Talk:Racism/Archive 1

Archive 1 | Archive &rarr;

Racism really sucks

Are we talking about solely in the United States here??? I think not. In countries such as Australia, there are very different forms of racism, and often it does not include African-Americans. In fact, there are not many African Americans in Australia. So think in terms of the world. An encyclopedia is for knowledge of the entire world, not just the U.S.

I find the implied suggestion that anti-semitism is the most significant form of racism quite insulting. The US anti-African or dark skinned racism is much more significant, not only being the source of its early southern wealth, but its current policies which sees 30% of the Afro-American population subjected to its criminal system and countries like West Papua under long term invasion and torture because the US considers those people expendiable for its access to their minerals and oil. I'm sure there will be plenty for a Talk page here :) I for one don't like at all the first sentence, which implies that merely finding the races to be different is in some way racism. Poppycock; finding one race inherently superior to another may be racism, as would supporting differential treatment under law, but finding them merely different is simple observation. --LDC I see what you mean. I would argue that racism isn't just about finding one's own race superior or inferior, it is also about exaggerating the differences and the importance placed on the differences while ignoring the similarities. People of different ethnicities have many more things in common than things that set them apart. Not noticing that is the basis for racism. Maybe we really need two definitions, one broad and one narrow, just like on gay there's one inclusive and one exclusive. For now I've changed inherently to essentially because it better reflects what I was trying to say. --Mjausson

Finding one race superior to the other is racism. The problem with the word 'different' is that it is sometimes used by people who are reluctant to state their opinion on something. BTW: I am not an expert on this but supposedly the genetic differences between people are so minute that they can't even be described as races. WojPob

Well they can, and are, but not scientifically: I, as a french-choctaw-cherokee-dutch-irish-englishman, am considered "white," though I'm much darker than most asians, who are asian by virtue of where they live, and Tiger Woods is considered "black" by virtue of his African ancestors, rather than "white" by virtue of the European ones, or "Asian" by virtue of those. Meanwhile some natives of Latin-American countries consider themselves "Latin" but are told upon arriving in the United States that they are "black." And if you sail along the coast of Africa noting the people, there will come a time when you could not tell if a person were "black" or not. The notion of race is clearly a mess. If you wanted to be scientific about it, you might classify race by the presence or lack of epicanthic folds, or by blood type, or eyecolor, etc. --KQ

The following would not pass muster according to neutral point of view:


 * While there are differences between populations of different ethnicity that cannot adequately be explained by socio-economic factors (e.g. varying propensity for diseases such as diabetes, alcoholism and sickle-cell anemia), there is no scientific evidence that supports letting the minute genetic differences between people of various races affect public policy or the way individuals lead their lives.


 * Racist beliefs can be and in varying portions are held by all people of all ethnic groups, throughout the world, but their impact is naturally stronger in people who belong to over-privileged ethnic groups as they are likely to wield more power over others.

I think these claims need to be explained much more carefully and at greater length. --LMS

The second sentence of the first paragraph says: "Sometimes the notion of racism is treated as implying that individuals and society should enforce those differences." I have no idea what that means. --KQ

You know, KQ, I don't quite either... --LMS

I altered this a bit. Emended comments were not necessarily wrong, but they were a little confusing the way they were worded. -TS

"...and that racial differences result in an inherent superiority of people of a particular race. This belief is generally not supported by scientific research." I don't know if we want to go there, as to the latter comment. What does it mean to say that this belief is not supported by scientific research? What does scientific research have to do with anything, here? That might be clear to you, but it's not clear to me. To say that scientific research might or might not support racism is to suppose that racism is a falsifiable view in the first place. Racism is often regarded as simply an attitude, and attitudes are not the sorts of things that can be supported or disproved by scientific research. When The Bell Curve treated claims that are thought by some to embody racist beliefs, it raised an uproar, and some believe that the book's methodology was flawed, while others believe the points raised in the book could not get a fair hearing on account of the extreme anti-racist sentiment (not that that's a bad thing, of course!) in the United States. Saying simply that the belief is "generally not supported by scientific research" woefully underrepresents the situation and is just not clear. I think this sophomoric remark should either be expanded, with accurate reportage on the competing views about The Bell Curve and other aspects of the situation, or else simply removed. So I'm going to remove it until it is expanded. I'm not the one to expand it, though. --LMS

