Talk:Racism/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 10 |

Archive 11

| Archive 12 →

I Did It

I don't have a whole lot of free time, but I'm going to do what I can to help the people in here who are trying to get this article back on track. This article doesn't need peer review or nomination for "good article" status. It needs for those of us who aren't using this as a soapbox to fight back.

I excised the 'Racism by Country' section into a separate article which can deal with its POV problems on its own. It's absolutely riddled with wildly POV and unsourced claims and it does not belong inside the "Racism" entry.

I hope everybody agrees that the outline is far more manageable than before. I have a few questions, though.

The thing about Finns and speaking Finnish and all that. It just stands out as more of a random factoid than some sort of addition to the piece. It's not even transitioned into well. If somebody wants to tell me that it is well-written and poignant then I'll digress.

As for the Jewish thing, I'm sympathetic and think that perhaps a review of the racist attitudes Jews have contended with could be a welcome addition. That being said, this thing about Russia and not being allowed to migrate to Palestine and expulsion from the West Bank stinks of agenda.

The snippet seems to imply that the British reason for limiting Zionist immigration was simple racism. It also seems to imply that the Jews expelled from the West Bank were somehow victims of a racist government. They may be victims of the government and the government may be racist - but it came off to me like the Israeli government was harassing Jews for racist reasons - which needs some documentation.

I'm sure plans to re-insert the poorly written, non-transitioned, biased snippet are "...in the works" ...

I have reduced the number of times the word "racialism" appears in the article to 6 and fully intend to reduce that number, given community support. Would it be too controversial to add a section like "Arguments for Racism" where proponents of racism can have their own sandbox within the article to list the historical and contemporary arguments for racism - including scientific racism. The bottom line (in my opinion) is that the term "racialism" is mostly a white nationalist synonym for scientific racism. That's what becomes obvious when you Google "racialism."

Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, change the things I can't accept, and the wisdom to know the difference.

--Wikitopian 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning "racialism", the term obviously has several different meanings. In French (I don't know in which measure this French definition may influence or not the English term), renowned scholar Pierre-André Taguieff uses it to qualify the "racist theories" which emerged in the 19th century; i.e. "scientific racism" as exemplified by Arthur de Gobineau, George Vacher de Lapouge, etc. Taguieff makes the point that the word "racism" itself didn't enter the French language until the 1930s, and at that time qualified the Nazis' policy (the term "racism" was closely related to nazism itself, at the point of being a synonym). I reintroduced this etymology which someone abusively deleted. In English as well, the term "racism" is relatively recent — I also reintroduced this deleted part. Lapaz 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the abusive data pirate who committed this abomination. I will digress from removing your etymological analysis of the word "racialism" which boldly places itself right there in the introduction. It's not unanimously agreed that racialism needs to be breathed in this article aside from its synonimity with scientific racism. If the etymology of the term racialism does deserve an entire paragraph then it seems to break the flow of the article to make it the second paragraph.

I respect your point, Lapaz. I will leave it alone and see if the audience has a concensus on the issue.

--Wikitopian 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there "data pirate"! If there is any discussion on the sense of "racialism", I do agree with you that it would be better not to talk about it, at least in the intro. However, mind you but part of the etymology inserted does not concerns racialism but "racism" itself — the part which says that it enters the English and French language in the 1930s, mainly in reference with Nazi Germany. This should doubtlessly be kept (etymology is, after all, important enough), although not necessarily in the intro — but it is interesting to state it in the intro insofar as the intro discusses what "racism" can mean. How are we supposed to give an answer to such a complex matter without starting by the basis: etymology and apparition of the word, if not of the thing? Lapaz 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually moved the "racialism" content from the intro to specific subsection (I wasn't aware of this discussion about the inclusion of not of racialism; IMO, it should be included as this "racism" page is necessarily the hub for all racism-related matters, and "racialism" should be linked from here...). Lapaz 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to have a dialogue with you, Lapaz.

I did some researching and I think you'll agree with me that this article is going to be one of the most difficult articles in the history of "wiki" to protect from POV problems. Since I am just a mere mortal I think the best way that I can serve this article is to help enforce Wikipedia's style guide - in a constructive manner.

If we can stick behind this new outline and encourage people to keep the different sections proportional in size and within the 32k style limit then some of the sentences may, just may, sit there long enough to get sourced, spell-checked, and stylistically improved. We may even manage to get ourselves a readable article. Article Size --Wikitopian 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Too exclusively Foucauldian

Honestly, I like Foucault enough to probably be called a Foucauldian most of the time. But he's not really the authoritative voice on the history of racism itself, and discourse analysis is hardly the most popular way for looking at the origins of racism. There are lots and lots and lots of authors who have written on the history of racism, and I think we should aim for an account less associated with a single author. (I am aware of the many ironies which could be observed here in terms of my trying to kill the author here.) The Stoler piece given in the references gives a good account of a number of different accounts of the origins of racism, whether it is a modern phenomena, etc. (Further irony: Stoler is explicitly Foucauldian in the piece.) I'm happy to forward a copy to anyone interested, but I'm going to (eventually) try and rewrite the "history of" section to take more into account the fact that there are quite a few different views on the subject. --Fastfission 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, very well. But How about someone answering my question about the pictures of anti-racists in the Racism in India part? And please someone tell me if that part is POV, as you say the others in the racism by country page are. I asked that question so long ago. Unsigned comment by User:Sshankar

Well, Foucault's analysis is interesting, to say the least. I'm sure you can find many others authors, so why not include them? Lapaz 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Size

Racism fires up a lot of emotion, and a lot of folks get indignant if they think others are "sweeping history under the rug" by prioritizing what must stay and what must go. I have a proposal that I want to see if I have any support with. It's a proposal for a guideline for the article, not something to stop people from improving the article but rather some much-needed structure to assure the article's gradual improvement.

