Talk:Anti-racism/Archive 1

REMOVE BLM
Black lives matter are not anti-racist. All they care about is black supremacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.255.152 (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word "Indian"
I find it very strange that an article on Anti-Racism uses the term "Indian" so much, while not a paticularly racist word, I think this article should use Native American instead as I belive it's probobly best for an Anti Racism article to use Politically Correct Terms Deathawk 23:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

North American bias
This article is very US-centric. Needs British, European and Australasian material too! --BobFromBrockley 12:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
" ... this is a big stain ... " &mdash; while probably true, is not particularly WP:NPOV. - Francis Tyers · 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion? Original research?
Perhaps this article should be deleted or perhaps merged with other more "mature" articles, such as Civil_Rights_Movement. The claims pertaining to Native American's "ideological threat" to racist institutions are dubious and unsupported by any evidence. 69.180.205.207 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

US only
Why is the article only bout the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.247.14 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Quit asking, this question is silly now. if you have any knowledge to Add that's not US centered then do so and stop complaining, if you bothered to read you'd noticed that someone has already noted that the article is US-Centric in its information. 205.228.12.236 (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
I think I have solved the neutrality problem now (Added quote).Eros of Fire (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That quote is not appropriate, and I've removed it. First, it's very long compared to how little it says. Second, as a general rule it's better to summarize quotes than to give them verbatim. Third, the quotation was unsourced. Fourth, the speaker's affiliation isn't given so his relevance is unclear to the reader. For more on neutrality, please read WP:NPOV.   Will Beback    talk    22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote is from stormfront, I do not remember if it was Tyndall or Black who said it, I have to look for that link again. I will see how can I incude itEros of Fire (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote is inappropriate for lots of reasons. It is too long, and it certainly does not belong in the lede. Better to summarise such debate in a neutral way in later section of article. Keep it out of the intro. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah like we shouldent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.75.126 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the NPOV template, please use or better yet  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 04:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mugabe Land Reform "Racist"?
The characterization of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe land reform as "racist" does not appear to be neutral and can be debated. Considering that the situation the land reform was looking to solve was one that arised due to racist practices on the part of white colonizers and their black sycophants, the principle of land reform (giving land back to the indigenous peoples) isn't racist but can be characterized as justice. Rough justice, imperfect justice, but justice nevertheless. Marinabreeze (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. How should we fix this in the article? Remove it? Buttonwillowite (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed this statement as flatly violating WP:NPOV. The section already notes that Zimbabwe's land reform has resulted in 'widespread starvation', so I don't think anyone can argue it's biased in Mugabe's favour. Robofish (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a global perspective
In North American politics, most people shy away from being labeled anti-anything. Anti-war is about the only example I can think of in the last half-century, and that only comes up when there's a war on. (And war is an easy thing to oppose.) There was an Anti-Masonic political party in the early United States, but even that era's anti-"foreigner" political party was the American Party (pro-"American"). Black nationalists in the US have insisted that they are "anti-anything that is anti-black", but only when baited for being pro-black (i.e., being racist themselves). I thought anti-racism was a European thing (like anti-Fascism, which has some obvious salience in Europe). North Americans are "pro-tolerance" or "pro-diversity" and will mostly push back at being accused of being anti-anything that isn't near-universally opposed (e.g. government waste or paedophilia). Looking at the anti-racist organizations (noting the US spelling for this section) list under North America, I see a lot of organizations that do not identify as anti-racist, a UN organization, and several non-racist skinhead or "street gang" groups. I also see antifa, which the internal link identifies as European. Also, dead links. -74.196.17.155 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is great that you have initiated such a discussion here and I have updated the tags accordingly; I will also conduct some research myself. Admittedly, I would not have normally associated the concept of "anti-racism" with North America; however, it would be useful for you to elaborate upon the North American organisations that you believe do not identify as anti-racist and whether there is a difference between "non-racist" and "anti-racist" (it would seem that you are lowering the significance of the skinhead groups by using this term). Cheers.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me to prove a negative, Soulparadox? This is the "anti-racism" article, so listing organizations here as "anti-racism" would seem to require some affirmative declaration of "anti-racism" on the part of those organizations. They are otherwise subject to removal by WP editors, at will, from that list, no? The difference between non-racist organizations and anti-racist organizations should be obvious. Here's the wikilink to non-racism. Here's the wikilink to a list of non-racist organizations. About that parenthetical, note that I didn't knowingly alter skinhead group links (I have no knowledge). This, objectively, raises their significance by making the list more exclusive, no? I am intrigued that Anti-xxx movements work in Europe, but have been deprecated in North America. - 74.196.17.155 (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Soulparadox, I clicked on this article after reading hundreds of "anti-racism means ant!-white" viral comments. I'd never heard of anti-anything in modern politics (as a North American), so I assumed it was "foreign". It would be "useful for you to elaborate", or for any editor to elaborate, upon why they inserted any organisation as North American that does not identify with "anti-racism" in this article's list of North American Anti-racist orgs. It would be "useful for you to elaborate" on why that isn't WP policy. I leave you infinite space below to so elaborate. - 74.196.17.155 (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not yet been able to conduct the research I mentioned in my last post, so I cannot sufficiently respond to your reply. However, I hope that I haven't been misinterpreted, especially in regard to the tone of my reply, as I am genuinely seeking to work out the best way to proceed with this article. If I have come across as patronizing, I apologize, as I am merely trying to become more knowledgeable on a subject that I don't have the necessary background to properly write on/edit about. I am not seeking proof, as such, just trying to continue with a discussion in the Wikipedia realm, using the appropriate communication tools/methods. I will try to have a look at the two pages you have provided in the midst of everything else I am trying to complete. Cheers!--Soulparadox (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

