Talk:Timeline of racial tension in Omaha, Nebraska

Doubles
1919 - Willy Brown lynching is listed twice. I'll remove the one with less information. --72.164.215.194 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to leave comment on my edit, sorry, not a frequent editor. --72.164.215.194 (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Title and content
In one way, I understand the intent of this - to point to racial problems or incidents in Omaha, but it is an arbitrary listing of generally violent or discriminatory incidents. There is little about what went well. If it is only to be a listing of violent incidents involving African Americans, maybe that should be the title, because it does not tell the whole story about racial relations. There is also little setting of context - about the general rate of violence against immigrants, or between immigrant groups, or between lower economic classes, or within the black community, or how often other people in jail died in custody, etc. Other articles attest to a general rate of violence and lawlessness in the 19th c. in Omaha; if there was crime and prostitution, there were probably also other deaths enforced by crime lords; at other times, fierce labor struggles resulted in deaths, all among whites, etc. It's not a timeline in the sense of leading up to something within a specific time period; it is a listing of numerous events connected to African American history in every century in Omaha. It's mostly a one-sided listing, as it picks out incidents of violence, and has many fewer events related to community building. How do we know what the editors left out? For instance, it notes the first church and African American fair, but does not note the interracial organizing committee in the 1930s that successfully brought about the interracial United Packinghouse Workers of America, nor how that union supported ending segregation in restaurants in Omaha in the 1950s. Unionization also helped all meatpacking and stockyard workers gain a living wage, at least for a couple of decades before massive restructuring of the industry. Nationally the union also supported the civil rights movement of the 1960s, so may have in Omaha as well.--Parkwells (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The topic of the article is racial tension, not race relations or racial reconciliation; it is inherently skewed towards events that record the racism and imbalance of power between different racial and ethnic groups in Omaha. I would not think it remiss to rename the article in order to broaden its scope, nor would it be imprudent to add more items in order to reflect a broader topic. However, simply retitling the article and deleting content should not be a substitution to contributing the growth of the article. • Freechild   'sup?   01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Disconnect between title and content
Since many incidents celebrating African American firsts and community building have been added, this is no longer a list simply of "racial tension" or racial violence. I really think it needs a new title. Maybe it is now "List of events from African American history in Omaha". The birth of Malcom X or the founding of women's groups aren't events of "racial tension" or violence.--Parkwells (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The topic of the article isn't supposed to be solely about African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska; rather, it is meant to reflect Omaha's history of unrest between, among and against ethnic and racial groups that has persisted throughout the city's history. I'm concerned that by changing the subject of a sentences, as you did with "More than 800 students, children of immigrant laborers in South Omaha, protested the presence of Japanese students, as they were children of strikebreakers," you aren't reflecting the intent of the citation's original author nor the racial tension inherent in the incident. As for whether this is a timeline or a list, I suppose I am in no position to argue the point, as I've been wrong before. However, I would like to note that these events are related in the sense of the article's stated topic at this point. • Freechild   'sup?   01:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My point about adding information about the labor implications of the two groups of students is that the whole situation of strikebreakers also added to it; it was not just about race. Maybe they would have protested Japanese students anyway, but the source I read included the information that the Japanese had been hired as strikebreakers, and that was significant to the children of competing workers.--Parkwells (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand and agree with that perspective; however, it seems as if restating the issue to highlight the effects of labor diminishes the requisite racism behind the protests. As you've noted, Greeks were targeted by racists in Omaha as well, and in period reports that was pinned on their role as strikebreakers, as well. The Red Summer riot was noted the same way. Jews were discriminated against, and now you and I are learning that may have been related to their role in labor as well. However, at the same time all that was conspiring, "white" "Americans" from the East Coast were migrating to the city and "taking" jobs, but they weren't attacked. English and Eastern Europeans were coming, but they weren't attacked. There was a pattern of white people not being attacked, and apparently, people of any other race being attacked violently or otherwise. That seems to be the very definition of racial tension to me - although admittedly, that whole argument, and consequently the premise for the article, borders on original research. There are a few sources that discuss the history in this magnitude though, particularly this one. • Freechild   'sup?   13:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strikebreakers elicited fierce passions. In Herrin, IL, during a late 19th c. national mineworkers strike, at least 20 of 50 strikebreakers were killed by a mob of workers.  