The Wikipedia style guide states that the preferred size of an article is no larger than 32kb. I think given the relentless pressure on this article to expand in every direction, taking this rule seriously can do the article a lot of good. Here's how my numbers break down:

Current number of characters in article: 41708

Section	Current	Proposed
History of Racism	16,602	11,000
Types of Racism	9,111	11,000
Everything Else	15,995	11,000
Total(Characters)	41,708	33,000

How about the cause of racism???

A lot of people will think this is a bit obsessive but this is a really prominent and important article and it had truly gotten out of control. Any thoughts? --Wikitopian 13:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverse Correctism

I acted on a hunch and Google, wikipedia, and everybody else agreed that "reverse racism" is _not_ defined as minority discriminating against majority and the example (South Africa) that was used is a great example of a nation in which reverse racism defies the population dominance pattern. I'll source this when I get the chance.

Many believe 'reverse racism' to be a misnomer. However, by trying to define it as a 'minority' group discriminating against a majority, that seems to be an attempt to broaden the base of the idea to make it seem, in it's self, not racist or specific to one group. See the following (from http://colours.mahost.org/faq/definitions.html ):

REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites.

"The Catholic belief in the 'Deicide People'"

I've removed this phrase, at least temporarily, as it seems imprecise as currently formulated. Issues:

• Is this belief specific to Roman Catholics? Is there any reason to single out Catholics rather than Christians in general?
• At what period was this doctrine? Has it ceased to be doctrine? (obviously, yes; but the current language is unclear)
• Was "Deicide People" ever a established appellation in Roman Catholic or Christian usage?

Obviously not all these issues can be addressed in a passing reference, but they are relevant to the exact phrasing. If indeed, it's worth keeping - there were certainly many instances of European, Christian anti-Semitism outside the deicide charges.--Chris 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree --Wikitopian 14:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

--Wikitopian 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia requires citation for everything, and rightly so, but to doubt that the Catholic Church had an official policy which considered the Jewish people as a "deicide people" is a sure sign of lack of minimal knowledge concerning this topic! Hum... Jesus was crucified, you're aware of that, ain't you? And, well, Catholic people believe Jesus was the son of God, and God himself, ain't I'm right? So, now maybe you understant why the Jewish were called a "deicide people" until VAtican 2 (1962-65) when the policy and official terminology changed by the POpe? I don't think we need a citation tag for that!!! (or, would you need one to prove that Jesus was crucified according to the Bible?) Lapaz 14:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it always negative?

I've heard different definitions of the word and some of them give me the impression that being racist isn't necessarily bad. Some of them are more strict than others, and the ones that loosely define racism classify a lot of people as racist, and not just the "whoops you're racist" racists. For example, one might say that racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability. I would not argue if someone called me racist under that definition, and I don't believe that is necessarily bad. I think race plays a much smaller role in deciding a person's traits than gender or the economic conditions into which they were born, but it still has a role. It's not wrong to make presumptions based on certain things, and while less things should be presumed on race than on gender and whatnot, it's not wrong to assume a few things. Think how long it would take to get to know someone if nothing was presumed. A black person in my part of the world is more likely to enjoy hip-hop than to not like hip-hop, so if I were getting acquainted with a black person, me assuming they like hip-hop before knowing for certain would not offend them, even though by the definition used earlier, it would make me racist because I noticed a difference in character based on someone's race. I don't think that makes me a bad person, and I don't believe segregation or oppression is a good thing. I've been accused of being racist by people before, and because the person calling me racist doesn't have enough of an attention span to enter into a conversation about what racism really is, I simply reply, "I'm racial; not racist," even though that is stupid to say. Is that correct? Am I racial or racist, or neither? If I'm "racial" should that actually be a term people use? There's a huge difference between saying "black people's lips are generally larger than whites" and "black people are all evil". If I am racist, is that inherently bad? 24.154.173.50 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "colour" with "race". Although there are quite a lot of human beings who are black, our colour depends on the amount of melanin that we have. If you were to consider not this superficial colour question, but genetic differences, well, actually you may sometimes find more similarities between two seemingly far-related persons than between two similar looking persons. There is no "black race", as there is no "white race", and you can't jump from "colour" to "race". You're surely aware that since these DNA tests have become popular in the States, some (black) people are seeing that half of their family was white, or vice-versa: you may have half of your family black (or white), and yourself be from another colour... Now, you should distinguish "biological racism" and "cultural racism". If you consider first that "blacks constitute a race" (which is wrong as I've just explained), than you can say "all black people like hip hop better than white people": this is "biological racism": you say hip hop music is linked to "black genes" (although there is no black genes!!! genes don't have colour, and one may actually share more genese with a person with another colour than with another like-coloured guy!), dispelling any influence of CULTURE on it. But, you didn't say that, you said "most black people in my part of the world like hip hop": assuming you're speaking of the USA, you're here speaking not of a "racial" difference but of a "cultural" difference: you're not saying that Black people in Africa or that black people five centuries ago "liked hip hop". So concerning this specific example, you are not noting a difference based on "race", as what you thought, but rather a difference based on culture & social class.

