them: CARRDSS : Evaluate your Sources of for a more in depth version try: Critically Analyzing Your Information Sources or Evaluating Web Pages
If you don't evauate your sources, you run the risk of poisoning your own brain with all kinds of crap-ola that passes for Information -- not to mention passing on the disease to the too many readers who, mistakenly, and unfortunately, think Wikipedia is actually a worthwhile source of Information. It's a really cool thing, believe me -- just keep it all in perspective.
For example: On this topic, there are many, many, many much better sources available, that will provide a better overview on this topic. Visit your local library or online library and use some of the real research tools available to you there, to get authoritative information to support your positions.
Here are just a few you will be able to find on this topic, using a source called Ebscohost. (Almost every library has it, or a service like it. Please! Use it!):
Copyright 1995 by Dorothy Winbush Riley
Then, there are websites. Please. Stick to sources that have some history of reliability, authority, accuracy, that are current, not biased or commercial. An easy trick? Opt for .org, .edu-s or .gov-s over .coms, blogs, etc. Why? Because .coms are commercial (get it??) organizations whose sole motivating purpose is to make money through advertising and sales, therefore, they may not always be trusted for providing an unvarnished perspective (though some can be exceedingly good, you must always be aware of their motivations); and secondly, blogs and the like are written (as is the Wikipedia, by the way) by mostly a bunch of airbags with lots of opinion, but no research skills, who like to hear themselves talk. Ok, that's harsh. Try again. Blogs are written by individuals whose authority and expertise are rarely known, and difficult to confirm, and therefore, they may or may not have accurate, unbiased, reliable or up to date info to offer. Blogs are for discussiong points of view - rarely should they be counted on for providing the kind of fact based neutral overviews and information expected of an encyclopedia. So,...
PLEASE! Stick to Wikipedia's agenda of providing good resources, well researched and high quality information -- by USING good resources, well researched, and of high quality. Read their page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Here are a few great resources, all of which are far more authoritative than the ones cited in this article:
Have your point of view -- that's FINE!! Just PLEASE!! Stop contributing to the dumbing down of America. CITE RELIABLE SOURCES to support your position!!! - The Super Librarian -- 71.250.88.213 07:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
its sad this page is being clensed by the politically correct police. wikipedia should be about the truth, not some collection of whitewashed feel good lies. the fact that those censoring this page are so zealous shows they definetly have something to fear, what they support cannot be defended. its founding was corrupted to the core. good intentions are not enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.97.227 ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 30 December 2005.
Who's truth? Yours? No thanks! Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. -- Ezeu 12:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
whenever the topic is related to black culture. Look, whoever founded Kwanzaa is relevant, just as Columbus is central to Columbus Day, the Pilgrims and Indians to Thanksgiving, Jesus to Christmas, and Washington and Lincoln to President's Day. For people to try to separater Karenga from Kwanzaa is just ridiculous. On the other hand, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so because Karenga is a less than desirable person, doesn't mean the holiday is some gateway to Communism and the end of Western Civilization. If people want to get together for a different holiday and aren't hurting anybody, who are you to imply that they are stupid or fooled?
Totally, my opinion here (and it is allowed as it is in the Talk section) but Kwanzaa is no differenct from festivus. If you want to celebrate it, fine. If you think it is a sham, fine. Just write a neutral article about what it is.
It seems there are two strains here, people who want to proselytize about the greatness of Kwanzaa, and people who want to denigrate it because they believe it is a fraud. Both sides need to grow up and let a neutral article breathe and stop with the constant edits.