major changes
This article needed a major overhaul. Anti-racism did not begin with anthropologists in the 1920s and '30s. If John Brown isn't an anti-racist, I don't know who is. The primary impetus for anti-racism in the modern world has not come from the UN, but from the Civil Rights movement in the U.S., and similar movements around the world. The article in the new version is still way to centered on America (a discussion of the abolition movement in England, for example, would be nice, as would some mention of Ghandi.) But hopefully this is a place for others to start. (Most of my discussion is based on James Loewen's in "Lies My Teacher Told Me".

Also note that I've cut the paragraphs below from the article completely, largely because they seemed irrelevant to me. The claim that anti-racism originated in the '60s is simply false. The fact that the Democrats were white-only is less significant than it seems -- they were the Southern party after the Civil War, remember? George Dunn seems like a footnote; the fact that racism didn't appear just means a shift of language, which might be interesting, but hardly means that resistance to white supremacy didn't exist. The list of UN documents seems pretty unimportant compared to the overall achievements of anti-racism. That's just my POV, of course; if other's disagree, they're welcome to put them back in the article....

Although many now consider it fundamental to social justice, anti-racism is a recent development. The 1968 convention was the first the United States Democratic Party held without whites-only delegations. One of the first figures in the Roman Catholic Church to identify racial segregation as a sin, Fr. George Dunne, S.J., died only in 1998. Even the word "racism" did not appear in many dictionaries before the Second World War.


 * The 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race, followed in 1951 by the UNESCO Statement on the Nature of Race and Race Differences [need links]. Both statements asserted that biological differentiation of races is without foundation, and that race is a social myth rather than a biological phenomenon.
 * The 1963 United Nations General Assembly adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the 1965 adoption of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
 * The United States Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Oh drat. Forgot to sign. The above is all by me. NoahB 14:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good after my initial skimming, I'll try to give it a more indepth review in the near future. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Billiecorton (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Billie Corton I think anti-racism has a much longer history. You need to take in back at least to the anti-slavery movement in Europe and the US. Slavery was abolished in France in 1794 (then reinstated) and in England in 1833. A war was fought over it is the US in 1861.

"Understanding anti-racism requires understanding how racism became established in society. In Western Europe, racism became established as a means to oppose the spread of Islam, not only within Europe, but its potential spread to the newly discovered Americas."

There is no source for this, and it is very biased. It portrays European racism as something that only happened due to Islamic aggression, as if it never happened before contact with Muslims. This is patently untrue, racism has a longer history in Europe than that. It seeks to pass the blame on European racism from the Western Europeans to the spread of Islam.

racism and anti-racism
the term racism can mean completely different things in different contexts, and thus by extension anti-racism can mean completely different things in different contexts.

people who label themselves as anti-racists do not all stand for the same thing, by any standard.

Gringo300 02:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Through its blanket ascription of hate, supremacism etc to European host peoples throughout the West, anti-racism is itself highly racist, as well as deeply offensive. Its effect is to deny or disqualify the natural rights and interests of said Europeans, which rights include, for example, the provisions of the newly adopted UN Declarations of Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The claimed benefits of anti-racism do not obviously exceed the profound costs to Europeans of the loss of natural rights and interests.

John Standing 00.23, 15 November 2007

Excuse me, where do you get the idea that Western races have a 'natural right and interest' to exploit and enslave other races? (Billiecorton (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Billie corton 2013)

Let me understand one thing:
Is there no anti-racism outside socialism? At least this is the impression this article is giving to its readers…--177.32.129.218 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Billiecorton (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)BC]I think we need to go back to the anti-slavery movements for origins of modern anti-racism. (eg Josiah Wedgewood medallion 'Am Not I a man and a brother' 1787) Definitely - pre-socialist.

If race doesn't exist.
How can you be an "anti-racist"? 184.96.247.138 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because racism and racists do exist. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While Race is a socially constructed concept and therefore not technically "real", the impact of the concept of race in society (i.e. structural/institutional/interpersonal racism and race based prejudice) is very real. Even the concept of "whiteness" was invented not to long ago to judge who could and could not be considered "American". -Franz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franzyoseph31 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Scientific anti-racism
Added that a citation is needed to support the contention that a common European belief existed that Europeans were superior to black people, given that the common European would not read or write, would not travel beyond a few miles from his or her village in their lifetime and would never have seen a black person. Vanzil (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And why didn't you just read the source and fix it as I did? Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-racist just a codeword for anti-White?
Should we add a section in for this as anti-racist organisations do not seem to exist outside of White countries and only White people get accused of racism?--91.125.248.20 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Only White people get accused of racism?" Umm... no. 67.161.16.188 (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this article needs a major overhaul; looking over this talk page, I see that one was done a couple of years ago -- it needs another! -- so I'll stick to fixing up minor fixups. I'm adding some material to make the article sound less "jumpy" -- just jumping right into 1492 felt very abrupt -- attempting to apply the thoughts expressed on this talk page. I'm barely starting the needed overhaul -- but at least it'll be grammatical and readable now! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Look up racism in Tunisia, Racism in Arab world, Racism in India, racism in China, racism in Japan, racism in Ukraine, racism in Russia, racism in the Baltic states (white baltic people racist against white Russians), Racism in Finland, Racism in south africa, etc. etc. etc.

