Talk:Racism/Archive 15

Archive 15 | Archive &rarr;

Molefi Asante: passage moved to talk
I moved this here, for discussion. It was placed in the first subsection, "Definition of racism." However, apart of it being US-centric (and this is a general article on racism, not "racism in the US"), it does not provides much for general understanding of racism and concerning the "definition of racism." Maybe it could be re-included in some other part?

''Molefi Asante, an African American academic, describes racism as a "wall of ignorance" that hides the long history of racial injustice from public consciousness.  He argues that most whites view racism as a thing of the past; a problem that was solved by civil rights. He says African Americans continue to experience racism in many areas of social life.''

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that although Asante may argue that, I doubt he does it in so massive a way. The very existence of affirmative action shows that this many White people disagree with that statement. Tazmaniacs 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubois quote
I also move the Dubois quote here. I'm not sure it belong to this general "definition of racism" here, and the necessity to involve the fuzzy concept of racialism here. Furthermore, Dubois' POV is not even explicit (does he maintain that different races exist? i.e. does he considers himself a racialist?). Tazmaniacs 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC) "W.E.B. DuBois argued that racialism is the belief that differences between the races exist, be they biological, social, psychological, or in the realm of the soul. He argued that racism is using this belief to promote the idea that one's race is superior to the others."

Global apartheid
Moving this to talk (it was in "Economics & racism" subsection). "Some say..." (sic) Many people say... Etc. It's meaningless (to reduce international economics to some sort of racist conspiracy is ridiculous). To say that the current economic system favorizes a mostly white, male population living in the so-called "First World" (North America, Europe and... Japan) has got some more sense (but challenges the notion of a "white conspiracy", unless Japanese have become white since they became a major power). Tazmaniacs 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Global apartheid is a phrase used by those who argue that the international economic and political system is racist and is designed so that a white minority internationally accrue more wealth and power and enjoy more human and legal rights than the non-white world majority."

in religions
Could there be a sections for what the major religions teach about racism? Or is there already seperate articles? themcman1 Talk 16:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) racism or culturacism. I believe nowdays, people are so different in there life style that "race" has no importance but more the cultural aspect and the fear of the loss of personla identity. matthieu im agree now we can see culturalism in american movies and this is not new .in bonds films asians and other cultures (that are supposed to be a threat!)are caracterized as irrisonable people or even devils.

Please give appropriate coverage to Mormon racism within the article
it has been quite significant and persisting. See Blacks and the Latter Day Saint movement, Curse of Cain.203.49.244.253 14:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets agree on sources
If a website has only one view point on a very controversial topic then it shouldnt be used. If a website only reports one side of a story with extream bias on a disputed topic it is an extream source. if the content is antisemitic, anti_African, anti-america, anti anything then it must be treated with care, esp when citing info that is disputed. A site which is dedicated to demonizing one group without any balance shouldnt be used to bring balance. use the guardian or NY York, economist, Times, which are less obvious with their racism.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