Finally, the charges of racism are way out of bounds here. There is enough about Kwanzaa to make anyone skeptical of it regardless of race, as with all celebrations and holidays. Even Christmas is the celebration of a virgin giving birth? Is the atheist that doesn't celebrate Passover or belive the story of Esther (from which Purim evolved), also an anti-Semite? Not believing that Kwanzaa is legit does not make someone a racist. There is a person here who goes into all these discussions and start throwing around the invective and wiki should do something about this user. It is counterproductive to an open discussion of real issues. Ramsquire 19:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary. It says that Kwanzaa is growing but only 1.6 percent of the population follows the holiday. That is too miniscule a number to use as any evidence of growth, especially without any comparison figure. Also the last sentence, seems to just be an opinion without any factual support. Suggest revert. Ramsquire 21:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Two points. 1. The article is not great, it's a small, sorry excuse for a wikipedia article. It's basically an overgrown stub. Compare to the christmas article, which has 11 sections. The Hannukah one has 12. 2. There is obviously a POV. The article reads like a kwanzaa promotional pamphlet, not like an encyclopedia entry. -- ~ Jared ~ 15:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Anybody know where to find an image of christmas decorations and kwanzaa decorationss side-by-side like the article describes? That would be a good addition to the article. -- ~ Jared ~ 16:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't Karenga the one who wrote that Kwanzaa was put at the end of December in order to show rejection of the dominant culture (read whites and Christianity)? If so, finding a picture of a table with both items would be wonderfully ironic.
This is a no brainer. Most people celebrate Christmas and Kwanzaa together. I can't prove it though, but only 'hard afrocentrics' are likely to eschew Christmas. What I want to inject here is some sense that I don't think that the 'violation of self-determination' is what originally caused the bifurcation, although it's technically correct. The appropriate context is more like the situation of many college-educated atheists who have serious problems with 'religion as the opiate of the masses' combined with an interpretation of Christmas as crassly commercial, and the very ideas of plastic trees, plastic tinsel, electric lights and fake snow. The idea was to balance (and cancel out) that fakeness with something naturalistic; vegetables, candles, straw mats.
It's also true that in the context of black consciousness and black nationalism, the founders had strong opinions against the phlegmatic influence of the black christian church in political matters. So there was some direct opposition to Christmas as a religious holiday. But this was an intellectual opposition. The wording "They felt that doing so would violate the principle of kujichagulia (self-determination) and thus violate the integrity of the holiday, which is partially intended as a reclamation of important African values." Doesn't give an adequate connotation here. -- Cobb 12:04, 27 December 2005 (PTD)
I've reincorporated the 1.6% statistic. This is an important piece of information about Kwanzaa.
- Justforasecond 20:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I took away 'Kwanzaa is not widely popular', as it's a meaningless POV remark. On the other hand, it would be useful to include a figure on the proportion of Americans of African ancestry, or the proportion of African-Americans who celebrate Kwanzaa, as it is an almost exclusively African-American holiday. Incompetent 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't like this poll. It's run by people whose primary purpose in polling was to determine how much money people are spending on various holidays. In short, I don't trust it to be accurate on measuring merely how many people celebrate what holidays. Can we get a better, nonbiased poll, preferably run by some reputable polling company like Gallup? -- Cyde Weys vote talk 12:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to assume good faith on this one. "1.6%" is not "widely popular": am I the only one that thinks this? I'd actually like to get the actual percentage out of the into, either putting it in the footnote or the article itself. I found a few more numbers. I actually like the retail one best as they've got little interest in promoting Kwanzaa. They're just trying to get a starting point for how much Kwanaa pariphenelia should be on the shelves.
This [3] mentiones "20 million" (without a citation). That could be a worldwide number. Still an important number but it becomes sort of invalid to calculate this percentage of the world population.
This [4] (festivals.com) says 13 million, but I can't tell if its U.S. or worldwide. This [5] says festivals.com estimates 10 million and another 8 million in the Europe, the Caribbean, and Africa. 10 mil would be > 3% of the US. I couldn't find this number on the fesivals.com website.
This [6] says "millions" around the world (even 1.6% of the US is millions. It's uncited and the website is "melanet" (presumably a pro-kwanzaa site)
Btw, this [7] has some somewhat interesting things to say about Kwanzaa and religion.
In reading the other sites I'm coming to the conclusion that the Karenga information should be here. It seems pretty sugarcoated that not one of the sites I read said anything other than positive about Karenga. Even the last one neglects to mention his past.
