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 |
All help is welcome and needed! ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The use of capital letters should be minimized where possible. Since I'm not in the mood for move wars, please check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters and convince yourself. -- Dissident ( Talk) 01:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just added the official muster roll information of all African Americans who were mustered into the Army for the War with Spain, complete with dates, and where they went. You should use it to flesh out this article.
CORNELIUSSEON 04:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is another link for you to utilize.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Just added a subsection on World War II - to include the award of the Medal of Honor to seven in 1997. — ERcheck @ 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
under "See Also", Abbott was deleted as he was a Canadian. However, he lived in the USA on a couple occasions and served under contract. Technically, I'd suggest in a more traditional sense, that Canadians are Americans just as Brazilians are also Americans (or more accurately South Americans). Wikipedia states "American may refer to: A person or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the Western Hemisphere ".
From the biography link on his page it appears he played a prominent role in the Civil War as one of only eight African-American surgeons:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertaSunwapta ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 December 2006
{{ Canada-bio-stub}}
Category:American Canadians Category:Black Canadians Category:Canadian physicians Category:People from Toronto Category:Pre-Confederation Ontario people Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians
This article is in desperate need of citations... Balloonman 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I second that. Also phrases like "the African American soldiers bravely advanced over open ground in the face of deadly artillery fire" and such don't seem too neutral to me. Not to diminish the deed, but we'd better stick to wiki rules -- 70.83.157.66 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed this from the article:
It directly contradicts our Battle of Fort Pillow article, it seems very POVish to me, and I can't locate any references that confirm these events occuring at the Battle of Fort Blakely. 70.20.194.59 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I re-removed the Fort Blakely paragraph. There are no citations for it and as you say it is written in an unseemly POVish style. Red Harvest ( talk) 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know the number of African American enlistees and draftees in the Vietnam war. Also, for discussion, what people are thinking about President Lyndon Johnson's passing of Kennedy's Civil Rights Amendment considering its proximity to Vietnam War enlistment and draft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.39.126 ( talk) 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC) "African Americans during the conflict suffered casualty rates slightly higher than their percentage of the total population" seems an incorrect comparison.. Should read ."...than those of the total population." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.180.165 ( talk) 04:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of military history items/dates that are not covered in this article. Would a list or timeline of African American military firsts/events add quality to this article? Something like this:
DATE (or Year) | Name (or event) | Notability | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
October 4, 1985 | Donnie Cochran | became the first African American to serve as a member of the Blue Angels precision flying team | |
February 1, 1998 | Lillian E. Fishburne | officially promoted and becomes the first African-American female to hold the rank of Rear Admiral in the United States Navy | |
June 24, 2005 | Jeanine McIntosh | officially completed aviation training to become the first African American female in the United States Coast Guard to earn the Coast Guard Aviation Designation |
A seperate table could be placed following each subheading currently in the article. Absolon S. Kent 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The Olustee paragraph about "cannon fodder" and quoting a CS Engineer as its documentation seems weak. Nulty's book on the battle doesn't support the interpretation given. There were also complaints of killings of wounded Blacks by various rebels after the battle (and boasts of having done so.) Red Harvest ( talk) 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Black Confederates section is a mishmash of poorly cited and second hand reports, not unlike elusive sightings of Big Foot, in the stark contrast of the obvious and documented roles of blacks in the Union army. I'll be cleaning up the entry over the next couple days. SiberioS ( talk) 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of what I removed was either anecdotal and piecemeal, or was secondhand, or from a site with a hell of an explicit axe to grind (most of the websites used as sources would pawn off their statements on a variety of "books" that do not pass historical muster, especially presses that put out books with a decidedly Lost Cause slant). It's also absurd to take what are a handful of irregular instances to form a cohesive strategy on the part of either the Confederacy or the numerous state armies that served it. Despite the constant caterwauling that black Confederates existed, they simply do not exist in the pension rolls, are almost nonexistent except for a handful of mentions (and often only in laborer positions) in the Federal Record. Even most people who claim there were black Confederate soldiers can never pin down how many (accusing Yankees of rewriting the history, even though no one else contests the Federal Record unless it suits them), especially when there is an overwhelming (209K) of black troops for the Union side, accounted for by name, in the Record, in the pension rolls, and in a number of Union burial grounds. It just doesn't add up. SiberioS ( talk) 08:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Revolutionary War Section - not a single reference
U.S. Civil War & Union Army Sections - not a single reference
Indian Wars - not a single reference & individual example of Henry O. Flipper
Spanish American War - not a single reference
World War I - not a single refernce & individual example of Freddie Stowers
Spanish Civil War - not a single reference & individual example of Oliver Law
World War II - several indivdual soldier examples
Korean War - whole section is about only 1 soldier
Vietnam War - several individual soldier examples
Post-Vietnam - several individual soldier examples
Noting all of this, tell me again why I can't put a photo of an individual soldier or his account, and why I can't put sourced info when all of this unsourced info is left untouched?
