Talk:African American studies

Neutrality and quality

This article seems to be written from a fairly biased perspective - see, for example, the titling of the section "The rise and fall of African American Studies" and the sentence "Racism perpetrated by many administrators hinders the institutionalization of Black Studies at major university." As can be seen in this passage, this article also has problems with grammar and encyclopedic tone. In addition, since this discipline is and has been the subject of some controversy and criticism from within the academic community, one of the most common and cogent criticisms being that it is not a field of research but a political cause. On these grounds I would suggest adding a "Criticism" section to the article to lend credence to some of the challenges leveled against the field. Gatotsu911 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree -- although I'm not as convinced the article is balanced. There should be some reference to the fact that a major in black studies prepares the graduate for nothing after graduation. 2606:A000:7542:2600:550:50BC:312B:6DE5 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree too. Although nobody really takes "African-American studies" seriously there is STILL no mention of this criticism other than the sentence "On many campuses an overall lack of respect for the discipline has caused instability for the students and for the program." Just like "African-American studies" not being an academic field this is not a Wikipedia article - it's just (lousy) propaganda. Nothing more. Johannes Christian (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Tenure

The sentence "On many campuses directors of black studies have little to no autonomy—they do not have the power to hire or grant tenure to faculty" is somewhat misleading. Hiring and tenure decisions are often not at the hands of department chairs. Academic departments often vote and recommend that tenure be granted, but the actual proceeding takes place at the university level. 130.132.173.97 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Black Americana

I don't know when, how or who redirected Black Americana to this article, but that seems completely wrong. For those that don't know, Black Americana is a category of objects and collectibles created through history which are frequently racist or offensive or stereotypical in nature. There should probably at some point be a category, or an article or something that describes it. (I'm not sure why there isn't one now as there are several articles which seem to mention it.) Centerone (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on African-American studies. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716202637/http://oma.osu.edu/current-students/bell-resource-center/ to http://oma.osu.edu/current-students/bell-resource-center/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331053134/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/aads/graduate-programs/ma-admissions.php to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/aads/graduate-programs/ma-admissions.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702004920/http://www.sas.upenn.edu/africana/phd-program-0 to http://www.sas.upenn.edu/africana/phd-program-0

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Question??

Why was African American History Important to W.E.B. Du Bois That he started his efforts to reconstructed it? Amarsha8 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You may just want to start by reading the article on W.E.B. Du Bois to get a better idea surrounding his motivations and interests. Centerone (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Black Americana?!?!

Why the heck does Black Americana redirect to this page which seems to have no significant content on black americana? Certainly black americana is worthy of a page of it's own as a significant type of cultural and historical artifact. Is black americana listed under some sort of other term currently? Anybody know? Centerone (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:African-American gospel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sub-Field?

A lack of understanding of the field. The titles of these departments: Black Studies, Africana Studies, African-American Studies, Pan-African Studies, and Africology, reference departments that are all in the same field. There are no subfields. Some departments of "African American studies" do Caribbean and continental African studies. Some Africana Studies departments do mainly African American studies. It depends on the alignment of the particular department based on the current faculty who run it. Name changes to be more uniformed don't always occur or are sometimes challenged by the college they are housed under. We should merge the two articles "African American Studies" and "Africana Studies" with this in mind. Africologist (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) MOVED

No opposition here, and the discussion at the MOS supports this style (though there are objections to codifying this level of detail on the policy page). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

---

African-American studies → African American studies – WP:COMMONNAME is without hyphen. This is quite apparent on other websites and ngram, as well as major university programs (e.g. Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Boston University, South Carolina University, etc.) and an academic journal in the field (e.g. Journal of African American Studies). There is also a related MOS discussion. Caorongjin (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support I don't have particularly strong thoughts here, but it seems reasonable for the same usage on the page African Americans to be reflected here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I agree it makes little difference, but go with the more common usage and consistency with other articles. Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I note

18:19, 24 July 2013‎ Schierbecker talk contribs block‎  38 bytes +38‎  Marcus Qwertyus moved page African American studies to African-American studies over redirect: compund adjective

and also that there is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Hyphenating racial identities (as noted above) which is ongoing. Andrewa (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment: Should African American studies and Africana studies be merged into a single article?

Should African American studies and Africana studies be merged into a single article? Daniel Power of God (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