Let's take another example: imagine I live in a racist country which practice racial discrimination between people with brown eyes & people with blue eyes (maybe someone said that blue-eyed people are Aryan and other African, whatever you wish!). So, people with brown eyes will be considered inferior (in much the same way that the aristocracy in the Middle Ages hardly thought of peasants as anything else than barbarians who couldn't read nor write, whereas they spoke Latin...) and therefore be forced in a lower social class position. In times of economic stress, the blue-eyed people will keep the food & money for them, and the brown-eyed people will have to survive with what they have. Because of this difficulty to survive, many will start relying on begging or stealing to find food. Some blue-eyed people, feeling guilty or just generous, will give them some money or food; others will say : "f... brown-eyed people, all thieves!". They have just transformed a social difference into a racial difference. What's the distinction between both? One is permanent while the other is an effect of society and politics. Take another example: let's say you're an American and you travel to South America, Bolivia or somewhere. Everybody says "hey! you're a gringo", and then poor village-people might say: "hey! gringo! that means he might beat me up; or, now, most probably that's he's a wealthy tourist, I can borrow him a dollar or two that won't mean much for him although it'll be a month-work for me..." Then he will say "all gringos are arrogant, they feel superior, they never want to learn foreign languages, expect everybody to understand them, etc." Suppose you're a poor gringo traveling without a dime, and that you learnt how to speak Spanish. But before you get a chance to present yourself, as an individual, the others say: "ah! a gringo!" and identify you with this stereotype. You have no chance to speak for yourself: this is racism. Lapaz 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The term "racism" is pejorative and implies ill intent. Nowhere outside of perhaps a klan rally can you claim that you're a racist in mixed company and have anybody assume that you are a scientific racialist who merely accepts and respects genetic variations in human sub-groups. Even in a klan rally they'll assume that.

This article should provide links to articles which deal with scientific racism, "race and multi-locus allele clusters", "race and intelligence" but should not waver from defining and describing racism as the term is understood by the overwhelming majority of the academic community and lay people alike. --Wikitopian 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Racism is a form of social discrimination. To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit, and is inherently unfair to each individual person.--Wiley 15:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All racism is social discrimination but not all social discrimination is racism. The two terms aren't interchangeable, the definitions aren't interchangeable, and your conclusions regarding the fairness of discriminating based on class or category affiliation is POV.

This is why I wanted to stick to a very formal definition of racism which is derived from an authoritative source (like the UN) rather than trust the community to arrive at one. And you mean to tell me that discriminating for/against somebody because of group or class affiliation is unfair by definition? I will "prejudge" a member of the KKK as being narrow-minded and bigoted. I will "prejudge" women to be less tall, less muscular, and more likely to be a stay-at-home parent.--Wikitopian 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Civil rights include, but are not limited to ... the right to be free from discrimination ..."[1].

Okay. So even if discrimination has changed over the last century to mean only negative discrimination - that is also how the term "racism" has evolved. Even when I'm wrong about something it just makes me that much more right about something else :)--Wikitopian 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing Larry King get really nasty with a caller who maintained that for a member of a minority group to hate a member of a majority group on the basis of genetic/cultural/language (or whatever his exact criteria were) was also racism. King claimed that it is only "racism" when the person holding the negative attitude is a member of a group that has the power to come down on the other group.

I think I recall reading approximately the same opinion expressed here. It's interesting what happens when one person or a group of people think they have the power to tell other people what the right thing to believe is -- even if it's about who is a racist and who is merely a person with hateful attitudes.

What happens to me when I react incorrectly to somebody else because of an irrational factor? What happens to the other person? There is a real story about a white family living in a frontier situation somewhere, Australia if I remember correctly. Some adult needed emergency medical help, and the nearest adults who could help were members of the wrong race. So the adult told the kids to go to the much more distant white people for help. Help came, but it was too late. If I think somebody is a potential enemy when s/he is a potential friend I cut myself off from help. If I think somebody is on the up and up because s/he shares my race, but a more objective look would warn me that s/he is rather shady, then I hurt myself.

What happens to the other person when I react incorrectly? It's pretty obviously bad if I hurt somebody because s/he is a member of the "wrong" group. But if I have responsibility for guiding the behavior of a person (e.g., as a teacher) and I fail to correct what somebody is doing wrong because s/he is a member of a favored group, then I'm actually letting that person down. Suppose, for instance, that I'm teaching some combat skill to some person who is going into battle and I keep telling them they're doing well when in fact they are doing all the stupid things. They feel good, go out on the street, and get killed. P0M 06:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Racialism and intro

I recently moved a short paragraph on DuBois' definitions of racialism and racism because his definitions are probably widely (though not universally) held and the distinction he makes, whether applicable to the words he seeks to define or not, is the one the previous paragraph is trying to make. Furthermore, adding that comment to the scientific racism section seems out of place because DuBois specifically denies that racialism as he defines it is racism and therefore it has little bearing on other definitions of racialism, ie scientific racism. Also, by placing so high up in the article, the pertinent link to racialism—and its myriad definitions—is provided early on. Srnec 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See "I Did It" section above for reason why I put the text on DuBois invisible. Lapaz 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but did you read what I wrote above? I think that DuBois makes a distinction that is very important to differentiating between racism and making racial distinctions. A while back, this article defined racism in the opening line as "various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes." Clearly this is not the commonest definition (if it is used at all). I can separate people into groups based on hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, skin colour, shoe size, and many other things. Such groupings may be meaningless, but they are possible. I tried to fix the intro a while ago and I originally added the DuBois quote because his distinction between simply recognising differences, even more severe and meaningful differences, is not what most people call racism, because racism is an axiological (usually pejorative and relatively nondescript) term. I linked to racialism to provide an understanding on the ways the word is used contra DuBois's usage, but DuBois's distinction (not his terminology) was the key. I understand that DuBois does not have some innate importance such that his comments deserve to be in the intro, but because they were clarifying to the points made in the first paragraph, I thought they were pertinent. Can they be readded? Srnec 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong categorisation