- Justforasecond 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a good point. I guess until we find a better source, the current one can stay. The total number of celebrants it relevant enough info that it should be kept even if its source isn't perfect. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 16:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
CydeWeys hit it on the head first time around - a magazine that is interested in sales is not an appropriate source to cite in this case - after all, what is their population? Shoppers? And it is *not* acceptable or appropriate to use a stat just for lack of a better one. Better to leave it out. Or, better still, give a range of numbers --"somwhere between 8 and 28 million people...that's some 2 to 10% of the American population, and about 98% of he entire African American population..." (MY stats were made up for the sake of the example - don't atually use them.).
Even the Festival.com stats are better than the one used, because festivals and holidays are their business, so you can be fairly comfortable that they know what they are talking about, and they aren't served by making a mistake in that area - it would cost them if they were wrong. Plus, if you go to the section "About Us" and the copropate headquarters site, you would soon realize they are referring to the US - that's their business base. Even further still, trying "Contact Us" and ask for more details about were they got the stat and what it represents.
Bottom line is that there are many people who celebrate, respect, and/or support the holiday who might rightly fit into this number - but they may not be gift givers or shoppers. Kwanzaa is not all that commercial, so how many people in that population would actually be there for Kwanzaa, anyway? Stick with something more reliable and more relevant, like reports from the government - census reports etc., (although admittedly, the government may have their own agenda, these still represent reputable sources), or almanacs and encyclopedias, or, if anyone can get to their local library, the Statistical Abstrct of the United States may have this info.
Another trick is to go back to that article, and see where they got the stat from, if possible. It might be someting quoted from another source that could be a useful one, then go to that original source itselfm and see what you can find directly from them. They might have something even better and more appropriate to this discussion.
For example, I went to the the InfoPlease Almanac, which states as follows:
She goes on to address a few other points that are being contested here:
I also searched the census, and, ironically, they don't appear to have the stats on Kwanzaa. But there are lots of other pretty useful resources there, such as We the People : Facts on the Black or African American Population, Facts for Features which might be helpful in pulling this and other articles together. Happy Hunting! - Super Librarian-- 71.250.88.213 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.courttv.com/trials/soliah/slahistory_ctv.html Many believe the seven principles of Kwanzaa were based on the seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another California militant seperatist group since the principles of both groups are identical.
Can someone give me a timeline on the creation of Kwanzaa?
In refrece to the above nattering on Felonosity, Karenga was evidently not marxist, secular humanist, or a convincted felon at the time of its creation.-- Tznkai 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not editing the page but came here to look for answers to these questions:
I'm suggesting that providing answers to these questions might be more useful than disputing its origins. patsw 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I am certain that Kwanzaa began in 1967 in Los Angeles. One of the very first Karamus, if not the first, was held at my parents house near Crenshaw and Jefferson Boulevards. We were in the process of converting our two car garage into a theatre stage 'The Redwood Theatre'. I was six years old and got in trouble for putting milk, not water, into the libation cup. I can't say with any certainty when Kwanzaa spread to other communities, but there was national coverage of US and the Young Simbas, of which I was a member. Both Look and Life magazines had a picture of the Young Simbas on their covers. I found a copy of Look at the Afro-American Museum in Exposition Park in LA sometime in the late 80s. A scan of an original photograph for Look can be found here: http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/simbas.jpg
The following needs verification
Ha, that site has a funny bit of revisionism. It mentions "The Organization Us" but doesn't say that US is actually an acronyn for "united slaves".
Can we just say that Kwanzaa was created in 1966, but didn't get mainstream recognition until around 1980? - Justforasecond 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
for which part? The US Organization is on Karenga's page, the officialkwanaawebsite seems to be a source for the beginnings, the NY Times is mainstream recognition. I hadn't heard of it til '90 or so, it certainly wasn't big time through the 80s. - Justforasecond 18:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyone else have suggestions?-- Tznkai 22:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that was dumb of me. I was just trying to improve the page, I do think we need more images. Getting images isn't exactly my specialy though. It'd be nice for someone else to figure something out, but I don't really feel like I should be asking people that. If anyone editins actually celebrates kwanzaa it would be pretty cool to take a picture of a display of yours and upload it. I'm sure other people can come up with better ideas. The article certainly is coming along well now and I'm becoming happier with it, as I'm sure everyone else involved is. -- ~ Jared ~ 00:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Was Kwanzaa invented in 1975 or 1966? The article seems to be ambiguous. -- BAxelrod 22:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
How anyone can track what's going on on this page is beyond me -- people need to sign their edits/comments with four tildes. Jim62sch 00:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This page links to the disambiguation page Corn, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help me? Thanks. — Pekinensis 19:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I've just clarified link to maize. Peace. deeceevoice 19:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Corn has nothing to do with Africa as its origins are South America, so it is very strange that it is one of the symbols.