you cite The guardian as a balanced source??? how about we add the independant also while you're at it...here's a sample "subtle" anti-israeli article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1833884,00.html - anti-israel... 500 words.. israeli statements/opinions/info... paragraph and a half... final death toll i believe was set at 28 not 60. Jaakobou 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was balanced i said it was a blatent unbalanced source, i also stated the racism in these papers is less obvious. compare that to some of the sources used here. A site dedicated to demonizing Muslims in all areas of the world from Darfur to Detroit. The entire website is this slant. This is the info which needs to be avoided. and again when dealing with hot topics. if they say "the sky is blue" then its cool.And anti-Israel anti-War, anti-South Africa isnt a crime or illegal or a sign of imbalance. to be anti-Jewish or anti-African, anti-Muslim is another issue. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to make accusations here but last i checked you wrote this down: use the guardian or NY York, economist, Times, which are less obvious with their racism, i couldn't care about going into your claims about certain sources, that is not the issue i replied you for... i only replied as to your claims that the guardian is balanced... btw, you should inspect the charecteristics of anti-israeli promoters... you might find that it's the new anti-semitism.. here's a sample documentry for you: blaming the jews. Jaakobou 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no way "The Guardian" could be regarded as unbiased or balanced in its point of view. It is an incredibly left wing socialist, anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-common-sense publication almost boardering on bleeding-heart liberal, I would only use it to demonstrate a left wing position, and not and not to try to present a balanced viewpoint. There is much documented about the innacuracies and it's anti-Israeli stance. MattUK 10:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange "Counter-Racism Science" paragraph
I have deleted the so-called "Counter-Racism Science" paragraph because it is uncited original research and is written so poorly that it doesn't make sense in the English language. Even the term "Counter-Racism Science" doesn't seem to make any sense, and the content in the paragraph has nothing to do with science. Here is the text I deleted The Counter-Racism Science definition of racism is that racism is the scientific practice of unjust subjugation, misuse, and/or abuse of persons classified as "non-white", by persons classified as "white", on the basis of color or non-color, and/or, on the basis of factors "associated with" color or non-color. It goes further to note that Racism and White Supremacy are the same and that it is incorrect to use the term "White Racism". To use this term is to imply that Racism exists in a form other than White Supremacy. I'm really not sure what this paragraph is trying to say, and what it is based on. Spylab 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this person was trying to say that only Whites can be racist, but I'm not really sure as it seems to be writted by someone who doesnt have English as a fist language. MattUK 10:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's written by a native English speaker with a severe case of Academicism complicated by some ideological inflammation. If you google for that phrase (C-RS), you'll probably find that there's a whole little school of folks who've adopted the term. -- Orange Mike  13:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup. The guy behind it was the topic of a (deleted) article some time back. -- Orange Mike 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

More references and better organization needed
Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC) There sure are a lot of uncited claims in this article. If you add new paragraphs or sections, you should provide references to show where those ideas come from. Also, this article needs to be organized better. I tried to group similar topics together, but there is still a lot or disorganization, and I suspect there is a some repetition of topics in more than one section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spylab (talk • contribs)

Sure! A lot of the recent editing was actually just copy-paste from others articles with some slight copy-editing (see nationalism article where I realized that an ethnic nationalism & liberal nationalism articles existed, which is quite a good thing; see also scientific racism for changes concerning this section, and all.) I'm not sure where sources are needed; I'm sure some people will "disagree" with that, but I find it hard to disagree with, say, the fact that Francis Galton invented eugenics, or that Romantic nationalism was a main inspiration of the Völkisch movement, which itself has influenced Nazism. Maybe putting some citation tags on controversial claims could help). Concerning organisation, I completely agree with you. Putting up "ethnic nationalism" before "scientific nationalism" may be a good thing, as it is probably less surprising for most readers. I'm thinking about your change concerning chronology, but it also may be actually better to start from the most modern and leave middle ages & limpieza de sangre for the end. But this poses the problem of where to put "Post WWII racism", since such a section would hardly be comprehensible without a previous introduction to "scientific racism" which doesn't seems to be of a purely historical interest. I am, however, a bit baffled about your separation of "human zoos" and "Racism & European colonialism in the 19th century": human zoos can not be understood out of the colonial context, nor, for that matter, out of the "scientific racism" theories. This is exactly why they are an "interesting" phenomena: they are at the crossroads between popular racism and propaganda in favour of imperialism, the whole concept was possible because of imperial conquests (the exhibited people usually came from territories which had been just explored, making for some "trends" favorizing such or such ethnic group), and they are definitely related to "scientific racism" as scientists came to look and examine them. You could even compare these zoos with some sort of open-air laboratories; and, exactly as in laboratories, scientists finally understood that the context of the observation itself corrupted its subject, prohibiting neutral, objective observation. Georges Cuvier's examination of Saartjie Baartman, as well as Madison Grant exhibiting Ota Benga in the Bronx Zoo. I've seen, here or there, some dismissals of "scientific racism" theories as being just "folk sciences": this is an obvious misinterpretation based on... positivism ideology (that is, that modern science is finally correct in its assumptions, rejecting its past as pure proto-science or pseudo-science). But that is more than contestable: thinking that biases and prejudices have stopped affecting modern scientists is a pure view of the spirit... I may have gone a bit off topic, but this to show that I think that "human zoo" should be merged with "European colonialism", which itself should not be separated from "scientific racism": they were contemporary events, and well interlinked together. It is not a simple coincidence it the real beginning of the era of human zoos overlap with the scramble for Africa and the New Imperialism period, and that such exhibitions would continue until the beginning of the decolonization period post-WWII. Maybe titling the section on "Scientific racism" simply "Racism in the 19th century" would allow for such different views on the same phenomena? Tazmaniacs