Deleted:
 * The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines (article 1) racism as:
 * the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin

This might be useful information in an article about racism or about racial discrimination, in a section about international responses; but as a definition of racial discrimination, it's not very good. It's way too broad as a definition, which means that all kinds of things are said to count as racial discrimination, according to this definition, when no reasonable person would say that they are racial discrimination. Please see fallacies of definition.

Also, please don't confuse racism with racial discrimination. They go hand-in-hand, but they aren't the same. I can be a racist without discriminating, and I can discriminate without being a racist. --LMS --- I disagree... racism can be on grounds other than purely race... take anti-Semitism for instance... it is questionable for instance whether Jews constitute a separate race -- I certaintly wouldn't count them as one... and yet anti-Semitism is a form of racism irregardless? Why? Because they are an ethnic group, and racism is hatred of an ethnic group, not just a group defined on grounds of race or colour.

And furthermore, if hatred of an ethnic group isn't racism, what then is hatred of an ethnic group? Ethnicism? -- Simon J Kissane

Much of section headed "Research on Intelligence and Race" might profit from being moved to The Bell Curve, eh? Ed Poor - This
 * Racism is the political or ideological application of the concept of race, especially in terms of racial superiority.

was a very poor definition of racism. There are many racists out there who are racist out of pure blind hate that, as far as they're concerned anyway, has absolutely nothing to do with politics per se or ideology per se, and everything to do with xenophobia and plain old stupidity. Moreover, as a definition, it would include stuff that isn't racism: suppose I were to write an article and say, "White people, as a voting block, have a superior amount of political power in most English-speaking countries." This would be the political application of the concept of race in terms of "racial superiority," I suppose; but the remark wouldn't make me a racist. The old definition was better. --LMS


 * I would read your hypothetical article quote to say that a particular race is "politically" superior, rather than racially superior. Far from being a racist comment, this sentence could be taken by some as evidence of racism.  I understand your point about the earlier definition.  My point is that a good definition will comprise two things: a personal opinion that one race is better than another, and a social arrangement where one race is better off than, or has power over, another.  I tried to communicate this in a recent revision but perhaps someone else can do a better job than I. -- SR

I don't understand how you can be racist out of hate--you can hate someone out of racism, but hate doesn't make you racist.

Looking for the core concept of racism:
 * If you notice that someone looks different than you, is that racism?
 * If you fear/hate someone because that person looks different than you, is that racism?
 * If you classify humanity into classes based on culture and skin color, is that racism?
 * If you develop social policies based on your classifications, is that racism?

I guess a better definition might be simply


 * Racism is the application of the concept of race, especially in terms of racial superiority.

but I feel that gives short shrift to the "ism". My understanding is that "-ism" refers specifically to ideologies.

Ideologies subconsciously applied are still ideologies, I believe. --TheCunctator


 * do you not find the distinction between structural racism and personal racism useful concerning your point? Perhaps you would want to distinguish between "racism" (an ideology that may correspond to insitutionalized social practices i.e. structure) and a "racist" who may advocate racism or who may simply hate people of another race?


 * In general, I too understand "isms" to refer to ideologies. But as a rule I try to figure out what words mean by looking at how people use them.  People use the word "racist" and "racism" in many ways (some of which are homologous to other "isms" in that they are ideological, but other uses which are ideosyncratic -- but I want to understand those uses of the word, and not reject them because they are ideosyncratic with the other ways people use "isms") -- SR

Hmm. I guess my thinking is motivated by the conceptualization that there is a central meaning for a given term, though everyone may not use the term as such or entirely agree with/understand the central meaning. An example would be quantum leap. I would expect Wikipedia (or any reasonable reference) to say that a "quantum leap" is a particular thing, regarding electrons in atomic shells. Later in the entry it would mention that the term is used popularly to refer to a disruptive and perhaps large change, even though quantum leaps are very small; the popular use is to a large degree a misinterpretation of the concept, which isn't surprising, because quantum physics is weird and incomprehensible.

