Humanities desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 17[edit]

Appeals to the U. S. Supreme Court: availability/access of legal briefs to the public[edit]

When lawyers file appeals to the U. S. Supreme Court, are all of these filings (the briefs, petitions, etc.) a matter of public record? I imagine that they must be. If so, are these easily accessible online? If not online, where can the public see these? In particular, I am asking about this case: J. W. Ledford was a death row inmate in Georgia who was executed today (May 17, 2017). He filed an appeal with the U. S. Supreme Court, arguing that it is unconstitutional to execute anyone younger than age 21. (See: Georgia Killer Appeals Execution, Argues 20 Is Too Young to Be Sentenced to Death.) That is the paperwork that I am interested to see. Any thoughts on this matter? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Records of the Supreme Court are kept in the National Archives and Records Administration (AKA the National Archives). They are all publicly available, though not always easily available, depending on the effort you wish to put in. This is the main webpage for Supreme Court records. Records and briefs are also kept at the Law Library of Congress (not to be confused with the similarly named Library of Congress), see here for information. They seem to be available on physical media (paper and microfilm). --Jayron 32 14:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page at the Supreme Court's own website seems useful. --Jayron 32 14:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I want something online and free of charge. If possible. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start at the Supreme Court's own website then (linked above), they link to some online sources for briefs, I don't know if they are free, but there does appear to be something online. Try that. --Jayron 32 14:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The National Archives contains historical records. There is a significant lag in how long it takes for current court records to show up in the archives. FindLaw provides free access to many court documents (though a quick look couldn't determine precisely how much is available). older ≠ wiser 15:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are [1] and [2] possibly the documents you are seeking?

(Also, in case they aren't all you're looking for, if you can google who represented Ledford, you could email them and ask for the public court documents on the case. Or the State Attorney's office. They're not obliged to answer you, but they just might indulge you). Eliyohub (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro, Jayron32, Bkonrad, and Eliyohub: Coming to this thread late as I was online last week. There is no routine online access for applications to the Supreme Court or to certiorari petitions and oppositions (although this may change in the future, and as noted above, some parties may choose to publicize their filings). However, once a case is accepted ("cert. granted") for briefing and argument, all the merits briefs of the parties and any amici are available online, free-of-charge here. Copies of some cert. petitions and oppositions are available online on a paid basis from Lexis and Westlaw as described on the page linked by Jayron32, but there is a distinction there between "paid" pre-cert. cases (in which the papers are professionally printed and a copy is furnished online) and "in forma pauperis" cases (in which this is usually not done). (If an in forma pauperis case is granted, the petitioner's brief is printed at government expense, so the distinction no longer applies.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What stops Africa from redrawing the ignorant colonial borders that put rivals in the same country?[edit]