 * I put the Human Zoo section as a subsection of the Scientific Racism section because human zoos are part of the topic of scientific racism. I think it makes more sense to organize this article mainly by topic than by time period. Most readers will be looking for information on specific aspects of racism, not for particular time periods. Organizing by time period would be more appropriate for an article called History of racism (or something similar). As for references, if something isn't obvious, then there should be references showing where that information came from. Your examples of topics that are "hard to disagree with" aren't obvious to readers who have never heard of them before. Spylab 12:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True &mdash; concerning your last observation. About the "topic vs period", you're also probably correct &mdash; although I personally tend to disagree with this approach as I have a tendency to believe that we can only understand things by exploring their history (a very traditionalist POV, isn't it?:) Both ways have their cons & pros (?). Anyway, we are always limited to explaining things in a linear way although you need to get the full picture to really understand how they go together, so it's probably no great deal separating "human zoo" & "colonialism" - by this I refer to the current exposition, with the "Middle Age-Renaissance" period between these two subsections. But Renaissance period brings the limpieza de sangre matter, and thus colonialism again: whatever mode of exposition we choose, we'll have to make choices. So I'll trust your judgment. A little intern link in the "human zoo" section: "See 'colonialism subsection' for further information" will probably resolve the problem rather easily. Else, I will try to provide more sources (right now thinking about the two last paragraphs of "ethnic nationalism" section, Maurice Barrès statements, etc. I'll have no problems for that).
 * The "ethnic cleansing" subsection is fundamental, but has 2 problems now: most of its content should be moved in "Colonialism" section (should we think about making a more, transhistorical "colonialism" section? I tend to clearly mark a cesure with 19th century scientific racism, I don't know) ; and I think it should succeed to the "colonialist" section, and not precede it. If we take Hannah Arendt's words, and other, more modern research, ethnic cleansing belong both to the modern, 19th-20th century period, and are related to colonialism - a controversial thesis, especially due to the specific place of the Holocaust, but the Herero and Namaqua Genocide has been officially recognized as such by international instances and Germany. And the prerequisite to extermination of the Other is deshumanizing him, a process which has happened during the imperialist period - racism was an important part of that deshumanization (as already the Valladolid controversy demonstrated). I was reading the other day Carl Schmitt's Theory of the Partisan, who, despite his POV, says no other thing than that: to exterminate an enemy, you first must make of him an absolute criminal, or outlaw him. Schmitt knew about what he talked. This to argue my point that "ethnic cleansing" section should not immediately follow "ethnic nationalism", but succeed to "colonialism" and "Nazism" section, since the Holocaust does provide the main frame according to which we standardly considers genocides. Tazmaniacs

