This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
I was thinking about getting the map of the claimed States, but am a bit confused that Florida is not mentioned, when it might be logically included. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are there any other sources available to verify which states they claimed? --Gene_poole 21:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I editted a map of the Deep South. I was reading a up on the RNA and they listed the 5 states which is basically the Deep South where the majority of the cotton production was. I don't understand why Florida isn't mentioned either.
-Eurytus
This is probably because Florida does not have as large an African American population as the other states.--Pharos 17:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Florida was added later. So it is the five states, plus Florida. Queen Mother Moore even suggested 13 states at the very beginning. This was symbolic of the beginning of the United States with its 13 colonies.--infoseeker560 03:50, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
2000 demographic map of the U.S. SouthThe states chosen have the greatest demographic concentration of African Americans. This can be clearly seen in this 2000 Census map. The red band across the South constitutes what used to be called the "Black Belt". The Florida panhandle could be included, but not the whole state. There are historical variants on this idea. From the 1920's Communist Party USA favored self-determination for counties with African-American majorities, up to and including independence. They didn't include entire states, but the area was large and contiguous in 1930. Outmigration meant that the area of majority shrank over time. The CPUSA dropped this position in 1959. Later the New Communist Movement revived the CPUSA's old postion as apart of their anti-revisionism. DJ Silverfish 19:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more informative to put a map here showing the percentage of blacks instead of (or perhaps in addition to) this map showing the absolute numbers? The areas indicated to have more blacks in the current map are generally the most populous areas as well.
This group is clearly not a micronation; does anyone mind if I remove this reference?--Pharos 19:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with removal of this category. Are there some relevant categories we could add? DJ Silverfish 19:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do have a problem with the removal of the micronation category. By definition micronations are entities that resemble recognised sovereign states but are neither recognised nor sovereign. This can range from 1-person web-based fantasies to legitimate realworld political organisations/secession groups like New Africa.--Gene_poole 22:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing "micro" about this group's claims; it claims sovereignty over five U.S. states. What other "legitimate realworld political organisations/secession groups" are categorized as micronations? Neo-confederates (who claim basically the same area) are considered a "sovereignty movement". Compare Category:Sovereignty movements and Category:Micronations, there is a real difference.--Pharos 23:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's a matter of basic legitimacy. If it looks like a sovereign state, behaves like a sovereign state, possesses instruments and symbols like a sovereign state, has the organisational structure of a sovereign state but is generally considered by most observers to make unenforceable, eccentric claims, and isn't recognised by any other country as a sovereign state (nor is there any likelihood of that happening), then it's a micronation. The claims made by New Africa are no more valid and enforceable than those made by Waveland, Aramoana or other micronations founded as a form of political protest - and they're a world removed from such groups as those actively seeking autonomy or independence in such areas as Western Sahara, Kurdistan, the South Moluccas and Aceh.--Gene_poole 01:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Certainly there's room for something in between the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Waveland. I would say New Africa is about analogous to the Republic of Texas (group). These groups take themselves stone-cold seriously in a way that is quite different from what one might call the "micronation phenomenon".--Pharos 02:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you to a degree, but I think the distinction is a bit fine. I'd class the Republic of Texas (secession group) on about the same level as the Hutt River Province or Sealand. They all take themselves deadly seriously (at least in public), but they're still just micronations, because their view of their place in reality is decidedly eccentric. Don't forget that until a decade ago "serious" micronations were pretty much the only sort there were. The web-based "hobbyist micronation" phenomenon is a conbsequence of the internet, and is a recent development. --Gene_poole 06:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why include the Yahoo! Group? It is the only such group I know of allowed by the Wiki to exist as an external link, there are thousands of similar groups and this one holds no signifigance.