A lot of things probably but at least there wouldn't be as many civil wars and insurgents. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no single intelligent entity called "Africa" who can just do things. The place we call "Africa" instead has about 1.2 billion intelligent entities who each have different needs and wants and goals. Those 1.2 billion people don't act, or think, or behave as a single entity making a single decision. --Jayron 32 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing that stops the Middle East or subcontinent from doing the same. Inertia, power dynamics, etc. Also, who says they want to? Some countries willingly absorb rivals via conquest, or you would be asking "What stops China from redrawing its borders that put rival Tibetans in the same country?" Or, they have an idealist view and want to make the cosmopolitan group work. --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the sum of net extra international war this caused would be less bad than the sum of net ex-civil fighting and rebelling was bad (taking into account that war crimes against say a million are worse than war that more closely followed the law of war between states against a million and worse war crimes are worse than lesser ones like using expanding bullets) then maybe it'd be better to allow the homogenousish countries squashing the smaller homogenousish countries. I don't know if this would be the case but a subset of these rivalries would surely be close to evenly matched. Maybe they'd just hate each other and mine the borders? Whereas they might genocide or oppress that same group in countries where they were a majority and didn't think the other countries would intervene (that's what a psychopath leader might do, not intervene for his tribe in another country cause the brethren minority act like a sacrificial buffer state speed bump against the enemy majority, intervening makes his own army weaker and refugees means more non-enemies to rule). Minority guerrillas would have less power to cause asymmetrical war if minorities were smaller. Maybe some would even think it's hopeless and stop fighting or just move to a country that likes their tribe better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The African Union has agreed on the "intangibility of African borders", through the 1964 Cairo Declaration on African Borders. Basically, the member countries agreed that the colonists made a mess of drawing borders n the continent, but have decided not to re-open them as this would create a veritable Pandora's box of problems. There have been a few exceptions though, such as the recognition of the independence of Eritrea and South Sudan. This document seems to have a lot of additional information [3]. --Xuxl (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If each ethnic, religious, and tribal group had a territory which was 100% their group, and none of their group was outside that territory, then you would have a natural border. However, in the real world, not only is each group spread out and overlapping with other groups, but the ethnic, religious, and tribal boundaries don't match each other. This means that any attempt to draw (or redraw) national boundaries will inevitably lead to many being excluded, or even evicted, from the nation they most identify with. One exception is natural boundaries, like for an island. Japan, for example, is more homogeneous than smaller regions, such as Israel/Palestine. However, you ultimately get to the conclusion that different ethnic, religious, and tribal groups need to learn to be tolerant of each other and live together, and that national boundaries are irrelevant, and perhaps even counter-productive, to that goal. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is homogeneous? Ask the Ainu people or the Ryukyuan people about that. --Jayron 32 19:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ryukyuans are like the Dutch compared to the Germans, very closely related linguistically and geographically peripheral. The Ainu language is dead. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homogeneity through intentional cultural erasing is hardly a model we should strive towards. --Jayron 32 13:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prblem with groups like the Ainu and Eyak is that the peoples themselves give up on their language when it is no longer profitable. No one killed off the Gauls, the Picenes, the Etruscans, the Samnites. They just taught their children Latin. Navajo is the only indigenous language in the US that is growing in population. The Ainu were doomed in Japan as they lived on a large home island (they may still speak Ainu in the Islands Russia stole from Japan). Ryukyuan is slowly dying off due to economic pressure by the northern Japanese standard. There's no extermination program, just the same market forces that have existed for a myriad millenia. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"is more homogeneous than" != "is homogeneous". —Tamfang (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I'm sure Jayron knows this, but it won't dissuade him from continuing to set up straw man arguments he can use to attack others. Not sure why he enjoys this so, but it does seem to be one of his favorite hobbies. StuRat (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Wise words. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 1959, an ethnographer named George Murdock created a rather famous map of Africa, you can see versions of it here and here that rather captures the scope of the problem; and I would posit that HIS borders are probably too simplistic; there are likely groups whose homelands are interspersed within each other in rather intractable ways. Imagine every one of those as a sovereign state on its own, with full border controls, customs, governments of various levels of corruptibility, claims to lands in other such regions, and what that would do to the economy of such a place. There's a reason why globalization (with all of its problems) is the direction the world is working towards, it works more than it doesn't; there's movement towards more interconnectedness between ethinicities and states, less border controls, etc. The solution to these problems has never been put everyone in their own box and don't let them out... It's also worth noting that Europe hasn't exactly been immune to these arbitrary boundary divisions any more than Africa has. After all, European powers worked out their own boundaries without much regard for ethnic homogeneity either; after all every European country has their own ethnic minorities which have been marginalized by the dominant culture; you don't really think the borders of France, for example, have represented a uniform homeland of a single culture group, or that they ever have? Ask the Bretons or the Occitans or the Basque or the Alsatian Germans or the Nizzardo Italians or dozens of others who were not historically French. Europe didn't deal with these issues by giving every one of these groups their own isolated homeland with full sovereignty, and that probably wouldn't have been the best solution anyways. --Jayron 32 18:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish National Party would disagree. Not that I'm a Scottish independentist. I don't know enough about the issue to decide whether to take side 1, side 2 or no side. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish National Party would disagree with what? That the Bretons are not French? I doubt they have a political position on the matter, and what the fuck do we care about their opinion of ethnic groups in France. They're hardly all ethnographers. --Jayron 32 19:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish National Party is in the European Free Alliance Europarty within the Greens/EFA EU parliamentary group. "[The EFA] consists of various regionalist political parties in Europe advocating either full political independence and sovereignty, or some form of devolution or self-governance for their country or region." While it only has a Breton autonomist full member (a second party of a group can only join with the first's consent), the European Free Alliance has the Aralar Party as a full member which is Basque independentist and is unlikely to consider themselves French. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your nonsequiturs grow increasingly infuriating and make it difficult to help you. --Jayron 32 01:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is a lot of peoples. They can't all be enemies with their neighbor surely. Can't some form a contiguous country with other ethnic groups based on kinship, already being allies, strength in numbers, negotiation (you get 20% of our oil and we get an equal value of X etc), not disliking enough that they can't live together, preventing anarchy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend etc.? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the point. War and conflict are primarily economic issues; access to resources and issues related thereof are the major sources of wars and conflicts; you don't go to war with someone because they speak a different language or like pineapple on their pizza or other such bullshit; you go to war because they have something you want or need, and they won't give it to you (for whatever reason) so you decide to take it by force. Now, the government of your country may tell you that you're going to war to stick it to those pineapple-on-pizza eating asshats (fuck them!) but that's because most people aren't really all that excited about going to war so that some rich people can get access to a zinc mine or some nice bit of farmland or some such. They need some reason to convince the poor people to go die so they can make more money. "They're different than you are" is that reason. Two neighboring people groups tend to live in peace so long as both groups have economic security (or, at least until their corrupt leaders decide they need a bigger yacht). --Jayron 32 19:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... not every war is economic... people do fight over religion. So, if one group has a holy book that says: "The Great God abhorreth the mixing of pineapple and cheese", and another group has a holy book that says: "And on the third day the Lord said 'Let there be pineapple pizza', and it was good"... the two groups might well go to war over it. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, religious differences are oftentimes an excuse to exploit resources. For instance, the fact that Saudi Arabia, deeply intolerant of Shia Islam, insists on holding onto the largely Shia Eastern Province, is probably not unrelated to the fact that this is where most of the oil is. Similar deal with the Second Sudanese Civil War. Even when the warring powers are motivated by non-economic reasons, it is typically the presence of valuable resources that brings weapons and foreign powers into the conflict, leading to escalation. Causes of any war are usually murky. But this really gets right back to the border drawing issue. Sudan spent 60 years fighting to keep the ignorant colonial borders, because the government didn't want to lose half of its most profitable industry. And to harp even more on Jayron's point, SMW, you're basically asking, "why can't we all just get along?" In many cases, the alternative is simply too profitable. If cooperation means no longer plundering wealth from the land of people you don't like anyway, and the government is helpfully painting those people as subhuman terrorists, yeah, don't expect that to change peacefully. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look at leaders of those wars. They stand to gain wealth and power through victory. No matter what the "official" cause of a war is, it's always ultimately about money and other material things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lone wolf suicide bombers are a perfect example of that, what with the fancy cars, homes and bling they enjoy when their mission is accomplished. The argument that everything is economic is rather naive Marxist claptrap. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't always religious. At our article The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer, I find for instance "Hoffer argued that fanatical and extremist cultural movements, whether religious or political, arose under predictable circumstances: when large numbers of people come to believe that their individual lives are worthless and ruined, that the modern world is irreparably corrupt, and that hope lies only in joining a larger group that demands radical changes." That "lone wolf suicide bomber" to which you refer may not be unambiguously religious. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course this occurred to me; for example, there was the once very popular and largely atheist anarchist movement, the unabomber and so forth. But one counterexample is enough, so I didn't find it necessary to go beyond a contemporary one. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if any border anywhere represents a perfect solution to the inhabitants' desire for sovereignty. I think the borders that exist in any part of the world represent the most feasible ones available given the many other worse possibilities. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Desire for sovereignty outside of the country one lives in comes from the fact that one is not provided with sovereignty within the country one lives in. --Jayron 32 01:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The real answer to the unasked question here is, there is no indigenous culture of respect for Western-type liberal values in most of the continent. Some lands like Egypt and South Africa have or have had approximations of it, with the current tolerance of former European oppressors in South Africa and the until recent tolerance of the Copts in Egypt, restored now by de facto military dictatorship.