Sf46 (
talk) 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the midst of poring over Confederate Emancipation by Levine, and will be using it to refashion, with sources from the Official Record and other journal articles, the Confederate section to highlight the argument and debate that was raised over the "Negro question" in the Confederate Army, of whether or not slaves and freedmen should be enlisted. The debate was an interesting one, and showed at times stark ideological and practical contrast between people in the South, from civilians up into the halls of the Confederate government and military structure. Despite the assertions of other people above, who insist that I'm trying to cover up some sort of phantom legions of black Confederate soldiers, highlighting the debate, as well as the contrasting and conflicting policies and statements of the people involved, would be the best way to explain the issue. I should also point out, that the fact that there was debate, nullifies the idea that there were vast numbers of blacks enlisted or serving in combat roles. Why such an argument if it was already happening? SiberioS ( talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That photo is a fake. I'll have to go searching for it, but theres a website that shows the real version (which was a photo taken of a troops in the USCT) and its use as the basis for a print that ended up being used for recruitment purposes in the USCT. SiberioS ( talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Here it is http://people.virginia.edu/~jh3v/retouchinghistory/essay.html . SiberioS ( talk) 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd like to comment on the Frederick Douglass quote, and particularly how he quotes the Charleston paper. Simply put, the Charleston paper (and other Southern papers) were blowing smoke. One of the more interesting parts is the evolution of the loyalty and steadfastness of the slave into the indolent, lazy, and potentially murderous slave that would be talked about in 1863 as the war dragged on, as the USCT was instituted, and after the Emancipation Proclamation. After years of espousing about the "Sacred bond", Southerners were at a lost to explain the desertion of slave from plantation, their unwillingness to work, and the potential of slave insurrections without enough troops to supervise. SiberioS ( talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to insist on coming up with more and more photos, then you need to be getting them from a verifiable source, like one of the dozens of books that have Confederate photography. I'm sure there are microfilm collections of photographs from the civil war. SiberioS ( talk) 06:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So instead of taking any hints to improve the article by providing some basic references to the non-controversial sections, he's decided to try to discredit them. In the words of Sam Rayburn, "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one." Red Harvest ( talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I took the quote out (again) and have written up a little bit replacing the kind of vague and uncited piece about the specifics of how many and from where the (very limited) black soldier recruitment took place. Tommorrow I'm going to the library to go sifting through Durden's The Grey and the Black, as well as searching through the record to see if there were any direct statements from the individuals involved. SiberioS ( talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of forking the Confederate section (and eventually the Union section) to seperate pages and leaving summaries here. Thing is, I can't really think of any good, short names for a new article. Any ideas anyone? SiberioS ( talk) 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've finally started moving it over, as well as getting down to basics on the Union side of the equation. SiberioS ( talk) 05:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the second quote, that website, a review of the book? I'm sure he says something effectively similar in the book (I've glanced over it) but could someone actually find something direct from the book, as opposed to second hand? SiberioS ( talk) 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This photo
is just too good to leave out of here, so I'm 'bookmarking' it here for when there's enough material in the civil war section for it to fit comfortably. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 08:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