By analogy, I would expect Wikipedia to say that "racism" is "the political or ideological application of the concept of race, especially in terms of racial superiority" or something very similar, and then later go into how the term is used, and how the term "racist" is used; i.e. be as specific and restrictive as possible in the starting definition.

I guess my point is that I took try to understand what words mean by looking at how people use them, but it's also important to take into consideration which people are using it, and the historical usage of the term. The race entry seems to do a reasonable job of that, though there's plenty more needed.

I think you and I are basically on the same page here; my concern is more with writing "This term is controversial" or "People disagree on the exact use of this word" or "In a general sense, the term means this", etc., since that information is not specific to the term and belongs in a general discussion of semantics, society, and language.

It seems to make more sense to assert clear definitions for terms, then elucidate the context, than to be wishy-washy. If you're concise and specific, even if you're wrong, it's easier for people to understand, and thus edit, what you wrote.

--TheCunctator


 * I agree with you compleely when you write,
 * my point is that I took try to understand what words mean by looking at how people use them, but it's also important to take into consideration which people are using it, and the historical usage of the term. The race entry seems to do a reasonable job of that, though there's plenty more needed.
 * A good article will specify different definitions and elaborate on the differences between people who use them/contexts in which they are used. We may disagree over how best to introduce an article.  Given the point of yours I quoted and agree with, I am simply opposed to starting with one specific definition as if this were what the word "really" means.  I see two alternatives.  One is taken by most dictionaries, viz. ranking the definitions in order of popularity.  I have no way of knowing how to rank different definitions of race; I suppose we could pick one dictionary and trust it.  But I prefer a second alternative, to try to characterize a more abstract point that most (if not all) the different definitions have in common -- thus, "in general..."  Well, this is my reasoning for my own preference, anyway, SR

I basically agree, except that I think "in general" is unnecessary. I too try to synthesize a common definition from various sources, including dictionaries, and from the futher text in the article. --TheCunctator

TheCunctator, I am not trying to vandalize your work, I am trying to figure out a better opening. Just in case, here is what you just put:
 * Racism is the application of the concept of race, usually as prejudice or discrimination based on beliefs of racial superiority.


 * The word racism is used to identify and explain violence or inequalities between different individuals or groups already identified as belonging to different races.

I have to say, your replacement, which isn't a definition but a usage note, is not very good. A big problem is the passive voice. I think I get what you're trying to talk about: what contexts "racism" arises. And there's "racial violence" and "racial inequalities". But e.g., "racial profiling" is neither violence nor inequality.

Let's go to the dictionaries (tiny bit of paraphrasing to make Wikipedific):

Racism is the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races, or discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

Racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others, or discrimination or prejudice based on race.

As you can see, my definition is a pretty effective paraphrase of the second definition, which I believe is a) more general and b) more accurate, because the root of racism is not prejudice, but the belief in racial differences, which usually leads to prejudice. E.g. racism includes lynching, Jim Crow laws, and the 19th-century scientific theories of race which studied skulls and the such. --TheCunctator

This seems mildly ludicrous:
 * Racism is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.

Putting aside its awkward construction, the sentence seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Should we begin any article about a contentious subject with that sentence?


 * Abortion is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.


 * War is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.


 * Love is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.


 * Truth is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.