Definitions of racism
Please remove the prehistoric, left-wing anti-racial mythology based on 40 years old discoveries of "modern genetics". Genetics has advanced a lot in the meantime, and especially during the last decade. Self-reported racial classification or geographical origin can now be established with virtually 100% accuracy. 82.100.61.114 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments are contradicted by every citation to reliable published scientific sources available. Please remember that the test for inclusion as content is not whether something is true, but rather if it is backed by a reliable published sources. You failed to provide any source at all for your statements. You might want to read WP:Citing sources. VanTucky 20:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence which supports the fact that IQ is as much genetic as height, strength, hair color and many other atributes. Most of these indicate that Jews have the highest IQ, with Asians closely behind, and even discounting the enviromental factors these two groups still outperform Whites, who in turn outperform Blacks. Unfortunatly research into genetics and IQ is largely stunted, which is reffered to as "Hitlers revenge against the west" (as quoted on the Wiki page on Race and IQ). While the sources available to support this are far from numerous I would think that it would be worthwhile to mention this in the main article, if carefully worded to be NPOV. MattUK 10:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict
AIC is polarizing and complex, and many WP articles are already dedicated to its coverage. There are attempts to spread it to more articles. It is wrong to present it as a a racial conflict, especially one-sidedly as anti-Arab racism by Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it presents it as a racial conflict, only that racism or the accusation of racism is product of and part of what fuels the conflict. VanTucky 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Padishah5000 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "racism or the accusation of racism is product of and part of what fuels the conflict" is your POV. There are many accusations flying around. Please stop adding one-sided accusations of racism in the AIC. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, I don't know what universe you live in, but in this one the idea that racism by and against Israelis is a widely published view of the conflict. Is it just the links youre objecting to? And please do not start edit wars by reverting content still under discussion. that is not a good display of respect for civility and Wikipedia consensus process. VanTucky 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is also a widely published view of the conflict. One of the links you keep adding is already there on the previous line, and the other simply does not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot to add reliable (as in generally known to have factual accuracy). Just assumed you wouldnt break good faith and think I was talking about raving nutcases and antisemitic propaganda. my bad. So I take it youre not for deleting the whole section, just the links? that is fine with me. VanTucky 20:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. Thank you for being reasonable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition
Please discuss before reverting the definition. Racism is a belief ("an acceptance that a statement is true". the def isnt limited to religious faith) and an ideology because an ideology is organised and a belief is not. Racism has existed as both and they are very distinct aspects. Also, since modern science completely discounts the idea that all members of each race share a certain set of behaviorial and physical characteristics, Racism is also just the idea that they do share such traits. Think about it. Anyone you've ever met who was racist based this on the fundamental idea that all Jews are this, all Blacks are that. It is the fundamental precursor to all degrees of racism. Also, this is the OED definition. VanTucky 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is exactly my point: the idea that 'all members of each race share a certain set of behavioural and physical characteristic' is actually a definition of race, not a definition of racism. You then say, 'racism is also just the idea that they do share such traits'. Well, who's 'they' in this sentence? is they the members, or the 'races'? Can you not see how its a circular argument you are making, and how the two entail each other? Eyedubya 02:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're going to end up talking at cross purposes here if we're not very, very careful. My edits were intended to say exactly what you are saying about what racism is in terms of its categorical effects. However, a definition of racism that opens with the line that 'Racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race' creates a problem. This way of putting it accepts the idea of race as a legitimate, uncontested notion that, as you have pointed out, has been discredited by modern science. To say 'Racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race' suggests that there is some unproblematic category called race that really exists out there in the world, and the only thing of importance is that some people use it unwisely or ignorantly or nefariously. I disagree with this view, because racism and race go hand in hand, its hard to have one without the other, impossible in fact. For example, the following statements do not require the concept of race: 'there are brown-skinned people' or 'they are Jewish people' or 'I know some Chinese people'. Such statements are merely reporting an empirical fact - some people do possess such attributes. But to say that 'All brown-skinned people are athletic' is a statement that depends on the concept of race for its validity, and it is also racist (and thus a case of racism) because: a) it makes a distinction that puts people into groups based on a single attribute and b) creates a hierarchy between them. Saying that 'All brown-skinned people are athletic' implies that: 'not all non-brown-skinned people are athletic', and even, that: 'unless you are brown-skinned, it is unlikely that you will be athlectic', as well as: 'the reason why some people are more athletic than others is because they have brown skin'. It is not possible to use the concept of race without also being racist, even if its only very mild. But to those people implicated by such statements (and we all are in different ways), the effects are the divisive effects of racism. I think you and I want to say the same thing here. I think you are right about belief, I accept your definition. And perhaps I have caused you think that I may have a point about changing the first line to link racism and race in a way that doesn't accept the concept on its own terms? Also, if WP is going to use definitions of words from a source like OED, then why not just quote the whole definition and properly cite the source? Eyedubya 00:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, whether it is scientifically and culturally rejected in modern society does not negate the fact that the concept of race exists. Read carefully: the concept exists. Using the word race does not in any way speak to the veracity of the concept. The definition only recognises that racism is indelibly tied to the notion of race. This is fact, and one published by reliable sources (which, of course, is the only test of inclusion on Wikipedia, not truth; the rambling, confused definitions previously included were part of what necessitated the original research tag). What you're arguing is that to say "chinese people" or "black people" doesnt depend on race. Well, that's true because you're referring to the scientific concept of ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are vastly different, mainly: one is concrete and absolutist, while ethnicity is more fluid. But the existence of ethnicity does not make the idea of race (and therefore, racism) disappear.
 * To think that acknowledging prejudicial racism as the product of the idea of race is perpetuating racism itself is totally ludicrous. That is politically correct facism. To simply define racism for what it is in no way legitimizes it. Besides, as you admit, if "it is not possible to use the concept of race without also being racist..." then how the hell do you define racism? You can't just make up a new definition to suit your moral ideas. About citing it, this is something I have planned on doing, but I have been too busy reverting vandalism to the page and complete rewrites of the definition. Also, I prefer not to directly quote (which doesnt kill citing) because of the use of dictionary-speak within/around the definitions. VanTucky 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, unless we're very careful we're going to end up talking at cross-purposes. Let's take this one step at a time:


 * 1) Brown-skinned people, people who subscribe to Judaism and people who speak Chinese could only have been considered to have constituted 'races' if the concept of race existed. The statement 'Jews are a race' is logically impossible without the concept of race.