what was the role of African Americans in the Barbary Wars and other small conflicts? More info is also needed on how they fought and what side, as well as their status compared to regular troops Rds865 ( talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The tv show The Unit might be included in the pop culture section. Rds865 ( talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand everyone's yearning for political correctness (although I don't share this yearning), but changing the title from Indian Wars to Native American wars to be PC is improper. No one has ever heard of the Native American Wars, while the Indian Wars is a title that has been in existence for quite some time. The U.S. Army even refers to it as the Indian Wars - see here. Sf46 ( talk) 11:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with using the term "European American" and "White interchangeably is not merely that it hasn't gotten widespread acceptance, but that it doesn't accurately describe what being "white" is. "White", as an "Ethnic group", is mostly a social construction that collapses a wide-variety of light-skinned ethnicities all over the world besides Europe (from the northern regions of Africa, to some parts of the middle east, to Russia) into a kind diaspora, separated from Europe and other continents by generations and social and cultural differences. African-American is similar, in that it collapses a wide variety of ethnic and tribal groups into one single category (it is notable that the idea of an "African" race is one mostly of the construct of outsiders to Africa, for the idea of "Pan-africanism" did not begin until the turn of the last century), because they've been physically and in a sense, socially and culturally, divorced from their genealogical brethren. While white as a term can be more easily separated out into constituent parts due to the strength of memory and cultural ties to home countries, as opposed to the destruction of traditional tribal culture when slaves were brought over, its usefulness (as indicated by its appearance in numerous laws, court judgments, and rhetoric in America) is not diminished. The reality is, the segregation of the Army was not based on "European American" and "African-American's", but on "Whites", a much more permissive category, and "African American's". SiberioS ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Spike Lee’s Movie. St., Miracle of Anna “Here’s My Take”
As a former Combat Infantryman that served with U. S. Army's last all Black Combat Unit, the 24th Infantry Regiment, formerly known as “BUFFALO SOLDIERS” (Korea 1950 - 1951)
I found most of the War scene not very convincing. And degrading to the memories I have of serving with former members of the 92nd Infantry Division in Korea...
1. They weren't as focused as they would've been under the circumstances. There would have less concern about the racist conditions of the time and more focus on their present surrounding. Like in such a situation (combat patrol) one's six-sense kicks in.
2. No platoon leader, or platoon sergeant nor squad leader would've allowed one of their men to carry alone a 15 or 20 pound head of a marble stature, on a combat patrol. Not only would it had farther endanger his life and mobility, but also those of his companions.
3. No leader would send a civilian to safe guard their position. Like what happen when the platoon sergeant send one of the partisan as lookout. Or entrusting your weapon to a prostitute.
4. One of the most unimaginable instants, was the German Officer, giving his side arm to a wounded American soldier, to defend himself against his own troops.
5. Also soldiers with loaded weapons in town (the southern ice cream parlor incident) I could see them returning to their base, retaining them, then returning to town.
For the above five reasons I could only give the movie 1.1/2 stars...
I guess there's certain guidelines movie maker must follow when making Hollywood war movies. I just don’t know
The most appreciated part of the movie, is the recognition being paid to the African American military achievement during the world war two (WW2) and the 92nd Infantry Division, of which I've had the honor to serve with a few former members during the Korean war. Where I served as a combat Infantry Rifleman, and they as commanding officers.
Its for that reason that I recommend, others see the movie, (Miracle of St. Anna) In the hope that someday, some African American movie maker, and hopefully Spike Lee.
And not allow his wonderful movie making skills, to be trivialized to the point of buffoonery. Just to be accepted if that was the case with Miracle Of Saint Anna.
I am a firm believer that if we (African American) don't tell our stories, we shouldn't expect others to do it.
Still, we should bare in mind that Wars, is no joking matter.
And not to be consumed as presented by HOLLYWOOD USA.