I myself am Cherokee and Cado. Virtually every African American I know has Native American ancestry. What? We gotta prove it to u? Don't hold your breath. *x* deeceevoice 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
-- Corn has nothing to do with Africa???? --
You obviously haven't been to Africa. It may have originated in South America, but for decades it has been a dietary staple in much of Africa in much the same way as Potatoes (also South American) are to the Irish and Rice is to Asia. - Cy—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.180.64 ( talk • contribs) .
Maize was introduced to Africa in the 16th and 17th centuries and was readily accepted by African farmers, partly because it was grown and used in a similar way to their traditional crop of grain sorghum. Maize displaced sorghum as the staple grain in all but the drier regions. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.180.64 ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 23 December 2005.
I believe corn is referred to in the bible as well. but the whole thing
about accuracy is laugable since so much in christianity, judaism amd islam is loaded with bad information and myth.
deeceevoice removes links to slate.com discussing kwanzaa, as if it were some kkk offshoot, and even then, a kkk offshoot might still have some facts.
deeceevoice also removes statements that kwanzaa is a race-based holiday. there is little to nothing cultural about kwanzaa. you burn candles, put out some fruit, lay down a mat, etc, none of which have anything to do with african american culture, unless you count the colors on the black nationalist (racist) flag.
Mine is in fact the correct definition. There is an American oracle bead chronicle which contains memory-perfect images of an ancient African volcanic eruption and the utterance 'Kwanzaa'. The holiday started with the discovery of the tiny archeological artifact -- it hasn't been contained and housed in a museum yet. >beadtot@aol.com
Its clear that Karenga is a convicted felon (some combination of kidnapping/torture I believe). What some editors are in essence claiming is that this is less important than his current employer. I don't know what grounds there are for that conclusion, but it is not something that is at all obvious. If yall are having a hard time coming up with convincing arguments, thats probably a good indication that this is fair to include.
Discussion won't go far with the behavior of some editors:
You're an idiot. Who gives a @#U* what you think? (deeceevoice) -- 69.110.47.109 01:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
What's the story on the assertion that the FBI had a hand in the creation of Kwanzaa? There is a column fairly widespread on the net, popular among mainstream political types and the more extreme self-described white nationalists, that claims this. The column is by a famous muckraking political commentator.
I like Kwanzaa, proof anybody can invent a holiday, even convicted felons.
The FBI targeted members of the US, including Karenga, and infiltrated various black community organizations in Los Angeles in order to foster division between them and the very popular Black Panthers. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificapanthers.html
Cobb 14:03, 27 December 2005 (PDT)
In an America in dire need of UNIFICATION, where blacks are being thrust back into the ghetto, back into a depraved culture by hip-hop and other cultural poisons, a holiday to separate one race from another is the last thing we want. How do we expect to combat racism when we're drawing such a clear race line?
Worse yet as already stated, the holiday has no relevance to anything. It celebrates the primitive past. If blacks want something culturally relevant to them they have RAMADAN!
++++++++++++++++ absolute rubbish! you got the nerve to talk about cultural poisons when whites parade around with the confederate flag and look the other way when black folks had their votes stolen in florida and complain about a observance that has nothing to do with whites? its not the separation issues, its the fact that whites dont own or control this holiday that burns you up, deal with it.
Face it yourself - this is not a holiday meant todivide people or to draw a race line. Anyone who wants to celebrate the race neutral qualities that Kwanzaa seeks to focus on, is welcome to do so. Besides - don't you yet understand it? We ALL come from Africa anyways, first of all, and Ramadaan is as culturally African as Christianity is, and as Kwanzaa is for rhar matter. THe point is to celebrate, to contemplate, and to act in ways that are positive and have a positive impact on the individual as well as community. - SL-- 71.250.88.213 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we have a picture of a kinara or a kwanzaa celebration so to give people a visual clue? Also could we somehow tie in the colors of the candles with the 7 Principles and give examples as to what it is meant by them, rather than the definitions? The definitions are fine but there's no examples as to what is meant by them.