Racism is stored in Category:Racism. Category:Racism is a subcategory of Category:Prejudices. But, Racism not a Prejudice! The word "Prejudice" appears only once in the text, in the item Related_concepts. --Injinera 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• One of the definitions of racism in many (perhaps most) English dictionaries is "prejudice based on race". --Wiley 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about the article on Racism with its current content, not about Racism itself.--Injinera 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad definition

The first sentence of this article is bad enough to turn me off already: "Racism refers to various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine or influence cultural or individual achievement or the essential value of human beings. "

Racism is not about separating people, it is a lot more than that. That opening totally undermines the concept of racism.

Please sign your postings. You can do so by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~

I agree that racism is about more than separating people. We separate people into blonds and brunettes, but nobody gets killed on that account. Are you perhaps saying that the first sentence should reflect the existence of the institution of racism and describe the damage it does? P0M 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination on the basis of race exists regardless of whether or not an institution is associated with it. -- Wiley 10:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the existence of discrimination does not imply the existence of an institution based on it. If one person decides I am the spawn of the devil because I have a cast in one eye and so he puts that eye out with a pool cue, that is already bad enough.

Technically, "to discriminate" means simply to take cognizance of a difference in characteristics. A good doctor should discriminate between patients who are allergic to horse serum and those who are not. If a doctor should fail to notice the difference then some patients being treated for or innoculated against certain diseases might well die.

So what does "discrimination" really mean in the context of this article? It is the affective contamination of any characteristic in the mind of the beholder. A doctor would not act appropriately to hate or to love those people allergic to horse serum. If the doctor did, then he would be a poor doctor indeed. Characteristics are contaminated with affect for many reasons, but the prototypical case is probably when some powerful event occurs in the presence of the distinguishing characteric. In the case of positive affect, the result may be a paraphilia. John Money describes the case of someone whose sexual history was marked by a very intense experience, the "defining" characteristic (from the standpoint of the patient) was the presence of insects crawling over his body. After that defining event the young man could only achieve a satisfactory orgasm when insects were induced to crawl over his body. In the negative cases, something terrible happens to somebody at the hands of a person wearing a red baseball cap (for instance) and ever after the sight of a red baseball cap creates extreme apprehension, visions of violent retribution, etc.

If an affectively contaminated discrimination is taught to a group of people, then the individual sharing that characteristic is not up against a single nut but a subculture of nuts, or maybe even a culture of nuts.P0M 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category instead of individual merit. Distinctions between people which are based on individual merit (such as personal achievement, skill or ability) are not socially discriminatory. -- Wiley 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That meaning of "discrimination" is an extended sense of the basic sense of the word, to distinguish. Humans distinguish others on the basis of "class or category" as you put it. There is nothing wrong or even dysfunctional with, e.g., putting all humans with red hair in one group. If you are allocating resources for skin cancer screening, it would perhaps be worth it to budget more money per red head than for brunettes. Doing things that way might save more lives than spending the same amount of money per individual regardless of hair color. For instance, it might pay to tuck in a skin cancer screening advertisement with hair care products and cosmetics intended for red heads. It is the cases where people have strong emotional reactions attached to red heads that may be problematical. If some guy automatically raises a girl from an 8 to a 9 just because she has red hair, that doesn't necessarily do any harm to either one of them. But if somebody hates all people with red hair then that irrational hatred can motivate harmful actions directed against Carrot Top and his ilk, and it can also prevent the person who hates redheads from finding his soul mate or his perfect business partner.

It doesn't work very well to tell people that their extra appreciation of or their hatred for redheads is irrational and hurtful. That is because people typically have evolved strong defenses to protect these instances of affective contamination. Just try to tell a dedicated racist that s/he is irrational and hurtful.

In order to be able to ameliorate racism we must understand its etiology and then dig out the root rather than periodically lopping off the branches. P0M 06:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Civil rights include, but are not limited to ... the right to be free from discrimination ..."[2]. --Wiley 07:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to get the definition improved for so long... This is a much better intro now. Srnec 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism against Asians

Asians are like the main target for racism, many Asian Students that go to another country and educate there get discriminated. What is wrong with being an Asian. I'm and Asian student myself and everyday I'm teased bullied, name calling and more , it gets worst and worst. Sometimes I even feel ashamed of being and Asian...

That's interesting, because I've noticed in Asia that the people usually look down on "foreigners", be them black, brown or white. I guess what goes around, comes around?

I don't know what's wrong with being Asian, I hope you have a better time at your school. --r0m

Seriously... Chinese, Vietnamese and Some others are targets. jackietang33 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want, you can get in touch with me via my userpage and then e-mail. Whether one is in a primary school, a secondary school (middle school, junior high, high school), university level, or graduate level, your educational institution has a responsibility to discipline people who make racist attacks. At my university we occasionally have outbreaks of negative behavior and the administration takes violations seriously. (The same applies for abuse directed toward other groups, too.)