I don't think so. --TheCunctator

I do think so. Not necessarily that sentence, but one that explicitly acknowledge the extremely important semantic fact that these important words have multiple meanings. That is particularly important in a resource that is supposed to be neutral. --LMS

The sentence itself isn't very helpful. Most, if not all, important terms have multiple meanings. In my opinion, that particular sentence is on par with "Racism is a word in the English language".--Stephen Gilbert

I maintain that it is very helpful. Look, sometimes it's really important to point out that a word has multiple meanings. Sure, most English words are highly ambiguous. That's obvious to anyone who has studied much philosophy. The ambiguity of this particular word, "racism," is very important to note explicitly precisely because so much controversy over race and racism turns on the multiple meanings given to it. Moreover, it is a good idea to begin an article about racism with this disclaimer precisely in order to tip the reader off that we do not pretend to have the definition of "racism" here. Just launching into it without any such disclaimer is actually misleading: it makes it sound as if we had no clue about the fact that the notion of racism is subject to much heated debate. --LMS

Or, "Racism is an abstract concept," which seems to be what LMS is getting at.

It's important to discuss that fact in entries on semantics, but it shouldn't intrude into other entries. It's particularly important in a resource that is supposed to be neutral to acknowledge that people are mortal and fallible, that knowledge and perception is imperfect, that the quantum physics places limits on our ability to be perfectly precise, that culture affects language, that people are selfish, that "correct" spelling is largely historical accident, etc. etc. But it's inappropriate and silly to do so all over the place, and before you even define what you're talking about.

The central nature of the concept, term, and word "racism" is not that it's used in different ways. The central nature of "racism" is that is the application of the concept of "race". From that follows logically its contentiousness; the converse is not true.

To reiterate:
 * Racism is the application of the concept of race. Therefore, people use the term in many different ways.

is a reasonable statement. However,
 * People use the term "racism" in many different ways. Therefore, it is the application of the concept of race.

is not.

That said, I won't put aside any more the awkwardness of the sentence. The first part
 * X is a term used in many different ways

is synonymous with the second part
 * the meaning of X is not generally agreed-upon.

The second part is also poorly worded; the contruction "agreed-upon" will not be found with the dash, and one would hope never without a following "by". In short, the sentence's intent would be preserved faithfully by the following sentence:
 * Racism is a term used in many different ways.

No, I do try to say what I mean. That's not really what I meant at all.

Only entries on semantics should mention the fact that a word is ambiguous? Why would you think that? What about when we're talking about a word the ambiguity of which is socially important, as in this case, we should mention that in our definition of the word.

Well, you seem to be missing the point--it seems to me that you simply didn't understand the reason I made the change!

I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about "the central nature" of any word. You seem to have a complex theory of meaning or definition at work here. Anyway, racism has something to do with race, and it's an epithet; that's about as much as people seem to be able to agree upon.

Racism (the thing itself) isn't the application of the concept of race at all. Racism is an attitude, or a set of behaviors. You might want to say that definitions of "racism" apply the concept of race in various ways. That would be accurate, but it would also be obvious from the basic things we can say about racism up front.

But they aren't synonymous: a word can have several generally-agreed upon senses.

This assumes the two parts of the sentence are synonymous, which they aren't. Some people would deny that some of the ways the term is used are legitimate uses of the term. --LMS

"Racism is the application of the concept of race" is a more rigorous way of stating "Racism has something to do with race". That application may come in the form of an ideology, a belief, or even unconscious attitudes, or the behaviors which result from such ideologies, beliefs, or attitudes.

I agree that the statement "Racism has something to do with race" is a silly statement. But personally, I think "Racism is the application of the concept of race" is no more useful or meaningful. I do not think it is more "rigorous," just more wordy/jargony.

Although I do agree that the statement "Racism has many meanings' (or "is a word used in different ways") in and by itself is not very useful, I do think it communicates one very important idea essential to any good article on the topic: that the topic is controversial and moreover it is controversial because it is inherently political (as opposed to perhaps theories of cosmogeny, which may be controversial because of conflicting or inadequate evidence). The point is NOT that the word refers to an abstraction, but to a political and politicized issue.  That said, I don't think the sentence should be judged "in and by itself," it would only be useful as the lead in to a paragraph which itself introduces an article; the sentence should be evaluated in context.