The problem here is your narrow focus on the western world, thousands of organizations fight racism in Japan, Burma, and all of the cases I mentioned, plus most of those countries involve non whites being racist against another group OR whites being racist to whites ie. Russians and Finnish or Polish and British (at least used to be a major anger at polish immigrants which sometimes became racist). Anti-Racist does not correlate to anti-white, Prove your claim and perhaps it can be added. However the fact that most white countries are topping the world in development and tolerance doesn't mean anti-racism is anti-white but rather that "WHITE" countries are more harder working at fighting racism than India which neglets social problems for economic focus, but NGOs are always there trying to stop it. If you are soap-boxing than well you have failed to prove your point, however if this was general ignorance I would suggest doing further research to see all such cases. However for separate reasons I would like to see article expanded on past Europe to include inter ethnic racism in Africa and racism in Asia. 70.69.172.92 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Race has been "disproven"?
There's no actual evidence in this article (nor any related articles) that race has actually been "disproven". 71.215.78.171 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"evidence ... that race has actually been disproven" The burden of evidence lies with the claim maker, otherwise I could say the earth had a second moon 500 years ago it dissapeared and ask you to find evidence that disproves it

Thousands of sources state Race as a socially constructed concept that may appear real to the commoner who sees visual color or tone differences in humans however it isn't. Even East Asian humans who often posses different facial structure are only adaptions, not actually a separate race of humans. There is only one human race so to say we have to disprove races exists begs the question what evidence is there that it does? Humans actually have not existed out of Africa long enough to have diverged enough to be separate evolutionary products, and the process of globalization means we have largely cancelled any chance of separate evolution as climate will no longer stay the same for thousands of generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.172.92 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Racism and ethnocentrism
Oxytocin promotes ethnocentrism. Doesn't this make the position of the anti-racists somewhat out-dated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.248.204 (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

racism in what is often called anti-racism
the idea of racism beeing something white people do to non-whites (whites=racist, non-whites=victims of racisms) is in of itself a racist statement - anybody can be racist agaist anybody else - it is not something one specific group of people does to anybody else

anti racism is too often used to sterotype all white people as racist and all non-white people as victims of racism

to be truely anti racist one should all kinds of racism/bigotry based of concepts of race - and not just one kind of racism/bigotry while ignoring (or somethimes even supporting) other acts of racism/bigotry/discrimination 12:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)12:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)12:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)12:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)78.42.255.27 (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anti-racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015095634/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/uk/politics/article2970781.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2970781.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Later Successes Edit
By naming this headline as "Later Successes," but then talking about the Ku Klux Klan and how it led to the Birth of A Nation seems to be very misleading as it sounds like the establishment of Jim Crow Laws is a "success." Also, glorifying the movie The Birth of a Nation (which depicts members of the Ku Klux Klan as heroes) seems to have the opposite effect on the purpose of writing about dismantling an oppressive system of racism. By deeming moments in United States history as "successes" which allowed the systemic oppression of people of color seems to derail the message of anti-racism and instead has a racist message. I also noticed that there are very little citations on this page and the most updated "success" is one that happens in 1911 which is more than 100 years ago. I think it might be beneficial to talk about these systems of oppression that have occurred in the past and show how it has affeced life in the United States for marginalized groups. Then you could open a new section that talks about the ways that anti-racism takes action against these effects and oppressive behaviors in the United States or even all around the world. JennnC (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC) JennnC

Accusation of bias
This entry dances around the fact that "anti-racism" is founded on the belief that one's "race" is immaterial as far as the society or "culture" is concerned. So "racism" creates artificial barriers to the unity of all in whichever enlightened society you choose to pick. This seems patently false. Like most entries on race and ethnicity in wikipedia, this one lacks balance and promotes the term it attempts to describe. Promotion is fine but it should be clearly stated.

The notion that there are no material differences among groups lies at the heart of this "movement". It is classically religious.--129.119.68.34


 * So if there ARE "material differences" that would justify racism?? Not necessarily. Paradoxically, many anti-racists have not held this view at all - but have seen the white race as (at least a little) "superior" to others. They have none the less felt that even "inferior" human beings are "equal" in their entitlement to justice. (Being "equal before the law" for instance). You don't have to have the idea that every individual - and every group of individuals - have precisely parrallel abilities and faults to hold the idea that they should all be treated the same regardless.


 * Wikipedia is strongly left-wing. Get over it.--193.166.89.77(Mar 2005)


 * It doesn't have to be. If an article seems biased, make the changes.  Funnyhat 23:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea that plain justice and simple common sense need to be labelled "left wing" in order to attack them is very revealing. This isn't a simple "left-right" issue, nor one that one should necessarily be "even-handed" about (do you really want to give equal time to the KKK??). Many highly conservative people (God bless 'em) are decidedly non-racist, if not exactly anti-racist.