I know that I am new here but I would like to be able to contribute to the understanding of Kwanzaa and give people a chance to experience the holiday thru the eyes of a celebrant.
Thank you for your attention.-- hawk eyes 03:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Addedum:
Here is an email sent to me by a "young girl from Ghana". Is this legit? Or is someone trying to start something?
From: Adenike Aderinde <nikeaderinde@yahoo.com>
Received: from [140.180.130.97] by web30504.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:34:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Subject: Kwanzaa
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:34:12 -0800 (PST)
To: hawk.shango@verizon.net
X-Originating-IP: [68.142.200.117]
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-352256089-1135384452=:85173"
Message-id: <20051224003412.85654.qmail@web30504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kM1x2kSEK692hklpTWMP8kf5AP4cEQAGI18o7xnmMwSRiMVdXxxFSAMxvI/YiHhkWoXvzrWN+GWEDXfzAklDdJ7/+/tKnsmaMejp3zioYDHWhPBAmOTMVt90mRCZ3XcVf8zd/TuhZwL6tP2yifCRKDeO8vOy3QyGwE7wMcTg7Ag= ;
Hi, I am a young girl from Ghana, and I saw this email address on your website about Kwanzaa. I read through the site, and somehow got the impression that your site was trying to pass Kwanzaa off as a ceremony of considerable significance, not only in the African American community, but also in modern, present day Africa (e.g. the list of countries like Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, etc). As a well travelled African, I know Kwanzaa is of no significance on the continent, and Africans today (as opposed to African Americans) do not celebrate this "festival", or "holiday". Should the information on your website not reflect the present day reality? I find it offensive, insulting and downright rude to read websites like yours, depicting Kwanzaa as an African holiday. Please take the time to change the incorrect information on your website. Cheers and Happy Holidays, Aderinde.
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
Now I have nothing against people trying to get some facts straight but this is really nutsy! Could someone please tell me if on my site I am trying to pass off Kwanzaa as an African based holiday? True I do provide a few facts about Africa but that is it. The website is Happy Kwanzaa [2]
It seems anyone who wants to have anything to do with this article is biased towards one of the extreme POVs. Does anyone know about this subject who isn't biased? -- Boothman 16:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
"Jon Stewart ... gave Bill the Kwanzaa gift of saying that he hated Christmas ". Seems like someone inserted his/her POV into that statement. I doubt that Stewart said "I hereby give you the Kwanzaa gift of Christmas hatred." Silently to myself: what do I know, maybe he did. Never know with them Americans -- Ezeu 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Remove it, if you wish. I don't get the string of pop culture anecdotal references. They add absolutely nothing to the article and come off as inane. I mean the list could go on and on and on and on and.... Well, you know. deeceevoice 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I just removed the whole dumb section. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I defy anyone to tell me why the following facts are continually deleted from this page, with the aid and comfort of the officious moderator:
The continual removal of these facts is a POV violation that the moderator is not willing to police because he has an idealogical axe to grind.
The continual censorship of facts is vandalism, which the moderator tolerates and abets.
This is why this page is about as useful as a Scientology website -- idealogues run wild unpoliced by those in power who sympathize with zealots and idealogues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.141.170.190 ( talk • contribs) 03:40, December 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, please. Grow up, already.
Beyond that, please, all parties, do learn to evaluate and cite your sources before jumping to write articles and enter into these discussions. Much uncessary name calling, flaming, and other annoying, immature, anti- and pseudo-intellecctual drivel, and POV attitude could be quickly dispelled with a firm, yet respectful, unrelenting demand for good documentation to support one's positions.