The movie (war scenes) is an insult to the honorable memories of the 92nd Infantry Division "Buffalo-Soldiers"
PS: Where our history is concerned, we (African Americans) should always be on the alert for the small things that might be used as a yardstick, to measure the whole
Curtis J. Morrow: G-Company, 1st Platoon, 1st Squad. AuthorOF Obibini ( talk) 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC): WHAT'S A COMMIE EVER DONE TO BLACK PEOPLE? & former BUFFALO SOLDIER
I included this book as recommended reading since it contains an entire chapter on Dorie Miller and his actions at Pearl Harbor, as well as an analysis of his actual conduct and the political use made by both the U.S. Navy, President Roosevelt and the Afro-American community and press. The book also includes the story of Messman Harmon, the first Afro-American to have a combat Navy ship named after him. Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 08:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the picture at the top of the article, Toni Fessell's portrait of the 332nd Fighters in Italy during WW2, as a featured picture on Wiki commons. Please support the nomination by leaving your (positive!) opinion here. Information on voting is here (voting expires in nine days).-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 05:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the following which was added to the article's civil war section:
Other Free Blacks served in the Confederate cause without the sanction of the Confederate Congress--men such as William Clarke Quantrill's scout, John Noland, [1] Colombus Graves, killed at Shiloh, and James Hervey. [2] The issue here is complex and not widely understood--in fact, it is politically incorrect to debate it at all, but several books exist on the subject. [3]
The entire Civil War era is covered by one paragraph in Summary style fashion. The mention of a few anecdotal cases of alleged black confederates does not fit into this article and an SCV website is not a reliable source for this article or any other article. The editor's opinion that the subject "is complex and not widely understood" is nothing but POV and original research. In fact, other than a few works that concentrate on the anecdotal, the vast majority of civil war historians fail to accept these type of anecdotes as historically significant. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
References
I think it should be noted in the section about the Korean that it was the first war with integrated units. I think that is a very important fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.235.103 ( talk) 21:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I propose to combine this article with African-American discrimination in the U.S. Military. The African-American military history is a history of discrimination, why source it out to another article?! The structuring of this other article is similar, analogous to the US military involvement. One could incorporate the essence of the discrimination article into this one, section by section.-- Severino ( talk) 00:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Another editor noted some problems with the American Revolution section and deleted four paragraphs. I have restored them as a quick search revealed at least parts of these paragraphs are easily verified. I've given some cites for sections of two of them. Another paragraph has two relevant wikilinks and should not have been removed. The other paragraph also appears partially correct although it will likely require some editing and proper citation. The link to Black loyalists (that was also over zealously deleted) is well organized and could provide a good resource for improving this section.
There are some serious problems remaining including wildly contradictory claims of the numbers serving on both sides. There is also an uncited sentence about how many supposedly escaped to British lines, how many served, and a dubious claim that the majority were not given their freedom. The smallpox epidemic fatality claim also requires sourcing. If I can't find anything to back them I'm going to start removing them.
Overall this section could use some restructuring for readability as well. It is very disjointed. Red Harvest ( talk) 07:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The recent edit to remove the generals from the article was due solely to the format and structure; it disrupted the lede and put a large gape between the lede and the article. This information should be provided in its own section, or perhaps in its own article with a link in this one. ScrapIronIV ( talk) 15:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Military history of African Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The article Racism against African Americans in the U.S. military is unnecessary. The article Military history of African Americans must cover the role that racism played in the experiences of African Americans in the United States military. Mitchumch ( talk) 20:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Looking at the entire history of African Americans in the military when you are specifically interested in racism and segregation may bury the information that is being sought.``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C400:7BB1:8DA0:365B:9695:AF90 ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
THIS GENERATION of $%&*$ young people. I'm a Black man who served in Vietnam as an officer and I am Ivy League educated and successful, with time as a college professor. How can you narrow the history of Black people in the military of the US and the story of the "inclusion" of that segment and mix it with the stupidity of complaining about "racism" in the military when the story of the military is the story of inclusion and full citizenship. Who proposed this suggestion, the Klan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.16.31 ( talk) 15:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Military history of African Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://hnn.us/articles/8658When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
added Elizabeth "tex" Williams because it shows that women did more than become nurses in world war one. Autumn Black ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 10 April 2018 (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 |
All help is welcome and needed! ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The use of capital letters should be minimized where possible. Since I'm not in the mood for move wars, please check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters and convince yourself. -- Dissident ( Talk) 01:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just added the official muster roll information of all African Americans who were mustered into the Army for the War with Spain, complete with dates, and where they went. You should use it to flesh out this article.