 * 2) The differences between ethnicity and race maybe to do with fluidity, but as ways of making distinctions between people on the basis of group or collectiev identity, they suffer in the end from the same problem - categorical thinking. Whether one is identified by others, or self-identifies as a 'member of a group', the problem of stereotyping, exclusion and inclusion remain. An ethnic descriptor will do just as well as a racial one for bigots.


 * 3) Political correctness has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It is all about logic. The concept of race entails racism. The concept of gender entails sexism. The concept of class entails classism. As soon as a distinction is made, it necessarily follows that meanings will attach to the products of the distinction. That is how the mind works, that is how language and culture operate.


 * 4) If you are going to make qualitative distinctions between types of racism, such as 'prejudicial racism' or 'scientific racism', then these need to be defined in the WP entry itself (maybe it is, I haven't read that far down, I'm interested in the initial definition, all else flows from that). But at the beginning needs to be a definition of racism that is sufficiently abstract to allow it to be subject to the degree of differentiation and qualification that occur in the remainder of the article.


 * 5) I agree that the concept of race exists, regardless of its scientific validity. I also agree that racism exists and has immensely powerful effects, regardless of its morality or ethics. However, it is important to understand how it works, and how the concept of race entails racism. Unless that is understood, any moves to understand racism itself are flawed.


 * 6) What makes you think I'm trying to make the concept of racism or race disappear? As far as I can tell, the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary is that the former will shed some light on the reasons and debates about why a word comes to have the definition it does, not merely to be a longer version of the latter. If you use a dictionary definition without stating it as such, it compromises WP as an encyclopedia.Eyedubya 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Eyedubya 01:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To define racism is necessary to a following discussion of racism. To say defining racism compromises an encyclopedic study of the subject is patently insane. Okay, let's quit arguing about peripherals here and get to the heart of the matter. Show me an alternative wording to the definition of racism here so we can reach some kind of consensus. But frankly, you have not given any arguments about how the current definition is in fact inappropriate per Wikipedia policy. Once again, truth is of no concern, only verifiability. Writing your own definition is not acceptable when a reliable published definition exists. VanTucky 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You may not like the arguments, but I have made some. To move on, I request that you edit the article to beging with the entire OED definition of racism, prefaced with: The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism in the following way:. That at least establishes the source of something which is contested - note previous edits of the definition in WP - that is incontrovertible, verifiable evidence of a difference of opinion. Some have agreed with my views, some with 'yours', which you are saying is really the OED. SO, fine, let the OED speak. Plagiarism is plagiarism! Eyedubya 02:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * PS I have already contributed wording which I believe covers my issues, but you rv'd it. It was a minor change really, and someone else improved it before you got to it.Eyedubya 02:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, a preface like that isnt usually done. An inline footnote citation is what is preferred. But if you insist, that's fine with me. VanTucky 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that the whole definition? I can't tell where it begins and ends - is the bit about the spanish in the OED? If its just the first line, then the OED suffers from the intellectual confusion I've discussed above (see near the top of this section, quite simple really). Eyedubya 02:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is the primary def, the second is the secondary one. The history is not in the OED, its a dictionary remember? VanTucky 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, Dude, no worries. I've tried my best to work with your line. So this is what I've done. I've noted that lower down there is a sub-section on 'definitons', underneath which is a link to 'historical definitions'. But the material in this subsection isn't definitional in nature, its more of a typology. So I've renamed it 'types of racism'. Now, having done that, and noted that there is a whole article devoted to historical definitions of racism, I've reworked the opening paragraph of the main racism page. I think a lateral and sensible way to deal with the verifiable differences in current definitions of racism is to triangulate what you started by counterposing two other well-known dictionary definitions with the OED. There are important differences of the kind that lead to the sort of disagreement you and I have had. Thus, the case for the new prefatory remarks is established in a verifiable and upfront way. So the first line sets the scene - Racism is something that people disagree about; next few lines - examples of different definitions from reliable sources; final line - in sum, what do these different definitions have in common? This means the first para is about definitional issues. We can then move the stuff on history, which is also highly contested to the next paragraph, and clean that up later.Eyedubya 06:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be a difference between US and UK usage, but I think we still have some way to go on the definition(s). We seem to be prioritising scientific racism over other kinds. Although scientific racism could be regarded as racism in its classical form and needs discussion, it seems to me "racism" has always been somewhat tangential to (discredited) notions of race, and certainly is today.  Despite the etymology of the word "racism" is in fact much more about ethnicity.