If you are not familiar with this idea, you might want to review the following sites to learn how to make better decisions about what kinds of sources to cite and how to cite them: CARRDSS : Evaluate your Sources of for a more in depth version try: Critically Analyzing Your Information Sources or Evaluating Web Pages
If you don't evauate your sources, you run the risk of poisoning your own brain with all kinds of crap-ola that passes for Information -- not to mention passing on the disease to the too many readers who, mistakenly, and unfortunately, think Wikipedia is actually a worthwhile source of Information. It's a really cool thing, believe me -- just keep it all in perspective.
For example: On this topic, there are many, many, many much better sources available, that will provide a better overview on this topic. Visit your local library or online library and use some of the real research tools available to you there, to get authoritative information to support your positions.
Here are just a few you will be able to find on this topic, using a source called Ebscohost. (Almost every library has it, or a service like it. Please! Use it!):
Copyright 1995 by Dorothy Winbush Riley
Then, there are websites. Please. Stick to sources that have some history of reliability, authority, accuracy, that are current, not biased or commercial. An easy trick? Opt for .org, .edu-s or .gov-s over .coms, blogs, etc. Why? Because .coms are commercial (get it??) organizations whose sole motivating purpose is to make money through advertising and sales, therefore, they may not always be trusted for providing an unvarnished perspective (though some can be exceedingly good, you must always be aware of their motivations); and secondly, blogs and the like are written (as is the Wikipedia, by the way) by mostly a bunch of airbags with lots of opinion, but no research skills, who like to hear themselves talk. Ok, that's harsh. Try again. Blogs are written by individuals whose authority and expertise are rarely known, and difficult to confirm, and therefore, they may or may not have accurate, unbiased, reliable or up to date info to offer. Blogs are for discussiong points of view - rarely should they be counted on for providing the kind of fact based neutral overviews and information expected of an encyclopedia. So,...
PLEASE! Stick to Wikipedia's agenda of providing good resources, well researched and high quality information -- by USING good resources, well researched, and of high quality. Read their page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Here are a few great resources, all of which are far more authoritative than the ones cited in this article:
Have your point of view -- that's FINE!! Just PLEASE!! Stop contributing to the dumbing down of America. CITE RELIABLE SOURCES to support your position!!! - The Super Librarian -- 71.250.88.213 07:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
its sad this page is being clensed by the politically correct police. wikipedia should be about the truth, not some collection of whitewashed feel good lies. the fact that those censoring this page are so zealous shows they definetly have something to fear, what they support cannot be defended. its founding was corrupted to the core. good intentions are not enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.97.227 ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 30 December 2005.
Who's truth? Yours? No thanks! Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. -- Ezeu 12:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
whenever the topic is related to black culture. Look, whoever founded Kwanzaa is relevant, just as Columbus is central to Columbus Day, the Pilgrims and Indians to Thanksgiving, Jesus to Christmas, and Washington and Lincoln to President's Day. For people to try to separater Karenga from Kwanzaa is just ridiculous. On the other hand, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so because Karenga is a less than desirable person, doesn't mean the holiday is some gateway to Communism and the end of Western Civilization. If people want to get together for a different holiday and aren't hurting anybody, who are you to imply that they are stupid or fooled?
Totally, my opinion here (and it is allowed as it is in the Talk section) but Kwanzaa is no differenct from festivus. If you want to celebrate it, fine. If you think it is a sham, fine. Just write a neutral article about what it is.
It seems there are two strains here, people who want to proselytize about the greatness of Kwanzaa, and people who want to denigrate it because they believe it is a fraud. Both sides need to grow up and let a neutral article breathe and stop with the constant edits.