There is not anything wrong with Asians. There is something wrong with a portion of the American public that feels (perhaps at an unconscious level) so bad about themselves that they have to knock other people down and stand on them in order to make themselves six inches taller. They are pathetic, but they can also be dangerous at times. Organize with other Asians, document (video recordings would be excellent if you can do them without putting the racists on their guard), and complain as a group to the authorities. P0M 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

            ??????? what about Lucy Liu ???? and Sandra Oh ....

and of course Bruce Lee the only fat I know in movies is Chackie Chan but in holywood there are some fat white actors too or I am wrong?

commercial[s]

I have a vague impression that several Budweiser-Light commercials released this month, or this week, seem racist,... In addition to whatever about this industry.

Does anyone know of any articles thereof?

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias

This article focuses pretty my only on White-on-(your race goes here) racism. It COMPLETELY ignores racism practised by other nationalities. There is extreme racism that exists Yellow countries such as China, Korea, Japan, etc. North Africans completely look down on Black Africans, etc. This article should be here to describe racism and some key points in history. Not label Whites as racist in a hundred different stories.

Could you restate you point? What exactly is bias?

Bias means something is measured unevenly. I shouldn't have to give you English lessons.

My friend, the term -Yellow countries- is considered to be racist.

• Ry0d0x 11:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have been brainwashed to think so. If one says White and Black, then it makes sense to also say Yellow, if you actually want to be fair and consistent.

In the Chinese language, the terms "Yellow coloured people" (Huang Se Ren); "White coloured people" (Bai Se Ren); and "Black People" (Hai Ren) are standard, and only perjorative if the predjudice of the speaker or listener is against that race anyway.

However, it is believed by some that the absense of "Se" (= coloured) in "Hai Ren" is perjorative against black people, and "Hai Se Ren" may be used as an attempt to redress this. ~~ADM 19th Oct 2006

This article is way too Eurocentric. It has only a brief mention of racism not involving whites, this needs to be expanded. So I agree that this article is biased. People with a knowledge of Asian, African, etc history should add sections. --rom

That is interesting because as a 'white' person I was surprized when I heard Chinese people reffer to themselves as being 'Yellow' and didn't understand me when I said that where I come from we don't use that term, I guess if they use it in their own language it makes sense to transfer it into English to them. I myself don't use the terms white black or yellow even when reffering to myself, maybe I am alone in this. Anyway I agree that there needs to be a section on racism in asia/china/whatever, we should as always try and document all aspects of the issue. This is a difficult subject and we should try and remain even and try not make comments which could be considered racist themselves (including on talk pages imo). It would be good if someone who has some knowlage in this area could write something. Also I think that we should refrain from attacking people and their opinions on talk pages, especially what people consider to be racist regardless of what brainwashing you may think has happened. I personally would consider 'yellow countires' to be racist, just as I would consider 'white countries' and 'black countries' to be, that's my personal opinion and I think we can all understand what a subjective topic racism is if we have experienced it or not. Also I would encourage everyone to sign their comments. In short, be polite. Ta. -- SnakeSeries 11:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am starting to agree with you SnakeSeries after what you just said made me realise that We(chinese People) can be racist ... But we chinese people do not always use the phrase Hai Ren, we mostly refer them as the nationalities, not their colour.jackietang33 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

BZÖ

I removed this entry from the list of racist organisations:

"Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) - leader of the party, Jorg Haider made a lot of Anti-Slovenian statements and is very similar to Adolf Hitler."

Out of various reasons.

Firstly, the FPÖ is more actively racist in the present day than the BZÖ. If you'll list the BZÖ, you'd need to list ALL similarily far-right parties. FPÖ, BNP, NPD, DVU, et cetera, just for concistency.

Secondly .. as much as I dislike Haider, and as racist as some of his statements have been, saying that he is "very similar" to Adolf Hitler just doesn't make sense.

ChiLlBeserker 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Crypto-racism

A claim recently made (in an editing comment for this article) that a Google search for "crypto-racism" returns over half a million "google results". FYI: a Google search of web pages with the argument "crypto-racism" returned only about 1,240 hits. BTW, a search of web pages for "racism is a" returns about 304,000 results, while a search for "crypto-racism is a" claims about 71 hits (although only 1 is displayed). Regardless of popularity, an editor needs to show reliable published source(s) for content that they add. --Wiley 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User: Anonymous Wikipedian and I (User:Arbor) are having an edit war over his new section on crypto-racism. Here is the current format:

Crypto-Racism

Hidden racial bias is often termed "crypto-racism". It is used to describe both open racism in which code words and phrases are used in place of blatant epithets, and individual racism in which self-denial of ones own racist attitudes is a major element. Crypto-racism is most prevalent in nations in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict, but open racism is not socially acceptable. It is often passive aggressive in character.

The hallmark of crypto-racism is strong self-denial of the term by those accused of it. Still, some behaviors are widely acknowledged in popular culture as being crypto-racist, including, 1] intense focus on non-association (for example, "white-flight" in housing developments, racially exclusive golf associations, silent discrimination in hiring), 2] the use of tokens (lone members of the minority in an attempt to disprove racial bias), 3] stated views that racism does not exist and/or accusations of oversensitivity to "jokes", and the phrase: "I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are <racial designation>".