Good point. -Willmcw 06:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo! Group was added because it is one of the oldest existing portal groups that has been discussing RNA and New Afrikan Independent Movement (NAIM) news and issues.--infoseeker560 03:55, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I added short descriptions of Robert F. Williams, Milton Henry, and Betty Shabazz in the "Notable Members" section. The information was taken from a book titled "Singing in a Strange Land." A lot of work still has to be done in this section in terms of both information and organization. -- Claireregan1206 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, this is not a bad article but it contains many flaws. The most obvious being the lack of citation for the information provided. There is really only one citation in the article which is found on the "In popular culture" section. The article lists many publications related to the issue at hand but it is unclear if they are the sources of information used for the article. The article is also rather short and could use some additional information. It would be useful to include information about how the Republic of New Afrika movement died and what its repercussions are today.--Mbfrancisco1 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the next few months I would like to "clean up" this article because it doesn't give the subject proper regard. There are several glaring inaccuries that need to be corrected; historical facts that need to be further explained; and missing aspects of RNA history vital to a fuller understanding of the New Afrikan Independence Movement.
For the record, I have served as a National Officer of the PG-RNA (Provisional Government - Republic of New Afrika) and have a firm grasp of the ideology (New Afrikan Political Science) that gave birth to the Republic of New Afrika.
Tunis (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Tunis Campbell[reply]
I support improvement of this article. Some improvements that come to mind:
Clarify if the organization is still functioning, and if not, approximately when its activities ended. The article seems to speak of RNA in both the present and past tense.
A writer above suggested that RNA did/does not favor labor unions. This suggests that exposition of its general ideological tendencies would be helpful, and to what degree RNA had ideological principles other than strictly African Diaspora sovereignty.
Improvement of the maps. Other than the 5 states mentioned, the specific territorial claims are not clear. (It may be that RNA's claims were not very specific.) The map above in this Talk page gives a finer gradation of Afro-American percentage of the population than the one in the article, which has no division points between 5% and 50%.
Additional pages on the "shootout" events would be helpful, as those events were likely to have had complex causes, disputed events, and multiple consequences, and are likely to be important to a study of RNA's history.
A longer list of the "numerous controversial issues" would probably be illuminating, as the article currently lists only three events.
DWorley, there really aren't any pages on the 'shootout' Who would or could create pages of the early morning Aug 18, 1971 predawn attempt to kill the residents at the Ewing St and Lynch St locations, other than a so-called law enforcement officer or a citizen of the RNA?!? The whole idea and knowledge of the RNA and her philosophies is something this country, government want to keep as unknown as possible while projecting through media that Black Life is irrelevant. It's funny that its never told that due to many close calls the Lawyers of the citizenship in MS contacted the law enforcement agencies in Jackson and came to an agreement that they, law enforcement, would contact the lawyers if they felt a need to approach, question, or arrest/detain any citizen of the RNA to prevent any misunderstanding and or incidents which could result in violent response. This transpired just days before the shootout due to the police stopping and trying to detain one of the citizens outside our Consulate and when he put his hand on his sidearm he was quickly covered by several armed 'Republic Guards' all armed and within a matter of minutes were faced with a very potentially violent situation. But that's a whole story in itself. My point is no one has written any pages on the shootout and unless one was actually personally there will only have inaccurate presumptions of what really happened. I say this on the authority that I was there, I saw the bullet that was meant to kill me pass before my eyes, but God am I even alive today 43 years later. There are no PAGES and those of us who were there are dying off or staying as far under the radar as possible to maintain as much peace and teach those coming behind us what we can for the remainder of what life we have in front of us.
Concerning "the list of the numerous controversial issues...as the article currently lists only three events" THERE WERE ONLY 3 EVENTS i.e. the government did not want our knowledge to become known to the general public The government wanted us to be done away with and swept under the rug as soon as possible, so much so that the media publicized the arrest of Professor Angela Davis and blew up the hype of her affiliation with the ideals of communism - that wasn't anything new, but it was the only thing that could be used to overshadow what was happening to the RNA citizens in Jackson Mississippi. The government couldn't afford to let the ideology of RNA to become public to the masses. Get a copy of the statement by the Attorney General of Mississippi and read what he said concerning our arrest '...we have done everything we legally could...to remove these people from our great state...' What?! So in other-words you did something illegal because all your legal options were exhausted. There were lots of '...complex causes, disputed events, and multiple consequences' But the story will never be fully told.