 * Funny, how academic ventures such as this are often often accused of a 'leftist' bias. One would almost suspect progressive ideals and the intellectual go hand in hand. Imagine that. Alexis 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Justice" is not a word that exists in a vacuum. All language is mediated by historical context. The notion of non-Christian, UN-declaration-style, positivistic justice would have been considered left-wing or at least Whiggish during Europe's period of Enlightenment. 216.180.73.48 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do want to give equal time to the KKK. If I go to this site to learn about racism and anti-racism I want to be able to research everything. Not just the subjects that aren't uncomfortableto our American past and present. If you want this resource to be credible it needs to inform about the entire subject and not just what we are comfortable with. Isn't that why this article is being accused of bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.88.7.2 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if you happen to agree with opinions expressed in an article, it still falls under NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soap box, it is a collection of information. Even if every single rational human being on the planet happened to agree that race is unimportant and society should be colorblind, it would still not justify putting such views into an encyclopedia as fact. 67.183.153.20 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make any edits you see fit in order to improve articles and reduce bias.--Nectarflowed 23:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-racist movements
I'd like to see some content here about the violent nature of several anti-racist organizations - attacking ('peaceful')neo-nazi rallies etc.

Yes, and all those nasty anti-racists who have 'liberated' peaceful nazi encampments such as Auschwitz.

The Soviets liberated Auschwitz......They weren't exactly 'anti-racist.' Certainly Stalinist ideology did not have a progressive libertarian-leftist character. 216.180.73.48 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

How come anti-racists?
How come "anti-racists" have no problem categorizing people into these so-called "obsolete unscientific socially constructed races" when the topic is hate crime laws or affirmative action? 76.120.17.197 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hate crimes and discrimination are based on those obsolete unscientific socially-constructed concepts of race; thus, remedies to such behavior must take those concepts into account. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Orangemike regardless of whether race has any objective or biological grounding, using its categories proliferates its existence in social reality.216.180.73.48 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 216.180.73.48 People as a whole aren't going to stop using race to categorize or discriminate others. It has been a figment of social reality for more than two hundred years. Since it is unreasonable to assume that people as a whole are suddenly going to become "colourblind" remedies to such behavior must take those concepts into account.

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach
I removed this rather extraordinary claim which is not supported by the references used. To the contrary at least one describes the intense racism of his theories in detail: he considered non-white races 'degenerate' and in need of help of the superior white race to improve, and while he may have considered himself a benevolent helper to those races rather than an oppressor, that's still a fundamentally racist perspective. There may be a few authors trying to rehabilitate him by claiming that he's misunderstood due to poor translations, but not nearly enough to justify uncritical inclusion of such a broad claim that he 'is considered one of the founders of scientific anti-racism.' Vary &#124; (Talk) 05:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Image
Beginning a section so Special:Contribs/172.58.30.212 can explain their concerns with File:Crowd at Demonstration.jpg. I have replaced the image, at least for now, though I would prefer it to be a less US-centric image. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @GorillaWarfare for opening this page. I think it should be less US-centric as well because I view the English as the mainly the English world's but because of the language's prevalence also somewhat international. This is why having a photo that specifies racism as being a problem in any specific nationality is going to be an issue. The photo (Israeli Crowd photo) was first removed and kept getting put back up. It was demeaning to Israel and attempted to create an association of racism between that and Jews. The validity of this can be seen by looking at the anti-zionist rhetoric liberal circles that has been crossing the line into anti-semitism. This can be gleaned by reviewing the editing histories of SOME - NOT ALL - of the editors that put the photo back up and gave a nonchalant response to a very well described reason to the photo being removed. The eagerness that "this need be the photo of representation for anti-racism" otherwise needs some true true true explanation - I can always pull quotes from Court files showing a higher prevalence of racial issues embedded in (not just a system) CULTURE ITSELF from other nations. I'm not here to disparage though. This is why it made sense to have the photo of the two hands shaking. Because it was both universal and symbolic. I actually thought about a George Floyd photo but then realized that might be disproportionately singling the United States out for an issue that is really everywhere. If the anti-racism page on English Wikipedia is supposed to be from a specific "regional perspective", then it would make sense to have the George Floyd photo but I'd prefer an symbollically universal picture or no picture at all. This (a regional perspective) is what was done on the French Wikipedia site. Even still, the French site editors chose to use the neutral image. I would like to note that the neutral image was placed their after the "Israeli Crowd Photo" was removed and then the French site was locked.

As far as the photo goes, the word in Hebrew on the sign is either "The Democrat" or "Democracy". There really is no way to tell that these people standing there are involved with anything that has to do with race. Further, the description looks odd somewhat from an Israeli perspective and I question the origin of the poster. Especially given that Orrling was banned for trolling. The description of the image on Wikimedia Commons states "white and black people". The lighter skinned people in the picture are likely Sephardic, Druze, or Arab - two groups of which I have heard countless times in Western public discourse describe themselves as "persons of color". So this isn't really an Israeli version of the type of "George Floyd" protests - or at least it doesn't portray that very well if it does in fact have anything to do with racism.