While instances of real crypto-racism are difficult to cite, parodies of crypto-racist attitudes do exist. One of the recurring elements on the Colbert Report is Stephen Colbert talking about his "new black friend" and claiming to be "color blind". blackpeopleloveus.com is a website with similar humor. [3]

My problems with this section are numerous. The last paragraph is simply non-notable and cannot be defended on any means. The middle paragraph aims to identify behaviour that is termed crypto-racist. The problem is to make this verifiable. I can see no way to do that. The term is an ill-defined neologism or insult which seems to have the same semantics as racist but for the lack of self-admission. Since I know very few instances where racist behaviour is self-identified as such, the meanings of racist and crypto-racist seem to coincide in almost all cases. I might be wrong, but WP is not the place to arbitrate such debates over word usage. So, the second paragraph needs verification. It also needs to be precise about who uses the term crypto-racist in that way. Finally, the first paragraph begins with a word definition. First two sentences are fine by me, but don't need their own section. We could simply state somewhere else that "many attitudes, while not overtly racist, are sometimes labeled crypto-racist because they display blabla". The third and fourth sentence of para 1 are unsalvageable. ("most prevalent in natioos in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict"—I'd like to see a reference for that. Also, I fear there is no way to verify the claim that crypto-racism, ill defined in the first place, is often passive agressive.)

In short, there are two sentences here that are worth of inclusion. That does not a section make. The rest is some combination of essay, opinion, wild guesses, and soapboxing that violates WP:V and/or WP:NOR. This article needs the opposite: a cool, detached, helful, edifying description of racism. Preferably the best on the planet. Which is why I just removed AW's section. I won't do it thrice, so it's time for other editors to chip in. At least give us give us a one-liner (remove, festoon with references, 'expand, encrypt or whatever). Arbor 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a Template:Unreferencedsect tag to the new section, with a comment quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. --Wiley 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

First, Arbor - deleting my section out of the talk page so that only your point of view remains, is not in keeping with the wiki guidelines.

I will be providing references as time allows. I don't have time to babysit this all day long. I have a job.

Your google searching skills leave much to be desired. A doublequote will get you only terms exactly as specified. Equivalents, such as "crypto-racist" are left off, as are constructs like this: "Coded (or plausibly-deniable) appeals to crypto- (and not-so-crypto-) racists have been part of southern GOP politics for decades. As Bill Clinton noted, despite the current right-wing outrage over Lott, “he just embarrassed (the GOP) by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day.”"

[4]

The fact that crypto-racism (as opposed to open racism) is the most prevalent form of modern racism is all the more reason to give this term its own section. Surely you recognize that Apartheid was a different character, don't you? Or do you need a citation for that as well?Unsigned comment by User:Anonymous Wikipedian

Anonymous Wikipedian, in the future please sign your comments in discussion pages by appending four tilde characters. --Wiley 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

AW, (1) I have no idea what you mean by me deleting your section out of the talk page. Please provide a diff (or just re-insert whatever you mean I removed). (2) If you don't want to babysit it, then don't enter it in the first place. See Wiley's quote above. No source -> information can be removed. (3) I did no google searching. (4) This is not a word usage guide, nor the place for original research, no matter how well-intended. If there is an established body of literature that makes a meaningful distinction between racism and crypto-racism then please tell us. Otherwise the section dies by WP:NOR and WP:V, even if all the editors here agreed that crypto-racism was the hottest thing since sliced bread. Arbor 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In conformance with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, I've removed the unsourced material (which could be added back as time allows in later edits if published reliable sources are cited).

- - I withdraw the accusation, Arbor. I created a Crypto-Racism entry on this talk page, wrote several paragraphs describing my position, saved - and just assumed wikipedia was heathy enough to absorb what I wrote. The servers seem to be dying a lot more often than they used to, there's not a day that goes by that I don't get the wiki-unavailable page, so I doubt it has anything to do with my end.

Insofar as the crypto-racism entry is concerned, this is not original research by any reasonable definition of the term. Or, if you wish to apply an inane and pedandic standard to this page, the entire page is "original research" because it contains dozens of assertions that are not strictly sourced, even when the statement appears obvious.

I really don't have time to work on this page now, but come the weekend, I will regularize this page to eliminate all unsourced material.

Anonymous Wikipedian 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Quebec bashing

A "Quebec bashing" section was added without references and with weasel wording (example; "It has been argued that ...") --Wiley 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing that section altogether. Maybe the case has been made somewhere that Quebec bashing is considered racism, but this section doesn't describe this. This whole article has spiraled out of control, but even still, the Quebec section seemed bizarre and out of the blue. It was just an assertion, no context, only one or two sentences. Personally, I have know opinion on the subject either way, so if someone wants to add a section like that, by all means, stick it back in, but put a little effort into this time.Bobanny 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A paragraph in "Racism as official government policy" has been added. this paragraph, as with the "Quebec Bashing" one above is without references at all and with weasel wording. This seems like an attempt to bring the Quebec/Canada bickering (which can be seen elsewhere on wikipedia) to this page. I have removed this paragraph altogether. Should someone wish to re-instate it, please cite references. Furthermore, study of this issue will probably result in a non-involved person (unlike me) to conclude to a long standing, hard to solve dispute and not present day governmental racism on either side. In which case it probably doesn't belong in a page about racism. --Pixx 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

National Vanguard... as source?

Racism#Allegedly racist groups: "Al-Queda, Islamist militant group vowed to destroy Westerners, Jews, and Christians.[5]" ...the source is from National Vanguard.

But...

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites: "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia [...]"

