Talk:Nadir of American race relations

Untitled
I should probably have used endnotes, but I don't really know how they work in Wikipedia. If anyone wants to fix my current parenthetical references, that'd be dandy....NoahB 03:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

nadir worse than slavery?
I restored the section that stated that the nadir is used to suggest that the period from the 1890s to the 1920s was the worst moment for racism in American history -- with the implication that it was even worse than slavery. It's arguable, obviously, but some historians do in fact claim make the claim that racism was worse during the nadir. Rayford Logan, who coined the term called it the nadir, and didn't qualify it by arguing that slavery was worse, as far as I could tell in my reading of him. James Loewen's recent book "Sundown Towns" makes a pretty convincing case that racism -- in many parts of the north, especially -- was significantly worse during the nadir than during slavery. Note that the article doesn't say it *was* worse, merely that some historians have used the term to suggest that it was. I believe it should stay as it is. NoahB 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC) I(James W. Loewen) do not claim it was worse to be black in, say, 1915. I claim white ideology was more racist in 1915 than, say, 1815 or 1859. Jloewen (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)James W. LoewenJloewen (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

correlation between lynchings and cotton prices
If someone has access to a database with the text "Lynchings and the Economy: A Time Series. Reanalysis of Hovland and Sears (1940)." from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55:239-247, maybe it could be mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelamest (talk • contribs) 18 June 2006.


 * There has also been work done on the Mississippi frontier, showing the correlation between lynchings and the time of settlement of sharecropper claims. There was also evidence that more transient laborers were lynched than permanent residents, and, at a period when there were numerous Irish migrant workers who labored on the levees, more whites were lynched than blacks, as they were transient. That's beside part of the point, except to show the relation of lynchings to economic factors - and social factors, with the outsider transient being most at risk.--Parkwells (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Apologetic Bias
The object of an encyclopedia is not to propagandize and nervously and defensively defend one side against the other. This article stinks due to its 1) one-sided, partial sourcing; 2) nervous liberal propaganda and self-justification. This absurd bias should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.161.115.166 (talk • contribs) August 29, 2006.

You have made several accusations, including "one-sided partial sourcing." However, you have given no sources yourself, and have failed to point to a single specific problem in the article. Until you do so, I fear I have trouble taking your charges seriously. Just because you don't like what the article says, or dislike liberals, does not make the article incorrect, nor does it make it biased. I will leave the neutrality tag up for a day or so, but if you (or someone else) doesn't manage to come up with better, specific arguments and actual sources, I will take it off. NoahB 00:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, in the absence of specific accusations and/or sources (and given a quick check of the user's editing history, which indicates that no sources are likely to be forthcoming) I've decided to remove the "disputed" tag. 69.209.215.84 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh. The above comment is by me. Forgot to sign in. NoahB 20:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Essay, not encyclopedia entry
The subject line constitutes a conclusion, and thus the article inherently violates the NPOV policy. It's an essay, not an encyclopedia entry; you don't look up "nadir of American race relations" when you're looking for research material on race relations at the beginning of the 20th century (at least not unless you've already made up your mind and are looking for confirmation). It has some good material, but it would be better incorporated into other articles. This article looks like a candidate for deletion to me. GMcGath 11:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject line does not constitute a conclusion; it is a description of a particular time period. Periodization is inherently based on interpretation; thus the subject line is also a description of a particular historical interpretation. You might look up information about the nadir for any number of reasons -- because you've seen it mentioned in passing in another venues, for example, and want to find out what it means, or, indeed, because you're researching race relations at the beginning of the century and want to find out how historians have interpreted those events. It has been up for quite some time, which suggests that other folks have found it useful. You are, of course, welcome to put it up for deletion and see what happens. NoahB 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject line is a name commonly used by historians for the period in question. Quite a few titles of Wikipedia articles are commonly used phrases without nearly that claim to legitimacy. Three that leap to mind, in increasing order of distance from consensus academic opinion, are New anti-Semitism or Republican In Name Only or (to take an extreme example) Zionist Occupation Government. There is an article called A language is a dialect with an army and navy: a famous quotation, but by no means a universally held opinion. Those are all off the top of my head; I'm sure that given time I could think of a dozen more.