I prefer the Two Hands Shaking but will wait to see what others think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.24.201 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate this detailed explanation. I'm personally sufficiently convinced that we shouldn't use the image, mostly for the antisemitism concerns you mentioned but also because it isn't eminently obvious from the image that there is even an antiracism protest happening at all (given the translation of the sign, which I thank you for).
 * That said, I would prefer the image be something a little more informative than the two hands shaking image you've proposed. In my opinion that's not a whole lot more informative than basic clip-art, and would rather show a real-world antiracism protest or something otherwise illustrative in that way. If there is a photo of a non-US (and preferably non-UK, since those are the two vastly overrepresented countries on enwiki) antiracism protest we could use that would be my preference. My criteria when I was browsing through commons:Category:Demonstrations and protests against racism was 1) a photo that was unquestionably an anti-racism protest (preferably determinable from the photo itself and not requiring a look at the caption), and 2) not a photo showing protesters who are primarily the same race (I'd really rather not show a photo of all white people as the lead image for the anti-racism article). I also was trying to prefer images that were fairly recent rather than historical (to avoid perpetuating the belief that racism is a thing of the past) as well as images showing protests of very specific groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and various fascist groups (to avoid perpetuating the belief that antiracism is only opposition towards hood-wearing members of the KKK and their ilk), as well as photos from demonstrations outside of the US and UK, though that last point I wasn't able to fulfill. I'll try to take a more in-depth browse through the category and related categories this evening when I'm not at work, but would invite others to suggest images they think might be suitable also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I found these two images but they are on Unsplash so the license is no good. A photo such as these might work well because it makes the statement that one must be proactive against racism, which is a tenant of the movement/theory/concept.

https://unsplash.com/photos/8fjJqGuep2Y

https://unsplash.com/photos/9SpUDixw1MM

BeyondTheGreenLine (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

First time I've done this so bear with me! I'm just wanting to balance Wiki's entry on Anti-racism.
request edit