CORNELIUSSEON 04:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is another link for you to utilize.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Just added a subsection on World War II - to include the award of the Medal of Honor to seven in 1997. — ERcheck @ 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
under "See Also", Abbott was deleted as he was a Canadian. However, he lived in the USA on a couple occasions and served under contract. Technically, I'd suggest in a more traditional sense, that Canadians are Americans just as Brazilians are also Americans (or more accurately South Americans). Wikipedia states "American may refer to: A person or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the Western Hemisphere ".
From the biography link on his page it appears he played a prominent role in the Civil War as one of only eight African-American surgeons:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertaSunwapta ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 December 2006
{{ Canada-bio-stub}}
Category:American Canadians Category:Black Canadians Category:Canadian physicians Category:People from Toronto Category:Pre-Confederation Ontario people Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians
This article is in desperate need of citations... Balloonman 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I second that. Also phrases like "the African American soldiers bravely advanced over open ground in the face of deadly artillery fire" and such don't seem too neutral to me. Not to diminish the deed, but we'd better stick to wiki rules -- 70.83.157.66 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed this from the article:
It directly contradicts our Battle of Fort Pillow article, it seems very POVish to me, and I can't locate any references that confirm these events occuring at the Battle of Fort Blakely. 70.20.194.59 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I re-removed the Fort Blakely paragraph. There are no citations for it and as you say it is written in an unseemly POVish style. Red Harvest ( talk) 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know the number of African American enlistees and draftees in the Vietnam war. Also, for discussion, what people are thinking about President Lyndon Johnson's passing of Kennedy's Civil Rights Amendment considering its proximity to Vietnam War enlistment and draft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.39.126 ( talk) 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC) "African Americans during the conflict suffered casualty rates slightly higher than their percentage of the total population" seems an incorrect comparison.. Should read ."...than those of the total population." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.180.165 ( talk) 04:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of military history items/dates that are not covered in this article. Would a list or timeline of African American military firsts/events add quality to this article? Something like this:
DATE (or Year) | Name (or event) | Notability | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
October 4, 1985 | Donnie Cochran | became the first African American to serve as a member of the Blue Angels precision flying team | |
February 1, 1998 | Lillian E. Fishburne | officially promoted and becomes the first African-American female to hold the rank of Rear Admiral in the United States Navy | |
June 24, 2005 | Jeanine McIntosh | officially completed aviation training to become the first African American female in the United States Coast Guard to earn the Coast Guard Aviation Designation |
A seperate table could be placed following each subheading currently in the article. Absolon S. Kent 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The Olustee paragraph about "cannon fodder" and quoting a CS Engineer as its documentation seems weak. Nulty's book on the battle doesn't support the interpretation given. There were also complaints of killings of wounded Blacks by various rebels after the battle (and boasts of having done so.) Red Harvest ( talk) 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Black Confederates section is a mishmash of poorly cited and second hand reports, not unlike elusive sightings of Big Foot, in the stark contrast of the obvious and documented roles of blacks in the Union army. I'll be cleaning up the entry over the next couple days. SiberioS ( talk) 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of what I removed was either anecdotal and piecemeal, or was secondhand, or from a site with a hell of an explicit axe to grind (most of the websites used as sources would pawn off their statements on a variety of "books" that do not pass historical muster, especially presses that put out books with a decidedly Lost Cause slant). It's also absurd to take what are a handful of irregular instances to form a cohesive strategy on the part of either the Confederacy or the numerous state armies that served it. Despite the constant caterwauling that black Confederates existed, they simply do not exist in the pension rolls, are almost nonexistent except for a handful of mentions (and often only in laborer positions) in the Federal Record. Even most people who claim there were black Confederate soldiers can never pin down how many (accusing Yankees of rewriting the history, even though no one else contests the Federal Record unless it suits them), especially when there is an overwhelming (209K) of black troops for the Union side, accounted for by name, in the Record, in the pension rolls, and in a number of Union burial grounds. It just doesn't add up. SiberioS ( talk) 08:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Revolutionary War Section - not a single reference
U.S. Civil War & Union Army Sections - not a single reference
Indian Wars - not a single reference & individual example of Henry O. Flipper
Spanish American War - not a single reference
World War I - not a single refernce & individual example of Freddie Stowers
Spanish Civil War - not a single reference & individual example of Oliver Law
World War II - several indivdual soldier examples
Korean War - whole section is about only 1 soldier
Vietnam War - several individual soldier examples
Post-Vietnam - several individual soldier examples
Noting all of this, tell me again why I can't put a photo of an individual soldier or his account, and why I can't put sourced info when all of this unsourced info is left untouched?