They had been recruited from Chicago (this had relatively recent treatment in a history, and I think if they were African American, it would have been addressed in the text.)  Another source did say there was evidence that workers were extra resentful and more violent when race came into play, as at the Chicago stockyards and 1919 riots. I wasn't trying to discount race, but do think the other issues have to be there, too. (Too tired to think today.) --Parkwells (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In late 19th c. cities in some areas, white strikebreakers were attacked by other white working class groups. I think at Homestead strikebreakers were Scandinavian and despised and attacked as scabs. I think there were violent strikes and killings of strikers and strikebreakers at some of the western mines, too. It was usually the newest immigrant or migrant groups who were recruited as strikebreakers; in the early 20th c. the newest workers in some areas (and strikebreakers) were blacks and Japanese. One of the reasons I started looking at this was because of reading about the Irish in NY and Chicago.  They fought a lot to make their places and protected them strongly (with violence) against other ethnic groups, including later European immigrants and American black migrants.  By the time the latter two groups arrived in greater number, the Irish in Chicago were strongly esconced in neighborhoods and some jobs, as well as athletic clubs that seemed to act as enforcement arms of politicians and corruption. There was a lot of violent frontier in many of the cities.--Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, the other issues do need to be there, and I trust that your intentions are right, there is no question in my mind about that. I just don't want to lose sight of the fact that racism [read: "racial tension"] made it permissible for so-called "white people" to attack other people, regardless of the reason. There are several stories I didn't work into this article, primary among them the story of a sharp-shooter who haunted Omaha for several weeks in the 1920s picking people off. The city was terrified. But there was no yellow journalism rallying mobs against blacks, and there were no Irish leaders hiding their labor animosity inside of burning down a Greek neighborhood, and there was no crime boss hiding his ill-bidding inside of city government. The city simply panicked instead; when it turned out the shooter was an English immigrant, there wasn't any retribution against his ethnic "element" inside the city. So this isn't an arbitrary listing of violent events; rather, these are notable events that occurred in a linear fashion throughout the history of the city. Does that justify its existence? • Freechild   'sup?   23:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These are really interesting changes you've made by creating the table; I think your table has brought much focus to the page. You always bring up questions for me - in a good way, so I hope you don't mind. Can you really label it "racism" for Dahlman to have lassoed the Japanese, or more attribute it to his general American crudeness? The source says he kept a lasso "in his office", so it appears the Japanese weren't the only ones he roped, and they had asked about his cow punching past. I certainly agree there was much racism in society.
 * And, later, why do you label a number of events and activities having to do with achieving civil rights (De Porres Club, protests at Peony Park) as "community activism" rather than "civil rights", especially many events in the 1960s?
 * Last (but not wanting to make difficulties), is it possible that someone could complain about the classification you have given each of these events as OR when the cited third-party sources do not label or classify them as you do? Was the first African-American fair a result of segregation at another fair and/or the community wanting to celebrate progress (especially since the Civil War)?--Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Each of these are great points Parkwells, valid in every way. Regarding the question of OR, I think your point about Dahlman is valid, as that is my label. Several others can be cited specifically, and I will go back through and do that. About the rest, I will remove them until an appropriate citation is found. (For the sake of it though, Dahlman was a faux-thug, and his American bravado was probably part-and-parcel with racism. We must remember that everything that happened in the city between 1906 and 1930 - a particularly volatile time.) • Freechild   'sup?   21:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of Dahlman is probably correct, and it was a wild and woolly time, but since this is Wikipedia... it is great to keep up with all of your work. --Parkwells (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)