Finally, the charges of racism are way out of bounds here. There is enough about Kwanzaa to make anyone skeptical of it regardless of race, as with all celebrations and holidays. Even Christmas is the celebration of a virgin giving birth? Is the atheist that doesn't celebrate Passover or belive the story of Esther (from which Purim evolved), also an anti-Semite? Not believing that Kwanzaa is legit does not make someone a racist. There is a person here who goes into all these discussions and start throwing around the invective and wiki should do something about this user. It is counterproductive to an open discussion of real issues. Ramsquire 19:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary. It says that Kwanzaa is growing but only 1.6 percent of the population follows the holiday. That is too miniscule a number to use as any evidence of growth, especially without any comparison figure. Also the last sentence, seems to just be an opinion without any factual support. Suggest revert. Ramsquire 21:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Two points. 1. The article is not great, it's a small, sorry excuse for a wikipedia article. It's basically an overgrown stub. Compare to the christmas article, which has 11 sections. The Hannukah one has 12. 2. There is obviously a POV. The article reads like a kwanzaa promotional pamphlet, not like an encyclopedia entry. -- ~ Jared ~ 15:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Anybody know where to find an image of christmas decorations and kwanzaa decorationss side-by-side like the article describes? That would be a good addition to the article. -- ~ Jared ~ 16:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't Karenga the one who wrote that Kwanzaa was put at the end of December in order to show rejection of the dominant culture (read whites and Christianity)? If so, finding a picture of a table with both items would be wonderfully ironic.
This is a no brainer. Most people celebrate Christmas and Kwanzaa together. I can't prove it though, but only 'hard afrocentrics' are likely to eschew Christmas. What I want to inject here is some sense that I don't think that the 'violation of self-determination' is what originally caused the bifurcation, although it's technically correct. The appropriate context is more like the situation of many college-educated atheists who have serious problems with 'religion as the opiate of the masses' combined with an interpretation of Christmas as crassly commercial, and the very ideas of plastic trees, plastic tinsel, electric lights and fake snow. The idea was to balance (and cancel out) that fakeness with something naturalistic; vegetables, candles, straw mats.
It's also true that in the context of black consciousness and black nationalism, the founders had strong opinions against the phlegmatic influence of the black christian church in political matters. So there was some direct opposition to Christmas as a religious holiday. But this was an intellectual opposition. The wording "They felt that doing so would violate the principle of kujichagulia (self-determination) and thus violate the integrity of the holiday, which is partially intended as a reclamation of important African values." Doesn't give an adequate connotation here. -- Cobb 12:04, 27 December 2005 (PTD)
I've reincorporated the 1.6% statistic. This is an important piece of information about Kwanzaa.
- Justforasecond 20:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I took away 'Kwanzaa is not widely popular', as it's a meaningless POV remark. On the other hand, it would be useful to include a figure on the proportion of Americans of African ancestry, or the proportion of African-Americans who celebrate Kwanzaa, as it is an almost exclusively African-American holiday. Incompetent 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't like this poll. It's run by people whose primary purpose in polling was to determine how much money people are spending on various holidays. In short, I don't trust it to be accurate on measuring merely how many people celebrate what holidays. Can we get a better, nonbiased poll, preferably run by some reputable polling company like Gallup? -- Cyde Weys vote talk 12:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to assume good faith on this one. "1.6%" is not "widely popular": am I the only one that thinks this? I'd actually like to get the actual percentage out of the into, either putting it in the footnote or the article itself. I found a few more numbers. I actually like the retail one best as they've got little interest in promoting Kwanzaa. They're just trying to get a starting point for how much Kwanaa pariphenelia should be on the shelves.
This [3] mentiones "20 million" (without a citation). That could be a worldwide number. Still an important number but it becomes sort of invalid to calculate this percentage of the world population.
This [4] (festivals.com) says 13 million, but I can't tell if its U.S. or worldwide. This [5] says festivals.com estimates 10 million and another 8 million in the Europe, the Caribbean, and Africa. 10 mil would be > 3% of the US. I couldn't find this number on the fesivals.com website.
This [6] says "millions" around the world (even 1.6% of the US is millions. It's uncited and the website is "melanet" (presumably a pro-kwanzaa site)
Btw, this [7] has some somewhat interesting things to say about Kwanzaa and religion.
In reading the other sites I'm coming to the conclusion that the Karenga information should be here. It seems pretty sugarcoated that not one of the sites I read said anything other than positive about Karenga. Even the last one neglects to mention his past.
- Justforasecond 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a good point. I guess until we find a better source, the current one can stay. The total number of celebrants it relevant enough info that it should be kept even if its source isn't perfect. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 16:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
CydeWeys hit it on the head first time around - a magazine that is interested in sales is not an appropriate source to cite in this case - after all, what is their population? Shoppers? And it is *not* acceptable or appropriate to use a stat just for lack of a better one. Better to leave it out. Or, better still, give a range of numbers --"somwhere between 8 and 28 million people...that's some 2 to 10% of the American population, and about 98% of he entire African American population..." (MY stats were made up for the sake of the example - don't atually use them.).