extended rationale

In Okafor (2014), pp. 218-219, the following is stated: As is well known, across the United States, our discipline goes by a variety of names: Black Studies, Black American Studies, African American Studies, Africana Studies, Pan African Studies, African World Studies, Global African Studies, African Diaspora Studies, and Africology. Even the 13 universities in the United States that currently offer doctorate degrees in Black Studies do not have a common name for those graduate degrees. What appears to drive these distinctive names is a combination of factors: the composite expertise of their faculty, their faculty’s areas of specialization, and the worldviews of the faculty that make up each unit. By worldview, I am referring to the question of whether the constituent faculty in a given setting manifests any or a combination of the following visions of our project: a domestic vision of black studies that sees it as focusing exclusively on the affairs of only United States African Americans who descended from the generation of enslaved Africans a diasporic vision of black studies that is inclusive of the affairs of all of African descendants in the New World—that is, the Americas: North America, South America and the Caribbean a globalistic vision of the black studies—that is, a viewpoint that thinks in terms of an African world—a world encompassing African-origin communities that are scattered across the globe and the continent of Africa itself. (emphasis added) This excerpt seems to correspond with the points made by Africologist at Talk:African American studies#Sub-Field?, including where the following statement made was: "The titles of these departments: Black Studies, Africana Studies, African-American Studies, Pan-African Studies, and Africology, reference departments that are all in the same field." Okafor (2014) indicates that African American studies and Africana studies are a "discipline" (as opposed to disciplines/fields or sub-disciplines/sub-fields) that go by various names. Africologist also stated at Talk:African American studies#Sub-Field?: "We should merge the two articles "African American Studies" and "Africana Studies" with this in mind." Should African American studies and Africana studies be merged into a single article? Additional sources to consider: Zeleza (2011), p. 17: “By the early 1980s, about 600 institutions of higher education had established programs in Black studies, African American studies, Afro-American studies, or Africana studies. The proliferation of the nomenclature was itself an indication of the internal theoretical and methodological divisions in the field.” (emphasis added) Reid-Merritt (2009), pp. 80-81: “As the field continued to expand and more institutions added Black Studies to their curricular offerings, colleges and universities selected the most popular designation of the day. Some programs experienced several name changes—from Black Studies, to Afro-American Studies, to African American Studies, to Africana Studies—with very little change to the core curriculum.” (emphasis added) Reid-Merritt (2009), p. 6: “As we discussed the current state of affairs, we lamented over the ongoing, problematic issue of identifying a single nomenclature that most accurately reflected our chosen field of study. The names varied: Black Studies, Afro-American Studies, African American Studies, Africana Studies, Pan-African Studies, African World Diaspora Studies, and so many others.” (emphasis added) Karenga (2018), p. 579: “The names, Black Studies, Africana Studies, Afro-American Studies, African American Studies, Pan-African Studies, and Africology reflect a discipline with different sites of origin, different definitions, and varied understandings of itself although there are common ground conceptions and practices (Aldridge, 2000; Karenga, 2009; Hall, 1999).” (emphasis added) Reid-Merritt (2018), p. 559: “Initially started by students at San Francisco State University in 1968 as Black Studies, the field has been called Afro-American Studies, African American Studies, African World Studies, Africana Studies, Pan African Studies, and Africology (Karenga, 2012; Reid-Merritt, 2009).” (emphasis added) Karenga (2009), pp. 45-46: It is in this early and ongoing recognition of the need to acknowledge both the foundational role of Africa in our history and culture and other vital links to other African peoples that early scholars in the discipline used various forms of the category “African” in naming the discipline to express this without denying the inclusive range of “Black Studies” as a similarly useful category and conception of the discipline. These categories included Pan-African Studies, Afro-American Studies, African and Afro-American Studies, and Africana Studies and, more recently, other names such as Africology (Van Horne, 2007) or Africaology (Asante, 1990, p. 14). (emphasis added) Christian (2006), p. 698: “This article is concerned with the fact that Black studies (or African American studies, Africana studies, Pan-African studies, African Centered studies, Afrocentric studies, Africalogical studies, African and African Diaspora studies—they all basically mean the same thing) continues to have a contested existence in the U.S. academy. However, regardless of the ever-present need to validate itself, this field defies all attempts to silence its voice.” (emphasis added) Conyers (2004), p. 640: “The scope and purpose of this article is to examine the effectiveness of the discipline of Africology as a holistic academic discipline. Often referred to as Africana studies, African American studies, Afro-American studies, Black studies, and Africology, this exercise of nomenclature can be defined as the study of Africana phenomena from an Afrocentric perspective.” (emphasis added) Mazama (2009), p. 65: In the appendix to their recently published Handbook of Black Studies, Asante and Karenga note that “the naming of the discipline” remains “unsettled” (Asante & Karenga, 2006, p. 421). This remark came as a result of an extensive survey of existing Black Studies programs, which led to the editors identifying a multiplicity of names for the discipline: Africana Studies, African and African Diaspora Studies, African/Black World Studies, Pan-African Studies, Africology, African and New World Studies, African Studies–Major, Black World Studies, Latin American Studies, Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Black and Hispanic Studies, Africana and Latin American Studies, African and African-American Studies, Black and Hispanic Studies, African American Studies, Afro-American Studies, African American Education Program, Afro-Ethnic Studies, American Ethnic Studies, American Studies–African-American Emphasis, Black Studies, Comparative American Cultures, Ethnic Studies Programs, Race and Ethnic Studies. The three most common names are, at the present, African American (73), Africana Studies (41), and Black Studies (34). (emphasis added) Asante (2020), p. 48: "Periodically we have had discussions of the naming of the scholarly and pedagogical enterprise for which we have dedicated our careers. The nomenclature attests to the difficulty with the description of the field. It has been called Black Studies, Afro-American Studies, Black American Studies, Pan African Studies, African American Studies, Black World Studies, Africana Studies, and Africol-ogy." (emphasis added) Dawkins (2021), p. 5: "Despite calls for such identities as Black Studies, Pan-African Studies, Afro-American Studies, African and Afro-American Studies, African American Studies, African Diaspora Studies, and Africology, among others (Hare, 1972; Turner, 1984; Stewart, 1984; Young, 1984; Asante 1998; Van Horne, 2007; Stewart, 1984; Karenga, 2009), some leading Black Studies scholars have begun to embrace “Africana” Studies as the formal identity of the field, even though the common reference to Black Stud-ies continues to be widely acceptability (Alkalimat, 2013; Karenga, 2007, 2009)." (emphasis added) Daniel Power of God (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Power of God: what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 9,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Redrose64. Daniel Power of God (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)