Talk:American Colonization Society

Recent edits

I reverted three edits which removed an entire section of content as well as swapping slave for Black. Since the 1600s there some were people of African American descent who were freed - and if their mothers were born free, their children were born free. So, not all Blacks were slaves.

It seems that the concern is that it is assumed that if the term Black is used, it means that they are 100% African American descent. It would be better to work out here what is an appropriate term to mean of (some) African descent or mixed race. Mulatto is offensive to some. See All Mixed up - What do we call people of multiple backgrounds from NPR.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

African American or Black American is an ethnicity and also includes people whose ancestors were both black and white. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well, although I understand why people want to be clearer. The next best label, imo, is mixed race or multiracial, but I think this would just introduce more confusion.

What about adding a note at the first use of Black or African American that individuals may also be of European, Native American or other descent?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

added clarification above about what children were born free.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I took a stab at a note here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not just use free people of color in the lead? That is a term more appropriate to the time of the ACS's founding—indeed, "African American" did not exist as a universal term in the 1810s and 1820s—and it covers anyone of African descent. Anwegmann (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks Anwegmann!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Anwegmann (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation format

This is just a reminder to follow the standards of consistency laid out in MOS:CITEVAR, which state, rather clearly, that "[e]ditors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If you think that the citation format in the article should change, you need to seek consensus before using any format that is not in line with what is already used in the article. Thanks. Anwegmann (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 2010 Early U.S. History

— Assignment last updated by HughCQuinlan (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Blacks".

Blacks is used in the lede and elsewhere. It's inaccurate and non specific, especially since freeborn African-Americans were involved in the situation as well as black people in Africa. The "freeborn blacks" link links to Free people of colour, showing there is consensus on the terminology there. Pluralising a race is also informal language, which Wikipedia isn't a place for outside of quotes. I don't understand why changing it has been reverted multiple times by User:Anwegmann, could you explain further? In one edit summary you said it was "ahistorical terms" when it was changing the title of a section that wasn't a quote. I suggest changing it to "African-Americans", "Black people" and "People of colour", with each term being used appropriately to make sure its accurate. Saying "blacks" is also quite dehumanising. commemorative (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"Black people" is also used elsewhere, showing consensus within the article. See section Efforts to relocate free black people other than to Africa. I simply can't see why the change would be reverted as it was. CommissarDoggo (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: American History to 1877

— Assignment last updated by Lscott5 (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)