And the reference isn't even pertinent to the subject. --Liberlogos 18:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the above mentioned link- most links under the heading "Allegedly Racist Groups" seem to be dubious and non reliable links. I will look into making it more 'encyclopedia-like' later but would appreciate some help. --khello 08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

--71.192.88.79 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)==Allegedly racist groups section== Is it really appropriate to have radical fundamentalist muslim groups in this section, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc? Much of the muslim world is anti-jewish/anti-israel, but are they against jews as a race, or as a religion? I would think that they would accept the conversion of jewish people to islam, who would then be acceptable to these groups... but that's just my impression. Do we have any sources on this? --Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate question is whether there are actual allegations of racism being lodged against them, not whether the allegations are true. There may be other allegations that maintain them to be involved with religious intolerance. If there is an article on "religionism," then that information could be discussed there. P0M 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If the title is Allegedly Racist Groups that any group alleged to be racist can be listed. A source isn't even warranted because listing that group alleges racism by atleast one person. Finally, I allege that the UNCF and NAACP are racist groups.--71.192.88.79 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian not technically accurate term for white people

I deleted the use of Caucasian as a term for white people because it is inaccurate, out of date, and was almost only used in the United States. Wikipedia is supposed to use accurate and universal terms. The proper meaning of Caucasian is people from the Caucasus or people who speak the Languages of the Caucasus. Also, if you click on Caucasian, it goes to a disambiguation page, not an article. Spylab 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So what is the correct name for White people, surely it cant be a layman term like "white people", in USA they say African American, ahh how about European-People-Halaqah 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Skylab. I think the word we use has to depend on popular and scholarly usage. In some cases, White people is exactly what people say so we should use that term too - as long as the precise context is clear. Indeed, it all depends on contexts. English scholarship on Brazil, for example, typically distinguishes between African-Brazilians, Indigenous Brazilians, and Luso-Brazilians, although even the scholarly literature there also uses the word "white." Let's follow our sources, and just provide the proper references. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The term Caucasian is not out of date, and is also used by forensic anthropologists. You are correct that it is not a technically correct term for white people because it is also used to refer to middle easterners, Indians etc who have a similar skull shape. These people (at least middle easterners) are classified by the US government as white. In popular usage Caucasian refers to people of European descent.

I believe that the term Caucasian is not out of date, it just doesn't technically refer to whites. Whites in America should not be known as whites, but as European Americans, like African Americans. Blacks get their special name, so should whites.

Race is a word that purports to refer to a category that lacks a proper definition, and names of specific supposed races are words that likewise lack proper definitions. Racism is a real activity and involves behaviors that depend on various names and definitions of supposed races. So what is significant is what particular racists term the people they are for and against. "Whites," "pinks," "Caucasians," "Aryans," etc, etc. are all words that get used for the purpose of manipulating others or fooling oneself. It would be a waste of time to try to find the correct name for a set that has not been formed, and it would also be a waste of time to find and use single words that have as their multiple referents a large number of overlapping sets.

European Americans doesn't cut it either. Could a black man who emmigrated from england be considered a european american? Theres really no term that could be considered NPOV. It's all drawing lines in the sand --71.192.88.79 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Racist quotes section

'The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown.' - H.L. Mencken

This is an amzaing contribution, i mean if that isnt racism then i dont know. But they will say "he was a man of his time" so it was not racist just natural.--Halaqah 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, I think when people use the "he was a man of his time" line, they do not mean "therefore he was not racist," because they mean that at that "time" so-called good people were often racists; their point is that despite his being racist we should value those things he did or said that continue to be of worth by present-day standards. Let me give you an example closer to home: Wagner was an anti-Semite, but many Jewish music-lovers understand that he was a creature of his times. If we stopped listening to all music made by anti-Semities, we would stop listening to a great deal of mustic from the 19th century. In other words, I think the goal is not to excuse anti-Semites, but to excuse Jews who want to enjoy music written by an anti-Semite even as they reject his anti-Semtiic statements. I am sure there is much music and literature by whites that Blacks today enjoy and appreciate, despite the fact that for a very long time in American history even seemingly progressive Whites were held beliefs about Blacks most people would today find abhorent. The question is, do we through the baby out with the bathwater? I have a feeling Lincoln said some things about Blacks that would upset most of us today, but I don't fault anyone Black, White, or any other American, who appreciates his role in ending slavery in the US. I bet many GIs who fought in WWII were anti-Semitic, being "men of their times." But if they killed Nazis, man, that is just fine with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what the point is of the Racist quotes section. Is this necessary for the broader understanding of the topic of racism? It seems kind of random. Spylab 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do not see the usefulness of so many detached squibs without any attempt at analysis. Four Score And Seven Years Ago 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it's not good. Some of them are not even racist — Darwin's from Descent of Man is actually meant to be something sad, not something desired, and is not a reference to genocide but reflects the concerns of ethnologists of his day that believed that indigenous peoples were rapidly becoming an "endangered species" after their encounters with "civilized people". --Fastfission 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My best quote ( black man some years ago - maybe on c-span ) "Don't hate me because I am black. Get to know me first - you'll find plenty of other reasons."

innocent content fork, or back-door POV fork?

