History of the articleEdit

This article was formerly tagged as being sporked from Wikipedia. It's now sufficiently different that I've removed this tag.

I have also relied on the link at the top of the article for synonyms for African-American, deleted the N-word in the initial quote, and deleted all the External References at the end of the article. Most of these were essays against black separatism. I heartily agree with this opinion, but it's outside the scope of the article. This article ought not contain epithets--you can't make people laugh if you put them off, and in America, the use of some words immediately closes minds. I have no problem if you use them for a specific purpose such as hypocrisy, for example, performing name-calling in a sentence that says there isn't any. --Spıke Ѧ  00:42, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Three-fifths of a personEdit

Some background for our horrified British contributors: Yes, in the US Constitution of 1787, black slaves were to be counted as three-fifths of a person. This was not to punish the slaves (who didn't have the vote anyway) but to punish the slave states--by reducing their head count and thus their power in the Congress. It was a compromise; the North didn't want slaves counted at all.

Lincoln "freed the slaves"--after secession, in exactly the territory that was temporarily out of his control. After the Civil War, the US Constitution underwent three amendments that eliminated slavery throughout the nation. However, the Civil War was not solely "about slavery." As described above, the South had diminished representation and, for this and other reasons, national policy favored the industrial North over the agricultural South. The institution of slavery was an issue that made many people in the North eager to reform the South and may have justified the Civil War in their minds. But most people in the South, and some libertarians in the North like me, believe that the union of states was voluntary and it was outrageous to go to war to compel the South to rejoin the union. The Southern oddballs who call it the "War Between the States" are continuing to assert that it wasn't a "civil" war, as the secession was legitimate. Spıke Ѧ  01:14, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

cool storyEdit

bro - T.L.B. Baloon WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 01:29, Oct 10

The museumEdit

There really is a National Afro-American Museum and Cultural Center in Wilberforce, Ohio--found it on my Road Atlas yesterday, more of your tax dollars funding group separatism--and the new Section 5 is the result of my contemplating what you would do at an Afro-American Museum. The bullets about the non-African roots of Ebonics and Kwanzaa are facts. The rest is crap, for your reading pleasure. Spıke Ѧ  14:05 29-Dec-09

Under Renouncing One's StatusEdit

You forgot the term "graham cracka". The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

Thanks; I think it can stand. It would get long if we listed every epithet, and "Oreo" is pretty much the same thing. Spıke Ѧ  04:27 8-Feb-10

This article reeks of bitterness Edit

It reads like someone has an axe to grind. Almost all of it is politically-motivated mockery. Almost none of it is obviously false, the way the gnomes article is. Quote:

When it is not clear that you are not stereotyping or that your stereotype isn't favorable, you should just keep quiet.

I was hoping this article would be about the people of African America, also known as the continent of East America. Instead, I saw something that looks like it came from Encyclopedia Dramatica's reject pile. --Raijinili (talk) 12:14, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Almost none of the above is true. It is far above Encyclopedia Dramatica's best, and of course would not be made better by the insertion of obvious falsehoods. Uncyclopedia's articles are funny in many different ways, and comparing this article to a single FA from eight years ago proves nothing. In fact, it is easy to find articles that are bitter. This one is mostly not about African Americans at all but about the reaction to them.
It is disappointing that your first contribution here is an unattributed quotation that other Uncyclopedians have a duty to someone to "keep quiet." We do not. As you begin life here with an accusation, please accept one in return: You seem to be a member of the huge American welfare bureaucracy or its agitator union that reflexively responds to any criticism on the system of coerced wealth transfer by accusing people of hating the supposed beneficiaries. Spıke Radiomicrophone12:35 25-Jan-16