Sf46 (
talk) 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the midst of poring over Confederate Emancipation by Levine, and will be using it to refashion, with sources from the Official Record and other journal articles, the Confederate section to highlight the argument and debate that was raised over the "Negro question" in the Confederate Army, of whether or not slaves and freedmen should be enlisted. The debate was an interesting one, and showed at times stark ideological and practical contrast between people in the South, from civilians up into the halls of the Confederate government and military structure. Despite the assertions of other people above, who insist that I'm trying to cover up some sort of phantom legions of black Confederate soldiers, highlighting the debate, as well as the contrasting and conflicting policies and statements of the people involved, would be the best way to explain the issue. I should also point out, that the fact that there was debate, nullifies the idea that there were vast numbers of blacks enlisted or serving in combat roles. Why such an argument if it was already happening? SiberioS ( talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That photo is a fake. I'll have to go searching for it, but theres a website that shows the real version (which was a photo taken of a troops in the USCT) and its use as the basis for a print that ended up being used for recruitment purposes in the USCT. SiberioS ( talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Here it is http://people.virginia.edu/~jh3v/retouchinghistory/essay.html . SiberioS ( talk) 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd like to comment on the Frederick Douglass quote, and particularly how he quotes the Charleston paper. Simply put, the Charleston paper (and other Southern papers) were blowing smoke. One of the more interesting parts is the evolution of the loyalty and steadfastness of the slave into the indolent, lazy, and potentially murderous slave that would be talked about in 1863 as the war dragged on, as the USCT was instituted, and after the Emancipation Proclamation. After years of espousing about the "Sacred bond", Southerners were at a lost to explain the desertion of slave from plantation, their unwillingness to work, and the potential of slave insurrections without enough troops to supervise. SiberioS ( talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to insist on coming up with more and more photos, then you need to be getting them from a verifiable source, like one of the dozens of books that have Confederate photography. I'm sure there are microfilm collections of photographs from the civil war. SiberioS ( talk) 06:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So instead of taking any hints to improve the article by providing some basic references to the non-controversial sections, he's decided to try to discredit them. In the words of Sam Rayburn, "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one." Red Harvest ( talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I took the quote out (again) and have written up a little bit replacing the kind of vague and uncited piece about the specifics of how many and from where the (very limited) black soldier recruitment took place. Tommorrow I'm going to the library to go sifting through Durden's The Grey and the Black, as well as searching through the record to see if there were any direct statements from the individuals involved. SiberioS ( talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of forking the Confederate section (and eventually the Union section) to seperate pages and leaving summaries here. Thing is, I can't really think of any good, short names for a new article. Any ideas anyone? SiberioS ( talk) 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've finally started moving it over, as well as getting down to basics on the Union side of the equation. SiberioS ( talk) 05:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the second quote, that website, a review of the book? I'm sure he says something effectively similar in the book (I've glanced over it) but could someone actually find something direct from the book, as opposed to second hand? SiberioS ( talk) 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This photo
is just too good to leave out of here, so I'm 'bookmarking' it here for when there's enough material in the civil war section for it to fit comfortably. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 08:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