You judge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_african_type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_type Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-ordered topics

I started re-ordering the topics so they will be better organized. I tried to put similar topics together in appropriate sub-sections. I put the Racist Quotes section near the end, because that's more of a trivia section than a main topic. I deleted a paragraph on Affirmative Action because it duplicated a paragraph that's already in the Reverse Racism section. There are probably more cases of repetitive content, or topics that should be merged together under one heading. Spylab 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So why cant i find racist quotes, i think you put it so far at the end it fell right off the page/.--Halaqah 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed the following paragraph from the Racism in Mexico, Central America and South America section. It was oddly written and questionable and unsourced: "With respect to racism, the "Mestizos" term by adoption gives Spaniards and Portuguese decedents in Latin America a claim to racial purity that in fact does not exist. A Spaniard or Portuguese is actually a Mediterranean amalgamation, created by rape, plunder, and conquest, consisting of Celtic, Greek, Roman, German, Arab, (Moors and Berbers) Black Africans, Jewish, and Gypsy bloodlines. Were a "Mestizo" in Mexico can trace his ancestry neatly and relatively purely to the Aztecs and a Siberian land bridge; a Spaniard is a truly complete Mestizo mystery". --Xyzzyplugh 13:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the Falun Gong homophobic

Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic. The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.

According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.” [6] Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.” [7] Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” [8]

It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here. Thanks--Samuel Luo oli 12 November 2006 (UTC) the end

Feedback

Something that's been bothering me about: The people who have "White" skin and call themselves American are absolutely wrong. Well, they're actually from the British Decent (Mostly) as their ancestors are from England or Europe. The Native Americans are the true Americans.

Also, a classmate once told my teacher that he hate Germans. Not good. Just because they, in total, killed eleven million people in the Second World War does not mean that all Germans are bad.

But, I heard that there are these Germans who shave off their hair and kill Aisans.

The world is getting sicker than I thought.

Very Messy

I have changed Anti-Semitism to Racism against Jewish people, as i think the title is a POV, this is about Racism and it should be consistent, I know people say anti-Semitism is racism but i think it is a very subjective argument, as anti-Semitism today has a very political slant, i.e. for me writing like this can be considered "anti-Semitic". Also i have deleted the box as the full article has the anti-Semitism box and is of no use here when it is only suppose to be a brief discussion. It is all of these things that make the article a mess. Also there needs to be a fluid theme and not things dropped in all over the place. If one group is being discussed then Arab racism needs a cat, African American needs a separate cat etc etc. --Halaqah 11:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop removing racist quotes

Everytime i come back to this page some smarty has removed racist quotes, the topic is about racism yet they delete the racist quotes. How are people suppose to appreciate the toungue of racism? the best way is to snatch it from the mouth of those racist that said what they said. DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION AGAIN!---Halaqah 11:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

the below is not a racist quote, i am sorry: --Halaqah 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) "When you look at the black race, black people are very gifted in what we call worship and celebration. A lot of us like to dance, and if you go to black churches, you see people jumping up and down, because they really get into it. White people were blessed with the gift of structure and organization. You guys do a good job of building businesses and things of that nature and you know how to tap into money pretty much better than a lot of people do around the world. Hispanics are gifted in family structure. You can see a Hispanic person and they can put 20 or 30 people in one home. They were gifted in the family structure. When you look at the Asians, the Asian is very gifted in creation, creativity and inventions. If you go to Japan or any Asian country, they can turn a television into a watch. They're very creative. And you look at the Indians, they have been very gifted in the spirituality." - Reggie White

• See the discussion above (titled "Racist quotes section") to understand why the section has been deleted. It serves no genuine encyclopedic purpose. The rest of the (very-long) article does a good enough job explaining what racism is, without the addition of random racist quotes. Spylab 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still pretty cool that they can turn a television into a watch. Man, without the Japanese my life would probably be a little more dull, I mean I just about LIVE for Nintendo and gadgets JayKeaton 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Link glut

That's an awful lot of See Also links. Would anyone care to help build a Template:Discrimination sidebar to condense some of that? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

demographics

I was interested to read who is more likely to be racist, but couldn't find it. I was expecting things like "studies have shown that upper clase white families are more likely to be racist than lower to mid class white families" or summat like that, you know? Racism is largley conditioning I should think, in this day and age the fear and hatred of other races can only be taught, it wouldn't come natural. So what societies and groups are breeding racism? What societies are more likely to not be racist, poor people? Educated people? What, what is it? This article wont tell me, that makes me a sad panda JayKeaton 07:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does WP permit Racism against Gibraltar?

This seems the ideal place to expose the racist attitudes of some WP members, including admins, who have allowed a racist user Ecemaml to poison the Gibraltar pages with fascist inspired, racist, anti-Gibraltar propaganda, and then had the cheek to ban a Gibraltar user "Gibraltarian" for taking a stand. The situation is scandalous. It MUST be overturned. WP cannot continue to claim it runs on an NPOV basis otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.120.224.143 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think it's technically possible to commit "racism" against a geographic location, since it's not a race. Are the residents of Gibraltar a distinct race? *Dan T.* 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't racism, but some kind of prejudice still? JayKeaton 11:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The racism is against the people of Gibraltar, who are a distinct cultural and political entity. Racism & discrimination is not only about skin colour. That a user can abuse WP to peddle his poison, and the response of WP is to unjustly ban another for making a stand against this is quite frankly repugnant. And none of the admins seem to give a damn. User "Gibraltarian" should have his ban lifted immediately, as its initial imposition was totally unacceptable and unjustifiable.

Where is Israel In Insitutional racism?

I have just notice Uganda, that little African country got a nice place in racism, can someone please discuss the possiblity of adding Israel and South Africa.--Halaqah 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed Israel because it was pure editorializing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is, nevertheless, institutional racism in Israel. If someone can do serious research on it, it is worth including. I suggest work by political scientist Ian Lustick as a start. As long as the results do not violate NPOV or NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)