Even the Festival.com stats are better than the one used, because festivals and holidays are their business, so you can be fairly comfortable that they know what they are talking about, and they aren't served by making a mistake in that area - it would cost them if they were wrong. Plus, if you go to the section "About Us" and the copropate headquarters site, you would soon realize they are referring to the US - that's their business base. Even further still, trying "Contact Us" and ask for more details about were they got the stat and what it represents.
Bottom line is that there are many people who celebrate, respect, and/or support the holiday who might rightly fit into this number - but they may not be gift givers or shoppers. Kwanzaa is not all that commercial, so how many people in that population would actually be there for Kwanzaa, anyway? Stick with something more reliable and more relevant, like reports from the government - census reports etc., (although admittedly, the government may have their own agenda, these still represent reputable sources), or almanacs and encyclopedias, or, if anyone can get to their local library, the Statistical Abstrct of the United States may have this info.
Another trick is to go back to that article, and see where they got the stat from, if possible. It might be someting quoted from another source that could be a useful one, then go to that original source itselfm and see what you can find directly from them. They might have something even better and more appropriate to this discussion.
For example, I went to the the InfoPlease Almanac, which states as follows:
She goes on to address a few other points that are being contested here:
I also searched the census, and, ironically, they don't appear to have the stats on Kwanzaa. But there are lots of other pretty useful resources there, such as We the People : Facts on the Black or African American Population, Facts for Features which might be helpful in pulling this and other articles together. Happy Hunting! - Super Librarian-- 71.250.88.213 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.courttv.com/trials/soliah/slahistory_ctv.html Many believe the seven principles of Kwanzaa were based on the seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another California militant seperatist group since the principles of both groups are identical.
Can someone give me a timeline on the creation of Kwanzaa?
In refrece to the above nattering on Felonosity, Karenga was evidently not marxist, secular humanist, or a convincted felon at the time of its creation.-- Tznkai 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not editing the page but came here to look for answers to these questions:
I'm suggesting that providing answers to these questions might be more useful than disputing its origins. patsw 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I am certain that Kwanzaa began in 1967 in Los Angeles. One of the very first Karamus, if not the first, was held at my parents house near Crenshaw and Jefferson Boulevards. We were in the process of converting our two car garage into a theatre stage 'The Redwood Theatre'. I was six years old and got in trouble for putting milk, not water, into the libation cup. I can't say with any certainty when Kwanzaa spread to other communities, but there was national coverage of US and the Young Simbas, of which I was a member. Both Look and Life magazines had a picture of the Young Simbas on their covers. I found a copy of Look at the Afro-American Museum in Exposition Park in LA sometime in the late 80s. A scan of an original photograph for Look can be found here: http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/simbas.jpg
The following needs verification
Ha, that site has a funny bit of revisionism. It mentions "The Organization Us" but doesn't say that US is actually an acronyn for "united slaves".
Can we just say that Kwanzaa was created in 1966, but didn't get mainstream recognition until around 1980? - Justforasecond 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
for which part? The US Organization is on Karenga's page, the officialkwanaawebsite seems to be a source for the beginnings, the NY Times is mainstream recognition. I hadn't heard of it til '90 or so, it certainly wasn't big time through the 80s. - Justforasecond 18:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyone else have suggestions?-- Tznkai 22:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that was dumb of me. I was just trying to improve the page, I do think we need more images. Getting images isn't exactly my specialy though. It'd be nice for someone else to figure something out, but I don't really feel like I should be asking people that. If anyone editins actually celebrates kwanzaa it would be pretty cool to take a picture of a display of yours and upload it. I'm sure other people can come up with better ideas. The article certainly is coming along well now and I'm becoming happier with it, as I'm sure everyone else involved is. -- ~ Jared ~ 00:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Was Kwanzaa invented in 1975 or 1966? The article seems to be ambiguous. -- BAxelrod 22:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)