what was the role of African Americans in the Barbary Wars and other small conflicts? More info is also needed on how they fought and what side, as well as their status compared to regular troops Rds865 ( talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The tv show The Unit might be included in the pop culture section. Rds865 ( talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand everyone's yearning for political correctness (although I don't share this yearning), but changing the title from Indian Wars to Native American wars to be PC is improper. No one has ever heard of the Native American Wars, while the Indian Wars is a title that has been in existence for quite some time. The U.S. Army even refers to it as the Indian Wars - see here. Sf46 ( talk) 11:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with using the term "European American" and "White interchangeably is not merely that it hasn't gotten widespread acceptance, but that it doesn't accurately describe what being "white" is. "White", as an "Ethnic group", is mostly a social construction that collapses a wide-variety of light-skinned ethnicities all over the world besides Europe (from the northern regions of Africa, to some parts of the middle east, to Russia) into a kind diaspora, separated from Europe and other continents by generations and social and cultural differences. African-American is similar, in that it collapses a wide variety of ethnic and tribal groups into one single category (it is notable that the idea of an "African" race is one mostly of the construct of outsiders to Africa, for the idea of "Pan-africanism" did not begin until the turn of the last century), because they've been physically and in a sense, socially and culturally, divorced from their genealogical brethren. While white as a term can be more easily separated out into constituent parts due to the strength of memory and cultural ties to home countries, as opposed to the destruction of traditional tribal culture when slaves were brought over, its usefulness (as indicated by its appearance in numerous laws, court judgments, and rhetoric in America) is not diminished. The reality is, the segregation of the Army was not based on "European American" and "African-American's", but on "Whites", a much more permissive category, and "African American's". SiberioS ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Spike Lee’s Movie. St., Miracle of Anna “Here’s My Take”
As a former Combat Infantryman that served with U. S. Army's last all Black Combat Unit, the 24th Infantry Regiment, formerly known as “BUFFALO SOLDIERS” (Korea 1950 - 1951)
I found most of the War scene not very convincing. And degrading to the memories I have of serving with former members of the 92nd Infantry Division in Korea...
1. They weren't as focused as they would've been under the circumstances. There would have less concern about the racist conditions of the time and more focus on their present surrounding. Like in such a situation (combat patrol) one's six-sense kicks in.
2. No platoon leader, or platoon sergeant nor squad leader would've allowed one of their men to carry alone a 15 or 20 pound head of a marble stature, on a combat patrol. Not only would it had farther endanger his life and mobility, but also those of his companions.
3. No leader would send a civilian to safe guard their position. Like what happen when the platoon sergeant send one of the partisan as lookout. Or entrusting your weapon to a prostitute.
4. One of the most unimaginable instants, was the German Officer, giving his side arm to a wounded American soldier, to defend himself against his own troops.
5. Also soldiers with loaded weapons in town (the southern ice cream parlor incident) I could see them returning to their base, retaining them, then returning to town.
For the above five reasons I could only give the movie 1.1/2 stars...
I guess there's certain guidelines movie maker must follow when making Hollywood war movies. I just don’t know
The most appreciated part of the movie, is the recognition being paid to the African American military achievement during the world war two (WW2) and the 92nd Infantry Division, of which I've had the honor to serve with a few former members during the Korean war. Where I served as a combat Infantry Rifleman, and they as commanding officers.
Its for that reason that I recommend, others see the movie, (Miracle of St. Anna) In the hope that someday, some African American movie maker, and hopefully Spike Lee.
And not allow his wonderful movie making skills, to be trivialized to the point of buffoonery. Just to be accepted if that was the case with Miracle Of Saint Anna.
I am a firm believer that if we (African American) don't tell our stories, we shouldn't expect others to do it.
Still, we should bare in mind that Wars, is no joking matter.
And not to be consumed as presented by HOLLYWOOD USA.