This country will always have 'wondering' util she decides to be honest enough and willing to take responsibility for her actions against the people she has abused, cheated, swindled generally taken advantage of. DWorley, I hope this answers some of your questions. 13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Chuma Ali Askadi (RNA 11)13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
[1]
→Regarding the insufficient information in introduction of this article relating to the 1968 conference leaders, a Brown and Tougaloo College collaboration project called the "Mississippi Freedom Movement" lists Milton and Richard Henry as the organizers of the event.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://cds.library.brown.edu/projects/FreedomNow/themes/blkpower/
→The project also mentions the five states that are claimed after the conference, but it does not mention the majority-black communities in surrounding states. Stibbals (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
→On that note, in the notable members section it would be prudent to add Richard Henry, as only Milton is mentioned.[reply]
Where did this flag with a small red band and two larger black and green bands come from? I've only ever seen the Pan-African flag used. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The flag is an RNA original concept from the Pan African original, the meaning is simple... the thinner red band represents blood. The shedding of as little blood as possible but the reality that blood must be shed. The larger bands stand for the African (American) People and the green stands for Land. The flag is flown with the Black band on top unless the owner of the flag has spent time on "the land" i.e. the five states at which point they have the right to fly the flag Green band up. That is one philosophy, concerning the flying of the flag. Example: I myself could fly the flag Green band up because I was one of the "11" in the Mississippi shoot-out on 18 August 1971, I was in defense of my African brothers/sisters, our Consulate our land and therefore have the right/honor to fly the colors Green band up.
Another philosophy is that the flag would be flown Green band down until the actual freedom and separation from the US in which all flags would be turned Green band Up symbolizing the "Freeing the Land".
I hope this helps a little, I was in the Jackson shoot-out 43yrs ago... at the time I was 17yrs old (the 5th in line in the photo of us being marched in chains thru downtown Jackson-camo jacket) [1] 13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Chuma Ali Askadi13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuma Ali Askadi (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This should be put in the article if it can be properly sourced; detail like this from the original racist loonies is valuable first hand info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.128.59 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article on the "Republic of New Afrika" begins with outlining its three main goals and what it's vision was, but lacks citations and reliable sources that tell the reader where this information came from. The three goals are outlined in bullet points, but in none of these paragraphs is there a citation explaining who outlined these goals. There is a similar problem in the closing of the first section which has already been exposed by an editor where the author of this article does not cite who had this vision and who was a part of this vision. The information is neutral but it is not backed by citations to prove that it comes from reliable sources.
This article exclusively talks about the Republic of New Afrika's history, notable members and it's role in popular culture, but it does not go into great detail about how it was viewed in the public's eye. This article cites incidents such as attempting to assist Oceanhill-Brownsville in seceding from the United States and a shootout at the New Bethel Baptist Church but it does not give information on what the public thought of these incidents. Although it also talks about its contentious relationship with the FBI it does not say whether or not it had public support and whether or not the people felt the same way about them as the FBI did.
I thought the inclusion of "See also" provided interesting links that are related to the topic. I think this section could be improved by providing links to more groups that either supported or opposed this movement to provide further insight into what this group was about and who they either inspired or upset.
This page, although containing a lot of interesting information, contains virtually no references or citations. There is a lot of work to be done in terms of attaching reliable references to the facts provided in this article. The lack of references makes it hard to evaluate if the information provided is up to date or reliable.
In addition, much of the information provided in the article is incomplete in some way or another. First, the "History" section explains that the movement was under investigation for a while, but does not explain if this led to the demise of the movement, or what the status of the movement is today. Second, another part of this article that appears incomplete is the section titled "Notable Members." This section lists the important members and leaders of the movement, and although it is possible to click on the names to learn more about them, I think this article could benefit from the addition of short descriptions of who each of the members are. Third, the "In popular culture" section says very little about the two separate anecdotes they provide. In particular, the second point made about the New Africa House at the University of Massachusetts Amherst seemed very incomplete and/or unclear. A couple more sections describing how this connects to the Republic of New Africa movement couple definitely help.
Given the considerable academic studies of civil rights and black nationalist movements by African-American historians since the late 20th century, I would think there are now other sources for information about this than the primary writings of proponents of the movement. It definitely needs bolstering of sources and greater explanation.Parkwells (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could it not be described why and when the movement changed the spelling of "Africa" to "Afrika"? 185.65.251.50 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