In order to create a balance of perspectives regarding Anti-racism, I'd like to see a Criticism section, the kind that appears in the context of other topics in Wikipedia. In it, I would invite the inclusion of the ideas explored in articles such as these: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1495340?seq=1 https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2020/07/04/Ben-Shapiro-anti-racism-problem-woke-crusade/stories/202007040004 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/why-third-wave-anti-racism-dead-end/578764/ https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/meta-arguments-about-anti-racism/615424/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-redefine-racism https://quillette.com/2017/12/05/racism-disguised-anti-racism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQuietCanadian (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I've removed the request edit template you used, as it doesn't appear that you have a COI with the topic of "anti-racism". Also, per your request to have a "criticism" topic, please note that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy doesn't mean that articles should have both sides of an "argument" to be balanced - but make sure that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources - see WP:DUE for more. Therefore, opinion pieces on their own are unlikely to give enough "weight" to allow a "criticism" section to be written. You have cited a journal article - which is a lot better in terms of being a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes - and if more of similar sources can be found, following a discussion with other editors, there may be enough to add some of this to the article. But gaining consensus with other editors is important before any such section is added.  Seagull123  Φ  16:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm having a little difficulty understanding how to respond to Seagull's kind comments in the right place.
 * I think the one point I'd like to make is that I don't see that this Anti-racism content IS neutral. I see it as uncritical, failing to see anything but positive in the current form of anti-racism.
 * One of your staff members had suggested I included 'request edit' so it might increase my chances of your team seeing my concerns.
 * I would hope that my concerns are of sufficient interest for someone to improve this article to reflect the broader picture. Anti-racism isn't without its problematic side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQuietCanadian (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Seagull, I do see what you mean about adding a Criticism section as not being a solution
 * I think that the article itself needs better balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQuietCanadian (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A few notes:
 * You don't need to create a new section here each time you wish to reply, you can just edit the previous section to add your comment to the bottom, and you can sign by adding ~ at the end. This will help others understand who has left which comment.
 * You also don't need to use the template each time you reply. People who are actively involved in conversations usually add pages to their watchlists, and so will see your reply. You can also ping users you are replying to directly, as I have done above, by using the template  (for example, if you reply to me, you can begin your comment with  and it will notify me). The "request edit" templates are really only for when you have a change that is ready for implementation, which you can't implement yourself (usually because of page protection). If you simply want to begin an open-ended discussion about concerns with an article, you should not use the template.
 * You referred to "staff members". Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, and while the Wikimedia Foundation has staff who do things like develop the software that Wikipedia is built on, or handle fundraising campaigns, they do not pay staff to write articles. Wikipedia is entirely written by volunteers like you and I.
 * Now that those housekeeping notes are out of the way, on to your actual concerns. It is not clear exactly what you are suggesting out to be introduced into this page -- you have linked a number of sources, but you haven't actually specified which content from those sources you think ought to be added. I would recommend writing out the specific wording you would suggest be added to this article, and then other editors will have something more tangible to discuss. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hope this is the way to do it. Thank you for taking the time to help me, GorillaWarfare. When I can, and if I can, I will try and cobble something together. Part of me thinks, well, if you guys are cool with the contents of this article now, then maybe I'm tilting at windmills. English is not my first language, so my attempts may be substandard in any event. Well, I will mull this over. In the meantime, if anyone with the same view -- who is more familiar with writing additions and better at it -- wants to take over, that would be welcome news. Maybe reading some of those links will light a fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQuietCanadian (talk • contribs) 01:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This article needs a lot of work, in my opinion–there's a tag already identifying that it needs more citations, and it's a very short article for such a complex topic. I don't think anyone is of the view that this is a complete article (WP:NOTFINISHED). But please understand that by dropping seven links on the page with a fairly vague directive ("I would invite the inclusion of the ideas explored in articles such as these"), you are asking the volunteers you've summoned to this page with the tag (who likely have never worked on this page before, and who may not have more than a passing familiarity with the topic) to do an enormous amount of research and writing for you. There is an idea on Wikipedia that we often refer to as WP:SOFIXIT: the best course of action when you see something wrong on Wikipedia is to fix it yourself, or at least propose a specific change you would like to see. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi I appreciate your desire to help improve Wikipedia, and if you need some help getting around Wikipedia, have a look at the welcome message I left on your user talk page. To address your concerns, you may be interested in putting together a paragraph or two of text you think could be added to the article in your user sandbox (read this page for more on how to edit a sandbox), and then link to it here so other editors can see what you think could be added. As said above, this article isn't finished, and so you don't have to rush to do any of this (see There is no deadline for more). You may want to read Criticism for more options on how to present "criticism" of something within an article.  Seagull123  Φ  18:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't think I would have had to say this...
But no, "argued against" is not an acceptable replacement for "refuted" when discussing a scientist who documented the fact that there is no difference in brain size between human racial groups. So I have reverted that edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Except some studies have found otherwise. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960200137X. Edit5001 (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Except the study and author of the study you're citing is Rushton "Rushton's work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research,[1] with many alleging that it was conducted under a racist agenda.[2] From 2002 until his death, he served as the head of the Pioneer Fund, an organization founded in 1937 to promote Eugenics, which worked actively with the Nazi party to promote theories of racial superiority and inferiority, and has been described as racist and white supremacist and designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[3][4][5] Rushton was a Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association[6] and a onetime Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.[7] : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desibanter (talk • contribs) 04:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Except the study and author of the study you're citing is Rushton "Rushton's work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research,[1] with many alleging that it was conducted under a racist agenda.[2] From 2002 until his death, he served as the head of the Pioneer Fund, an organization founded in 1937 to promote Eugenics, which worked actively with the Nazi party to promote theories of racial superiority and inferiority, and has been described as racist and white supremacist and designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[3][4][5] Rushton was a Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association[6] and a onetime Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.[7] : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desibanter (talk • contribs) 04:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Anti-racist education
Hi I just stumbled upon the article mentionned earlier and I came here to see if there was anything on anti-racist education. I am not familiar with the subject that's why I won't edit it outright but maybe a section on the educational part of it could be a good addition to this article. It would obviously require a small litterature review to see what has been done academically on the subject to form a WP:NPOV paragraph about it. And also look into education theory pages on WP for cross-links. What do you guys think? Feynstein (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This article should be called Antiracism and introduce this important topic
This article should be named "Antiracism" and should include antiracist ideas from the book that defined it: "How To Be An Antiracist" by Ibram X. Kendi (https://www.ibramxkendi.com/how-to-be-an-antiracist-1), as well as many of the sources mentioned therein, or all over the internet, the news, books, etc.

If you are offended by the idea of Antiracism, then you should know some things:


 * 1) There is no biological basis for race, it was invented
 * 2) Being "not racist" is meaningless and not actionable
 * 3) Antiracism applies to actions and policies, not people
 * 4) Antiracist actions work against racist policies

I've gathered some material for you here: https://github.com/siznax/blacklivesmatter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siznax2 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the ignorant claims about race here, please see the American Anthropological Association's 1998 Statement on Race: https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583 (made before Wikipedia even existed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siznax2 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Very interesting, thanks. For anyone who is watching this page in June 2020 - any objections to my removing the tags complaining of bias and a non-global view? I will need to look more closely to think about the bias questions, but the references seem fairly global! The above is all rather interesting. Whether or not the hyphen should be there is unclear. Going to check some related pages and see how it's handled. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * why is it relevant whether there is a biological basis for race if there is a mainstream exigency to be anti-racist at present? Social phenomena and reductive biology are two different worlds.216.180.73.48 (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Along related lines, an article entitled "Anti-racism" (or "Antiracism") should address the expression as advocates such as Kendi intend it. Historical overview of the period prior to the publication of work on "anti-racism" should be limited to instances of the principles or actions that these advocates cite. I came to this article to understand what the term means now, not to see a history of opposition to racist ideologies and policies by people who had never heard of the term.