I do not like the current opening paragraph. I still think my proposed opening,
 * The word racism is used to identify and explain violence or inequalities between different individuals or groups already identified as belonging to different races.

is better, but I am not going to go back and forth. Let me just respond to one of TheCunctator's critical commetns, that this definition does not apply to racial profiling. I believe it does, I believe victims of profiling believe themselves to be victims of violence.

In any event, I am not saying my proposed definition is the best or the only one, I admit it can be improved upon. Or perhaps replaced by something even better. I just don't think the current introductiory paragraph is it (it is improved in contnt, but I find it wordy and awkward). SR


 * 1) I tried to compromise, using (in part) LMS's definition. I managed to cram the words prejudice, discrimination and superiority into one sentence -- but with a disclaimer.
 * 2) I still think the long race and intelligence section is out of place in the article. Let's make it an article of its own, or stick into The Bell Curve. Ed Poor

Just as the opening line of the feminism entry includes the word "women", the opening line of the racism entry needs to include the word "race".

One thing people should recognize is that there's both a vernacular and an academic usage of the term "racism". The vernacular usage, like most popular usage, emphasizes the effects, while the academic usage emphasizes the theoretical grounding.


 * I agree that the statement "Racism has something to do with race" is a silly statement. But personally, I think "Racism is the application of the concept of race" is no more useful or meaningful.  I do not think it is more "rigorous," just more wordy/jargony.

Jargony? "application" and "concept" are not jargony. It's vague, but considerably less so than "has something to do with". This is a classic lesson from those analogy questions on multiple-choice tests.

RACE:RACISM::NATION:NATIONALISM

is a good analogy, while

RACE:RACISM::FISH:FISHING

is bad, even though it's true that fishing has something to do with fish. But fishing is not the application of the concept of fish, while nationalism is the application of the concept of "nation", and racism is the application of the concept of "race".

I apologize if this is unclear; I'm just free-associating off the top of my head. --TheCunctator

A little attempt at a summary from someone new to this discussion -- "Racism" is just plain used to mean too many things. What one person means by the word "racism" can be completely different from what another person means by it. Unless people clarify which "racism" they are talking about, they are likely to talk past each other and get into very misleading discussions! Here are some of the things I hear people using the word "racism" to mean:

Racial prejudice -- or unjustified personal opinions about people on the basis of their race. (e.g. John thinks that Mary will have bad attribute X solely because Mary is a member of race Y)

Racial discrimination -- or unfair differences in treatment of people on the basis of their race. (e.g. John refuses to hire Mary because she is of race Y).

Institutional racial discrimination -- racial discrimination by governments, corporations, or other large organizations. (e.g. Mary cannot get a very good job, despite her qualifications, because she is of race Y.)

Cultural racial prejudices or discrimination -- when considered "normal" by a mainstream culture. (e.g. People expect Mary to work a poorly paying job because she is of race Y, or accept this state of affairs without objection.)

Historical economic disparity among races, presumed to be the result of previous or continuing discrimination. (e.g. Mary's personal background and opportunities are adversely affected by the mistreatment of her ancestors of race Y.)

Racialism -- or claims, generally regarded as spurious and pseudoscientific, about differences in ability among races. (e.g. Dr. Smith writes a book claiming that members of race Y are on average less intelligent than members of race Z.)


 * Indeed, the breakdown above might be a worthwhile inclusion into the article, though I suspect there will be point-by-point arguments over whether each constitutes racism per se. -- April

Modern racism
Alot of people say, slavery is the past. and truly it is the past! And now days, blacks are discrimanting more then whites, just because their parents thought them that "Whites" are your enemy. "Dont even trust a white man". And i think all blacks just make themeselves be racist against white people just because they think we dont like 'em. Truly, i have never had that racist feeling until i was discrimanted and jumped by black people, just because i was white and i was trying to step up for my own blood, brother. and now i am a really big racist, and there will always be Niggers (I'm one!) and black people, there will always be Crackers and white poeple. And there will always be race-hate no matter what color u are, Its U.S.