But if we ignore that, assume that all peoples will live in peace, then there are ways to split up Africa into reasonable units. First, a knowledge of French, English or Arabic will get you by in almost the entire continent. Second, Murdock's map is an excellent resource, but it is one that intentionally splits up all groups, even when closely related. Read Languages of Africa and there are really only half a dozen major language families, although some are quite diverse. These include Afroasiatic, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, Khoi-San, Indonesian, and Indo-European.

Those groups are too diverse (many doubt the reality of Khoi-San) to serve as the basis of nation states. But their subgroupings might. For example, the Niger-Congo languages include the large Bantu language family, and many other families of the "slave coast" The Bantu area can be split up into 16 areas (see map). A "Bantu Confederation" might be ethnico-culturally homogenous enough to make up a federal state, even though there are something like hundreds of dialects, and few standards (like isiZulu and Swahili) with more than a million speakers. looking at the maps of the African language families and the Bantu family, one can see the basis for states. In places where Arabic is the dominant language, there might be no need to split up existing nations into smaller ones--just use the smaller ethnicities to define provinces within the larger state.

But this is all fantasy. Europe as it is now is the result of centuries of genocide and the oppression of minorities. Who of us is to direct such a project? μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"no indigenous culture of respect for Western-type liberal values in most of the continent..." is dangerously close to "Africans are not capable of being good humans" which is disgustingly racist and has no basis in reality. I stopped reading after I got to that particular bit of bigotry. I suspect the rest of your post was similarly stupid, but to keep me from going into a rage I stopped reading after that. --Jayron 32 12:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are viewing Medeis' culturally relativistic views in the first paragraph through your own absolutist lens, via the apparent reasoning that "not subscribing to Western liberal values = not capable of being good humans", to arrive at a "disgustingly racist" inference. I do not believe that anyone else can tell you whether it is "right" that you believe what you believe in such an absolutist way, but if you recognise that it was your inference, perhaps that would help you to avoid unncessarily lashing out at others in similar situations in future. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The implication that Africans are incapable of peace because they are Africans is absolutely bullshit no matter how you carefully phrase your words. If am absolutely intolerant of bigotry in any form it expresses itself, I am not ashamed of it and will not back down, and allow people to be bigoted because we're talking about a different culture, relatively speaking. If Medeis meant something other than "Africans are incapable of <whatever> because they are Africans" she can speak for herself, she doesn't need you come to her defense. --Jayron 32 16:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same word in mind, relativism. Jayron, you do not know peasantry having them surrounding your dwelling. --Askedonty (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this ridiculous: "The real answer to the unasked question here is, there is no indigenous culture of respect for Western-type liberal values in most of the continent" but just as ridiculous is: "What stops Africa from redrawing the ignorant colonial borders that put rivals in the same country?" So, in summation, we have a stupid question and a stupid response. Nothing surprising about that. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it was "respect for Western-type liberal values" that led to Germany invading Poland, or Russia invading Ukraine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32:, I said Western-type liberal values--not white liberal values. There is nothing racist about this, and I have neither said that Africans are incapable of adopting them nor that only or all whites hold/held to liberalism. Look at the difference between North and South Korea, or at Japan, the latter two of which have adopted the Western style of individual rights and limited government and are highly successful non-White cultures while North Korea isn't. Race obviously has nothing to do with it. I also ended my thread with the statement But this is all fantasy. Europe as it is now is the result of centuries of genocide and the oppression of minorities. Who of us is to direct such a project?. But you didn't get that far, given your mind shut down at the word Western. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Western-type" or "Western" is a dogwhistling for "white people", and you knew that. As I said, the rest of your writing could have been brilliant, but when you open with the notion that Africans are incapable of adopting liberal democracy, it poisons the well for the rest of the writing. Instead, don't make sweeping statements about the capabilities of entire continents of people, as that tends to set up the rest of your thesis in a negative way. --Jayron 32 17:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived over half my life in the Bronx and Harlem, and had black lovers for over half my lifetime. I won a Fulbright scholarship to study Zulu in South Africa. I end my contribution speaking openly of European genocide. Yet you go ballistic when you hear the word "Western" and admit you useed it as an excuse to ignore what you concede was a brilliant contribution. Now you fall back on "dogwhistles" that you hear, but you don't see me avoiding the words oppression and genocide in relation to European history. Accusations of intolenat bigotry by someone who hadn't read what I wrote followed by assertions that you can hear things I have not said is unbecoming, and, frankly, a personal attack. Since personal accusations are not references, I am going to collapse this subsection as off-topic. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what would have happened if Mountbatten, rather than drawing a top-down line across India, had arranged a series of plebiscites – "With which of your neighbors, if any, are you willing to amalgamate?" – starting with villages and working up to the biggest units that got majority approval (perhaps requiring a higher threshold at each successive stage). Such a process, if successful, could invite imitation in Africa. —Tamfang (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was the number of enclaves this would have created, and the intractable sectarian violence when there was not a strong central government to stop it. Look at the result in the Balkan Wars, when Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had been peaceful under autorcratic rule, fell subject to internecine warfare literally based on shibboleths and then-uncorked religious conflict between Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims. (This is a good example of the supposition above that hatreds at the individual level are stoked to increase the power of warlords in the upper echelons.) μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to recommend the movie Gandhi and its depiction of the Partition of India, which killed many thousands. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...estimates of loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition disputed and varying between several hundred thousand and two million. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought: Even if European colonizers hadn't drawn artificial national boundaries in Africa, it still would have happened anyway. Take the case of Shaka Zulu, who brutally conquered and annexed the territories of neighboring tribes. In time, that would have happened throughout Africa. StuRat (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book [4]^{[unreliable source?]} chronicles the issues which arise and how they are handled. 86.134.217.72 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading suggestions on American Civil Rights movement and Indian Independence movement?[edit]

