Talk:Illusion of inclusion/Archive 1

Neutrality dispute
Why is this article's neutrality being disputed? Jarble (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There are some points where it reads like the article is advancing an opinion, or where opinions are stated as unqualified facts. A few quotes that jumped out to me as I rescanned the article:
 * "European-Americans are able to receive an abundance of work opportunities, schooling that translates to upward mobility, to have properties that appreciate in value, and live where crime is not generally a concern" -- This is more likely to be true for white than black Americans, but should not be an unqualified statement. See: Appalachia.
 * "Millions of enslaved Africans had their humanity, identity, culture, history, language, and religion taken from them. While divinely gifted to all, freedom in the United States of America was not given for enslaved Africans; rather, it was struggled for and earned in the successes of the American Civil War in 1865. Since the 1960s, following the civil rights movement and colonization of Africa, Africans have continued living in a state of survival, and have sought to restore the identity of Africans since enslavement." -- Absolutely true, unfortunately, but the language is excessively poetic ( ie. "divinely gifted to all") and it takes a long time for it to even be clear what point the paragraph is coming to.
 * "Most African-Americans, particularly African-American professionals, are considered to be engrossed in what Minister Louis Farrakhan called the illusion of inclusion." -- Considered by whom? I'm extremely skeptical of anything that's going to defer uncritically to Louis Farrakhan.
 * "Critical examination of inclusion and GLBTQ curricular resources has shown that GLBTQ inclusionary practices are actually limited and exclusionary; additionally, it has shown that these practices are essentially re-inventions of the existing power structures of oppression, and are parts of a greater project of homonationalism, which results in homonormative subjects being changed into ideal members of the country." -- They've been shown to be limited and exclusionary? Is that the consensus? Exclusionary of whom?
 * The introduction is fine, but some of the claims in the subsections are advanced as arguments or stated as facts when they shouldn't be. NuanceQueen (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)