It is not Wikipedia's goal to pursue blandness at all costs. - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

GMcGath; I read your objection again. If I understand correctly, your argument is that the name of the period itself (the nadir) is an interpretation (it claims that this was the worst period of racism in US history), and that it is therefore POV. I can understand the concern, but I think it's misguided. First of all, the name isn't Wikipedia's; it's the actual term that historians use to describe this phenomena. Second, I think if you look closely, *most* names of historical periods or events are in fact interpretations. For example, the Civil War in the United States. The title of the war presumes that it was fought inside one country; that was (and to some extent remains) a politically contentious position (the south preferred the term War Between the States.) Even World War II has interpretive baggage; did the war really encompass the entire world (not all countries participated, after all.)  Is it really only the *second* world war? What about the Napoleanic Wars? Alexander's wars of conquest? etc.

Wikipedia is supposed to be from a *neutral* point of view, not from no point of view. It is neutral to describe a historical period in the language that historians have traditionally used to designate that period. It is not up to Wikipedia to pretend that points of view do not exist. NoahB 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A number of people, probably including some with more depth of knowledge of that historical period than I, have argued that the term is a standard one. If so, I withdraw my objection, but offer the suggestion that citations showing the use of the term by more than one historian would deflect any criticisms such as mine. Something of the form "In addition to Logan, historians X, Y and Z have used the term." GMcGath 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what would constitute particularly useful citations of this, but just from a quick Google search:


 * Michael B. Katz and Mark J. Stern, in the Prologue to One Nation Divisible take the term so for granted as not even to bother attributing it.
 * The footnotes for Melissa Harris Lacewell, ''Seeking a Prophet: How Religion Mediates the Relationship between Black America and the U.S. Presidents (University of Chicago Press) include a footnote that simply says "Historians classify the post-Reconstruction era, especially following Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the nadir of American race relations."
 * The Sociology of Selected Monuments in Washington, DC, or Stories Behind the Stones on the site of the American Sociological Association also more or less takes the term for granted: "The Lincoln Memorial was built between 1914 and 1922, in the midst of what has been called the 'nadir of American race relations,' an unlikely time to remember the Great Emancipator." It also goes on to say "So segregated had the United States become that at its dedication, African Americans were restricted to a section across the road from the white audience", a fact that might well belong in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The first two cites are useful; the last one is actually another essay written by Loewen. Rayford Logan, who coined the term, and Eric Foner, who's book is the standard account of Reconstruction, both use the term as well. Here's another glancing reference 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the cites Jmabel found to the article; it seems worth doing in case other folks have the same objection GMcGath does. Is that what you were thinking we should do, GMcGath, or do you have another suggestion? (Thanks for your help by the way; new perspectives are always helpful on an article.) NoahB 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article goes all over, defining the period as up to 1900, then to 1940, then up to WWI. 1940 is too late. All of this material is covered in other articles, even the idea of the late 19th-early 20th c. "nadir of race relations", so I'm not sure it needs a separate article, especially as it's too unfocused, taking in the rise of the 2nd KKK, which didn't reach its peak until the mid-1920s. The article had nothing about what else was going on in the US during those years.  Racism didn't exist separately from economic and social trials. I've made numerous additions and deletions.--Parkwells (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Afrocentrism
Uh huh....'nuff said, 'bout this article. Éponyme 11:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um...I fear I don't understand you. Are you dismissing this article (nadir of American race relations)?  Are you supporting it?  Are you saying it is equivalent to the Afrocentrism article?  That last claim seems exceedingly dubious to me, by the by, but if you want to make the case for including such a link, and have sources, we could certainly talk about it....  If you had some other point which you feels need to be made, please clarify.  NoahB 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason for revert
The IP address seemed to be trying to suggest that reputable historians continue to argue that Reconstruction was a failure because blacks were not ready for freedom, following the interpretation common in the 1920s. All the sources I have seen (including those I cite) insist that this version of events is discredited. The IP provided no sources and no summary, even though he (or she) removed large blocks of text. I have therefore reverted to the earlier version. NoahB 17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

unbalanced
This article is way too argumentative to exist as it currently does. View the following excerpt:

"Furthermore, the governments had solid accomplishments, especially in the improvement of education for both blacks and whites. Nor are the charges of rule by incompetent blacks justified. In the first place, no Reconstruction government was dominated by black people; in fact, blacks never attained a level of representation equal to their prominence in the population. (Current, pp. 446-449) Secondly, when blacks did serve in public office, they often did so with distinction. In fact, the entrance of blacks into political life was, Eric Foner argued, the most exciting and positive aspect of the Reconstruction period, constituting "a massive experiment in interracial democracy without precedent in the history of this or any other country that abolished slavery in the 19th century." (p. xxv)"

this is more indiciative of a idea-driven term paper than a description of events in a historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.210.152 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how one would go about discussing a controversial historical thesis without using ideas or arguments. NPOV doesn't mean non-argumentative, nor does it mean that we need to strive for some sort of platonic objective "description of events." It does mean we must provide sources and detail the arguments in a balanced way. And again, "balanced" doesn't mean pretending that all claims are equal, but rather giving the best consensus opinion available and detailing objections to it as best as possible, using sources to back up each point. In that vein, if you have objections to particular points made, please explain what they are -- ideally providing sources -- and we can discuss them. NoahB 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this sufficiently fact-based and impartial to qualify as encyclopaedic?
I have some problems with the section "Reconstruction as a time of hope". Whether or not you agree with the idea that blacks are inferior, I think it has to be said that this section, in particular the last paragraph, does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The suggestion that all the black politicians serving in this time and place did so with distinction is entirely a matter of opinion. Most opinions on the subject of the nadir era would horrify people today, but it is not the place of an encyclopaedia to express opinions or tell people how to think, regardless of how politically incorrect the opposing opinion is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.132.251 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph has two citations, including one from Eric Foner, who is generally considered the leading expert on this subject. That Reconstruction ended because of racism is currently the consensus opinion among historians.  Leaving out that fact would be misleading.  The opposing opinion is not merely politically incorrect, but overwhelmingly historically invalidated.  NoahB (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article relies too much on heated quotes from Lowen; there are other reliable historians who have covered the same material. There are too many first person quotes - Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable third-party sources. There were more issues than simply racism affecting the reception of blacks in the North in the Great Migration - for instance, the even greater number of immigrants from Europe.  It is naive to think all those people could have been absorbed without tensions in new communities where they competed for housing and jobs, especially in a climate of economic problems, where most people felt government had a limited role.--Parkwells (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Assasinations?
"On a national level, many of the nation's most famous political assassinations—Robert Kennedy's, Martin Luther King Jr.'s, Malcolm X's—were linked to racial divisions which the nadir accentuated."

What? RFK was assasinated by an Arab immigrant, Malcom X by another African-American. I don't see how any of this relates to the black/white relations during the nadir era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly right about Kennedy; I'll remove him. I think Malcolm X is arguably still a good example, but if other's think he should be cut we can certainly take him out. NoahB (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dumb Declaration, Dumb Article
Just because some yahoo historian declared that this period was the so-called 'nadir' of American race relations and a few others may agree does not make it so. It was a horrible time for black Americans, no doubt about that, but to say that it was worse than the hundreds of years of slavery that proceeded the Civil War is ludicrous. At most this article should be a few lines long, mostly describing the historian who coined the phrase a hyperbolic fool.--Fizbin (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the above is a misinterpretation of the phrase "nadir of American race relations." "Race relations" is not the same as "racism," and certainly not the same as "oppression of African Americans."  Withut a doubt, oppression of African Americans was worse during the slavery period, and very arguably white racism was worse at that time too.  "Race relations," however, means exactly that: the feelings and relationships that existed between one race and another.  Slave revolts were very few in the USA, and most of the time slave masters liked to excuse their actions as beneficial for the black race, saying that enslavement "Christianized" and "uplifted" the supposedly debased Africans.  After liberation, a very different attitude appears; the free blacks were regarded all the time, not just during isolated incidents, as a threat to be driven out.  Black attitudes, in turn, were considerably less submissive than during the slavery period.  So calling this era the "nadir of race relations" is simply saying that this was the time when the races viewed each other with the most hostility and suspicion, not that it was the time that black people were treated the worst, and certainly not the time that they hit bottom legally or economically.  Pirate Dan (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Retarded"?
The picture in the South section of the article that depicts the lynching/burning of Jesse Washington describes him as "retarded". I don't know if this is vandalism or the person who wrote this was trying to say that Washington suffered from mental retardation. If it's the latter, that should be made more clear so readers don't think this is nothing more than a cheap insult sneaked into the article. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Most sources do say that Jesse Washington was mentally retarded. Do you think that adding "mentally" before "retarded" would clarify the matter?


