Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt and civil rights

General quality issues

This article seems to have many issues.

• specific neutrality issues of the Japan American internment sections
• lack of source for the first paragraph - and it doesn't bring much compared to the cited articles FEPC and Executive Order 8802
• many imprecise claims, e.g. in the first paragraph "The President's order stated that the federal government would not hire any person based on their race, color, creed, or national origin. " -> this was in the defense industry only. "Millions of black"... how many millions ?
• lack of coherence between the different sections: why put that in one common article if the different sections have no relationship with each other (beside the title of the article... see next item)
• the title is somewhat misleading - this is not about "Franklin D. Roosevelt" but about his presidency and administration

Overall, I've the feeling it's a try at making connections between things that don't have much in common: AFAIK, Roosevelt didn't do much to advance (nor move back) on civil rights... Probably the different sections should be merged in their corresponding pages, and this page should be simply removed, no ? --Farialima (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

First post

(added header)--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know why a TOC isn't being generated? Sam 01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs headers and at least 3-4 posts.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Some Doubling

There seems to be some doubling in the African American section. Executive Order 8802 and the introduction of the FEPC are mentioned twice. Can anyone fix this?

Disgusting

The Japanese American internment section reads like it was written by a holocaust denier. I don't even dare to touch it because I'd probably end up gutting it and getting banned for vandalism or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.222.133 (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

African American

This section should be rewritten and more concise. The main concern for African Americans at this time was lynching. It should not be rationalized that Roosevelt was against lynching, but sided with the racists.{Cmguy777 (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)}

Can I ask why right at the beginning of this section it specifies 'black (or Negro)'? What's the point? 81.178.137.180 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also: 'Roosevelt, with his usual desire to please everyone'? 81.178.137.180 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Internment

This section is very biased in favor of Japanese internment. Where is this alleged secret information Roosevelt had? It also is a rationalization for interning all Japanese Americans in the country. This section needs to be modified.

Modified?? The header on this page says Roosevelt "participated in" Japanese Internment - what part of BY EXECUTIVE ORDER ISSUED BY A SITTING PRESIDENT does "participated in" fall under? It was a UNILATERAL ACT ordered by the then-current United States President who was, by legal standard, acting completely on his own. Participated in. How on Earth does that fall under "participated in"?!?

By that standard, Hitler only "participated in" the debate on the extermination of the Jews. Stalin only "participated in" the decision to starve, enslave, torture, murder, & imprison 100 million Ukrainians & Latvians during the 1930's Holomodor & De-Kulakization campaigns - despite the fact he himself made up the word, dreamed up the policy, & issued the totalitarian order to do it. Participated in. The intellectual dishonesty displayed by this is absolutely disgusting. 71.61.157.113 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Mexican-Americans during the Great Depression

I honestly think that this has been overlooked. Operation wetback, which saw the removal of people who looked "Mexican" was a reality during the Great Depression. Hopefully someone looks into this. 192.12.83.105 (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust and attitudes toward Jews

The Holocaust and attitudes toward Jews: This whole section is pure opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.229.117 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to echo the above comment; the section relies heavily on an opinion piece in the LA Times, which in my view probably should not be cited at all. More importantly, the section promotes a particular viewpoint held by some historians, neglecting to mention the contrary perspectives. By doing so, it implies a consensus where there is a controversy. For instance, HW Brands' biography of Roosevelt paints a slightly different picture; according to Brands, the quota for German immigrants had been filled the President went out of his way to extend visas for Jewish Germans on temporary stay. Additionally, Roosevelt's reluctance to bomb Auschwitz was partly motivated by a concern that it would lead to more deaths of Jews (Brands 381). It is also worth noting that Breitman and Lichtman argue in FDR and the Jews that Roosevelt's policy towards Holocaust refugees was better than that of Churchill or other Presidents vis a vis genocides. I am not saying Medoff is either right or wrong, but that his opinion is not necessarily embraced by the bulk of experts and that his opinion piece should not be cited as a source. --TheobaldShlegel (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)