Those who countered racism in their day did not necessarily embody the practice of "anti-racism" as it has been presented in our day, nor would they necessarily have espoused the whole package had it been presented to them in a form suitable to their context. So it is not fair, to either those who went before nor to those who fight now, to combine and therefore confuse the two. The material about the history of opposition to racism belongs in an article with a more informative and less specific name. (Arguably, there should be a cross-reference there to this article.) Meanwhile, an article on "Anti-racism" (or "Antiracism") should treat such "things" as the earlier poster presents in the context of the present-day movement inspired by / perspective presented in the writings cited at the end of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.78.193.122 (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with this sentiment. As Anti-Racism is a term that has historically meant being opposed to racism, it would be confusing for most people. Just because Kendi has created an ideology named 'Antiracism' does not mean that the past centuries of thought that don't align specifically with Keni's policies should be discarded. I believe a solution would be to either create a new article titled Antiracism (ideology) in which the works of Kendi, DeAngelo and other such Antiracists are featured and described, or place a new section in the current article for the modern invention of 'Antiracism'. 2001:16B8:2C45:A500:816D:AAFF:FA36:7A48 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for New Section
Hello, this is my first time doing this, but I am very annoyed at the new confusion between the terms Anti-Racism and Antiracism. I feel as if this article is lacking information on the new political ideology of 'Antiracism', created by Ibrahm X. Kendi in his book "How to Be an Antiracist". The ideology for those unaware of this new cultural phenomenon is based on Critical Theory and aims to end the oppression of People of Color by actively discriminating against non-POCs: Affirmative Action is an Antiracist policy, as it aims to create an equitable amount of POCs to Non-POCs by accepting lower scoring students based on the race they identify as. Kendi has famously stated, "The only remedy for racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination.

Whether or not one agrees with the goal of this ideology is irrelevant to the fact that those who would like to learn about this ideology have nowhere on Wikipedia to read about it. I came to this article to see specifically about this ideology, though I was disappointed to find this article lacking in the information I was searching for. Thank you for your consideration. 2001:16B8:2C45:A500:816D:AAFF:FA36:7A48 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section
The deletion of the entire small section on critics of anti-racism because the censoring agent, GorillaWarfare, deemed it “overly long” is extremely problematic, especially as in doing so the white editor erased the viewpoint of John McWhorter, an African-American professor of Linguistics at Columbia University. One of the points McWhorter makes in his essay is that advocates of “third wave” antiracism have taken an approach to the challenge of racism that shares many similarities with particularly zealous forms of religion, which deem any opinion that challenges orthodox views to be “bad” and “dangerous,” and must therefore be silenced. I would urge its restoration immediately. McWhorter cannot be dismissed as a racist. He is simply offering a critique of the recent direction third wave antiracism is going, suggesting it is a dead-end. It is an important and sophisticated critique, and it is extremely troubling that a white editor has deemed it to be either too dangerous or not-legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.71.148 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my full summary was: "a criticism section seems reasonable, but far overlong quotes, wikivoice statements about "unfalsifiable nature of contemporary anti-racism", and questionably reliable sources like New Discourses is not the way to go about it". The concern I was expressing with my "overlong" comment was not that the section is overlong (it was not), but that it was almost entirely made up of quotes (see WP:QUOTEFARM). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This entire article is white supremacy.
Having read this entire article, it is itself racist and white supremacist.

This article is solely based on white nations and white people/ black people in white nations.

Once again, it's white people saying it's all about us.

Firstly, we know white minorities who are attacked and killed all over the world for being white, but nobody wants to discuss white victims, or how to stop the east/ south from being racist against white people.

Let's talk about ethnic of ethnic.

Asia today, black slaves are still owned within Arabian states, in China, reports have come through of Asians attacking black people and Muslims also.

Every nation that has a majority of one race has a racist behaviours towards/ against minorities.

To be anti-racist, you need to stop refreshing everything that goes on in white nations and include, not exclude nations of colour. 151.229.240.40 (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)DD
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Please feel free to suggest or make edits based on reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Should a link to Wikipedia's Reverse Racism article be added for context?
Due to the nearly identical linguistic structure and denotation in the meaning of the terminology, it seems relevant to understand the topic of the article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racism

E.g. Anti-racism or Reverse Racism, refers to a philosophy that adherents describe as a form of action against racial hatred, bias, systemic racism, and the oppression of specific groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:201:500:68B5:B294:D24B:5ED2 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are suggesting that anti-racism and reverse racism are roughly synonymous, or that the articles are very similar, but neither is the case. The lead for reverse racism currently begins:
 * If you have any reliable sources that use the two terms contiguously perhaps they could be incorporated, but I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting be changed at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "identical linguistic structure and denotation", is what makes them roughly synonymous.
 * That's a ridiculous request. The use of the prefix "anti-" and "reverse ..." (as a prefix) are used almost mutually exclusively in discussions of the same topics as a matter of established terminology, but changes in terminology are not explicitly described contiguously in a single source in such a manner. This is a shift in the terminology that's implicit, as it relates to the use of the prefix "anti-" in the naming convention
 * The source of the lead for Anti-racism would be appropriate as a source relating the two, since that source doesn't explicitly define the term "anti-racism", and this page interprets the source to mean
 * By definition of "anti-" (prefix) a valid interpretation of the definition would be an opposite of what's interpreted from the article
 * By definition of "anti-" (prefix) a valid interpretation of the definition would be an opposite of what's interpreted from the article
 * By definition of "anti-" (prefix) a valid interpretation of the definition would be an opposite of what's interpreted from the article