 * Of course, we could just take out the reference to his retardation; I don't know any evidence that Washington's retardation had anything to do with his being murdered. Pirate Dan (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, adding "mentally" would help to clarify it, considering that "retarded" is all too often used as an everyday insult. The mention of it is somewhat important, considering his mental limitations were just some of reasons why he was unable to defend himself when he was accused of raping and murdering a woman. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunning misquoted
That supposed quote from Dunning is actually from John William Burgess, from his 1902 book Reconstruction and the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.51.204 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Have corrected the error and added some language which introduces Dunning and the Dunning School. How does this revision sit with you? Can you suggest some more specific language to describe the two historians, and their place in this whole narrative? Admittedly this article is difficult to word in an encyclopedic way, as it deals more with the inherently nebulous historiography of reconstruction than with 'the facts themselves'. Side note: my goodness, the article Historiography of the United States could use some work. aloha, groupuscule (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Historiography is much easier to write than history & much less "nebulous". That is because most all the evidence is available in easily found sources, such as books and articles by historians. Rjensen (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you do have a point there, Rjensen. I guess the difficulty this groupuscule perceives in historiography—writing about the writing of history—is that one has to classify ideas, which might be a more subjective process than classifying, say, acres of land. One can always rely on tertiary sources, for such classifications as "The Dunning School". But other tertiary sources might analyze the intellectual history differently and in other cases no source may be available. Ironically, therefore, a Wikipedia article discussing only the work of historians—such as Historiography of the United States as well as Nadir of American race relations—can read a lot like a synthesis. Just because the task is difficult, of course, doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it. groupuscule (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In writing historiography, no synthesis is needed: the historians you look at provide the structure and you tell the audience how the historians used that intellectual structure and the data to come to their conclusions. In writing history, you'll have to choose between multiple intellectual frameworks. If you follow the Marxists, for example, you'll spend a lot of time on economic matters such as land ownership & acreage. If you follow the cultural historians to be looking at issues such as ethnicity & race. The social historians will be talking about families and kinship relationships. Political historians focus on the voters and politicians. In other words, the multiple choices are quite complicated, which is why history departments teach a lot of historiography, and the profession sponsors many journals with extensive book review sections. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mild NPOV edit to opening sentence "warned" and removed as vandalism with no explanation.
check edit history to see. i am new to wikipedia editing, but i believe my edit does not at all qualify under the category of vandalism, and that was certainly not my intention. it is somewhat vindicating to see this talk page full of similar issues, and makes me wonder further why my edits were immediately disciplined and threatened with an IP block when this is clearly a well established point of contention. here is my reply to the user "One Of Many" who threatened me with the block:

"no vandalism was intended, i made what i considered to be a minor change in grammar in order to strip some of the authoritative tone of the opening sentence. vandalism as described in your policy is anything which would obstruct the construction of a free encyclopedia. in my opinion, this clearly did not obstruct anything and merely changed the language to sound a bit more neutral, in the interest of simply conveying information, rather than espousing or cultivating a certain viewpoint towards what is a controversial period in American history. would you care to talk about this and perhaps elaborate? i'm not familiar with the technicalities of wikipedia."

anyone else care to chime in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.39.151 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Lacking historiography
For what is essentially a historiographical concept, historiography is notable for its absence - there is no discussion of the origins of the concept or of debates over it. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)