The movie (war scenes) is an insult to the honorable memories of the 92nd Infantry Division "Buffalo-Soldiers"
PS: Where our history is concerned, we (African Americans) should always be on the alert for the small things that might be used as a yardstick, to measure the whole
Curtis J. Morrow: G-Company, 1st Platoon, 1st Squad. AuthorOF Obibini ( talk) 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC): WHAT'S A COMMIE EVER DONE TO BLACK PEOPLE? & former BUFFALO SOLDIER
I included this book as recommended reading since it contains an entire chapter on Dorie Miller and his actions at Pearl Harbor, as well as an analysis of his actual conduct and the political use made by both the U.S. Navy, President Roosevelt and the Afro-American community and press. The book also includes the story of Messman Harmon, the first Afro-American to have a combat Navy ship named after him. Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 08:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the picture at the top of the article, Toni Fessell's portrait of the 332nd Fighters in Italy during WW2, as a featured picture on Wiki commons. Please support the nomination by leaving your (positive!) opinion here. Information on voting is here (voting expires in nine days).-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 05:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the following which was added to the article's civil war section:
Other Free Blacks served in the Confederate cause without the sanction of the Confederate Congress--men such as William Clarke Quantrill's scout, John Noland, [1] Colombus Graves, killed at Shiloh, and James Hervey. [2] The issue here is complex and not widely understood--in fact, it is politically incorrect to debate it at all, but several books exist on the subject. [3]
The entire Civil War era is covered by one paragraph in Summary style fashion. The mention of a few anecdotal cases of alleged black confederates does not fit into this article and an SCV website is not a reliable source for this article or any other article. The editor's opinion that the subject "is complex and not widely understood" is nothing but POV and original research. In fact, other than a few works that concentrate on the anecdotal, the vast majority of civil war historians fail to accept these type of anecdotes as historically significant. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
References
I think it should be noted in the section about the Korean that it was the first war with integrated units. I think that is a very important fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.235.103 ( talk) 21:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I propose to combine this article with African-American discrimination in the U.S. Military. The African-American military history is a history of discrimination, why source it out to another article?! The structuring of this other article is similar, analogous to the US military involvement. One could incorporate the essence of the discrimination article into this one, section by section.-- Severino ( talk) 00:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Another editor noted some problems with the American Revolution section and deleted four paragraphs. I have restored them as a quick search revealed at least parts of these paragraphs are easily verified. I've given some cites for sections of two of them. Another paragraph has two relevant wikilinks and should not have been removed. The other paragraph also appears partially correct although it will likely require some editing and proper citation. The link to Black loyalists (that was also over zealously deleted) is well organized and could provide a good resource for improving this section.
There are some serious problems remaining including wildly contradictory claims of the numbers serving on both sides. There is also an uncited sentence about how many supposedly escaped to British lines, how many served, and a dubious claim that the majority were not given their freedom. The smallpox epidemic fatality claim also requires sourcing. If I can't find anything to back them I'm going to start removing them.
Overall this section could use some restructuring for readability as well. It is very disjointed. Red Harvest ( talk) 07:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The recent edit to remove the generals from the article was due solely to the format and structure; it disrupted the lede and put a large gape between the lede and the article. This information should be provided in its own section, or perhaps in its own article with a link in this one. ScrapIronIV ( talk) 15:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Military history of African Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The article Racism against African Americans in the U.S. military is unnecessary. The article Military history of African Americans must cover the role that racism played in the experiences of African Americans in the United States military. Mitchumch ( talk) 20:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Looking at the entire history of African Americans in the military when you are specifically interested in racism and segregation may bury the information that is being sought.``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C400:7BB1:8DA0:365B:9695:AF90 ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
THIS GENERATION of $%&*$ young people. I'm a Black man who served in Vietnam as an officer and I am Ivy League educated and successful, with time as a college professor. How can you narrow the history of Black people in the military of the US and the story of the "inclusion" of that segment and mix it with the stupidity of complaining about "racism" in the military when the story of the military is the story of inclusion and full citizenship. Who proposed this suggestion, the Klan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.16.31 ( talk) 15:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Military history of African Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://hnn.us/articles/8658When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
added Elizabeth "tex" Williams because it shows that women did more than become nurses in world war one. Autumn Black ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)