 * With the opposite of numerous assertions in the article such as
 * having the an valid opposite interpretation of
 * In a society that privileges disadvantages white people and whiteness
 * that would fit the description provided in the lead of reverse racism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:201:500:24E4:A1AB:A14B:396 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * that would fit the description provided in the lead of reverse racism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:201:500:24E4:A1AB:A14B:396 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We do not use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Please see WP:RS for what would be required to make such a change. It would also be useful if you would use the WP:EDITXY format to clarify what change you're requesting, because it's still not entirely clear to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The references being


 * Change to  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:201:500:24e4:a1ab:a14b:396 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is very helpful. However, without reliable sources that specifically support that the two terms are synonymous or otherwise interchangeable, that change will not be made. Frankly, even if you managed to find some, I think you'd have a hard time getting consensus to include it in the lead like that, as there are plenty of sources that describe the concept of "reverse racism" as a specific backlash to antiracism (for example), not to mention basically the entirety of the sourcing on both terms supporting that they are quite distinct ideas. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How could reverse racism be "specific backlash to antiracism", when the primary reverse racism sources predate the primary antiracism source? Do have a source claiming it be such?
 * (reverse racism)
 * (antiracism)
 * (antiracism)
 * (antiracism)
 * (antiracism)


 * The concept of anti-racism on this page appears to be an interpretation of the primary source provided, as it's not explicitly defined in the article. Which is why I'm suggesting that you link reverse racism, as it appears to be an valid interpretation of the description provided in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:201:500:24E4:A1AB:A14B:396 (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read the linked source. The concept of anti-racism on this page is a summary of the available reliable sources, as all Wikipedia articles are; that is precisely why in order to add a new definition we need a reliable source that specifically states what you think ought to be added (rather than that you have interpreted to support it). Please review WP:OR and come back with reliable sources that specifically describe the two terms as synonymous or interchangeable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Then please review WP:NPOV as this is not a neural summary of the available reliable sources. The addition of linking reverse racism would be to be a neutralize of this interpretation, not in itself claiming a comparison to exist.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:201:500:24E4:A1AB:A14B:396 (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to begin a discussion at WP:NPOVN if you think I am wrong here, but I have already explained to you what is needed. Please also remember to sign your posts by typing ~ at the end of the comment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this needs to be escalated to WP:NPOVN, as the source doesn't provide a specific description of antiracism beyond "Being antiracist is fighting against racism." Which fits the description provided in the sources for reverse racism, being "...expressions of hostility, prejudice, discrimination, or even indifference to whites by ethnic minoirities, have been interpreted by some as reverse racism." As reverse racism is itself a biased interpretation of the actions that fit what's described as "antiracism" in the leading source for this article. As such, it also follows that the reverse racism article should reference back to this article as to provide a net neutral understanding of the underlying actions being described as either "antiracist" or "reverse racist"
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:201:500:24e4:a1ab:a14b:396 (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

As I stated at, I'm not seeing any similarity between the two. Nowhere does the article say antiracism is equivalent to hostility, prejudice, discrimination, [or] indifference to whites. The proposed net neutral understanding of the underlying actions is simply a false balance. The fact that opponents of antiracist programs describe them as "reverse racism" doesn't mean we call them that in Wikipedia's voice. There has been no shift in the terminology, because "reverse racism" is a term used almost exclusively by the political right wing. Lacking a reliable source explicitly making the comparison, such a link would constitute original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe an analogy would be helpful here for why reliable sources are needed, and interpretations of the definitions of each term are not sufficient. If we had a Wikipedia article titled "Dog", that stated that "Dogs are mammals with four legs and a tail", we could not add "Dogs, or cats, are mammals with four legs and a tail". We would need reliable sources to show that the terms are synonymous or interchangeable, or else we risk misleading our readers into believing that two very distinct ideas are one and the same. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti-racism or antiracism? Anti-racist or antiracist?
Whether these terms are hyphenated or not is a matter of stylistic choice, perhaps, but the article should be consistent. I think these words are better rendered without a hyphen for a couple of reasons. First, Kendi doesn't use a hyphen and he's the most prominent proponent of antiracism. Second, antiracism is a thing of its own, not simply opposition to racism. To my eyes, the hyphen suggests otherwise. But that's pretty subtle and subjective, I know. In any event, let's make a choice one way or the other and then make the article consistent, which it currently is not.

D.Holt (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?
This article is relatively politically controversial and seems to get a good deal of vandalism (at least a lot more than minecraft), what do you think about semi-protecting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googleguy007 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs a whole new section called contemporary or something
The meaning of this has shifted enough I would argue it's missing a whole section or at least subsection under history. Here are some good links: https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/being-antiracist https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21278245/antiracist-racism-race-books-resources-antiracism don't like Kendi but he is THE guy for this https://www.ibramxkendi.com/how-to-be-an-antiracist  If I attempt to write one will it be speedily reverted? The below part about McWhorter could be good but it would need to be included with all the above positive stuff about anti-racism for context. Timan123 (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is rather rambling. It tracks historical incidents of racism and then leaps to the idea of anti-racism. Academically this is totally incorrect. Antiracism comes with a lot of assumptions that can only be meet in a critical race theory context. This article is misinformed and istorically inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3021:3308:2F00:1D0C:5EE2:F54F:2BF2 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)