Hi Wikipedians,

I realise this is probably not what the Reference Desk is for, but on the whole I have found you guys the most helpful people on the internet when it comes to open, slightly qualitative questions which are not the easiest thing to Google for, so I hope you will indulge me.

For a writing project, there are a couple of pieces of 20th century history I want to immerse myself in, with particular reference to the internal political dynamics of these movements. I was wondering if you would be able to recommend the definitive (or at least a selection of the most definitive) works. I'm not afraid of - in fact, I would welcome - the academic and dry, but if there's an excellent popular history that would work too. The two things are the African-American Civil Rights Movement (I'm British, so please don't tell me to check my privilege and accuse me of ignorance for not knowing all this already) and the Indian independence movement (I'm British, so please feel free to tell me to check my privilege and accuse me of ignorance for not knowing all this already). :p

I've read through the excellent Wikipedia articles already, but I'm eager to get much deeper into the detail, as I say with particular reference to the internal dynamics. Would you guys have any recommendations? Dan Hartas (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start is the reference/further reading/bibliography sections of the above linked articles (if applicable). Btw, did you mean "Indian independence movement" (re: the country of India) or "Native American self-determination". ;) — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The former. I picked these two because they're the most notable cases of a non-violent movement prevailing over a militant tendency and the movement ultimately becoming successful through that means. I have had a look through the bibliographies but it's difficult to get a sense of a book's main thesis, it's prestige and it's particular focus that way, in general I find recommendations the best place to start! Dan Hartas (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A method to immerse oneself in the dynamics of a movement is to seek the writings of and about a key person of the movement. For the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) that person is Martin Luther King Jr. and his sermons and speeches. For the Indian independence movement that person is Mahatma Gandhi whose collected works are currently a Wikiproject. Blooteuth (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that King took a lot of inspiration from Gandhi and his methods, so there's a direct connection there. this provides a lot of good information on the connections there. King even took a 5 week tour of India in 1959. --Jayron 32 01:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recommend anything about modern movements, but I would look into the fact that much of the problem with Federa;/tribal relations had to do with treaties imposed on Indians either by good faith or force (removal to Indian Territory (Oklahoma]) and in the Northwest where the treaties were abrogated by the Feds when it was discovered that monied interests could use the land the Indians had agreed to limit themselves to. See also the Trail of Tears, where civilized farmers were removed from their lands based on race. Understanding the 19th century history of injustices will give a firmer basis for understanding the nature of 20th century claims and movements. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Indians, as the OP had already made clear by his link. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Stupid me, I assumed American in the title implied American Indian. Still some good advice tho. μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Paul Robeson has lots of references to works relevant to the US Civil Rights movement, especially in the early and precursor stages. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia is not a good source for the Civil Rights Movement. The best source on the internet would be the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website. Makes sure you review the Freedom Movement History & Timeline 1951-1968 and the How to Use This Website for Students, Teachers & Others pages. The site is hosted by Tougaloo College and maintained by Bruce Hartford, a veteran of the Civil Rights Movement in the southern United States. Mitchumch (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]