I am English, and if hate and discriminate against the Irish or the Welsh, that it seems to me is a form of racism. But no one I think ever suggested the Welsh/Irish and the English were a different race. Its about ethnic groups. I don't have the dictionaries you refer to but Chambers - a leading UK dictionary - defines race thus "the descendents of a common ancestor... the condition of belonging by descent to a particular group" Racism is then defined: "hatred rivallry or bad feeling between races... discriminatory treatment based on such belief" We shouldn't get too hung up on "race", racism is about how you relate to people identified as being within another ethnic group. Zoomatters 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All very good points, and I would support you editing this fourth dictionary definition into the definition section along with the other three - serves to highlight the appropriateness of the opening line of the article. Eyedubya 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Racism against Jews
I would like this entire section deleted. I thought about doing it myself, however, I thought it would probably be undone, so I wanted to explain why the idea of "racism" against Jews is nonsense. Jews are NOT a "race." In fact, Jews can be of any "race." There are Jews who are black. There are Jews who are white, etc. Jews are a religious group, not a racial group, by any of the current widely accepted definitions of "race." Now, this section could sensibly belong in an article on prejudice and be called "Prejudice against Jews." That would make sense since Jews do face prejudice and jews are stereotyped.User:ClydeOnline 21:09 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Before we get to any arguments about the content itself, I think User:Humus sapiens has not shown very much respect for NPOV in persistantly deleting any attempt to show both sides of the issue on Racism against Jews. It is a serious and hotly debated issue in reliable published sources whether the charge of antisemitism has been used to excuse actions taken by the state of Israel. This is directly related to Racism against Jews, and I think that any removal of it violates NPOV in that it fails to account for all reliable published POV's on modern issues affecting the topic of racism against Jews. VanTucky 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) VanTucky: my (or anyone else's for that matter) religion, spirituality, or lack thereof is none of your business. FYI, the time of yellow badge is over.
 * On the content: this is not the first attempt to use WP article Racism to support or excuse attacks targeting Israel, always one-sided. There is another article, Arab-Israeli conflict plus many sub-articles, dedicated to this complex subject. See Talk:Antisemitism: this content does not belong in Antisemitism and surely it doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is none of my business and has no bearing on anything. That is why I deleted my reference to it.
 * Otherwise, I find your assumptions about my personal political opinions reprehensible and also none of your business. this isn't a personal issue to me but a policy one. I have no concrete opinion on the state of Israel whatsoever (wait, not absolutely true: I am of the opinion that Israel is a state and thus entitled to all the rights and privileges of a state. otherwise, it isnt my country, I dont care one way or the other). I do not edit any other articles specifically referring to it or any conflict. If I had a POV to push, don't you think I might be trying to paint it on articles that are central to it? Furthermore, you exaggerate my editing of this article. One previous lengthy discussion about content relating to Israel does not a rabid POV-pusher make. I think it is a violation of NPOV not to include the addition you deleted on this page and that you seem to automatically delete anything critical of Israel. If there is a section on Racism against Jews, then all published reliable POV's need to be represented. Also, if I was an anti-Israel POV pusher on this page, wouldn't that require I actually contribute content on the subject? To this date I have written nothing about Israel or Jews in this or any other page. I have only argued about inclusion of content others have written. VanTucky 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "both sides"? Is the claim that "antisemite" is used as an epithet the "other side" to antisemitism? Anyway, this is an article about racism, not about claims of political epithets, and anything in the antisemitism section should merely summarize the main articles, not introduce new topics. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since we both are getting pretty personal here. I have filed an RFC. VanTucky 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This reflects something from the previous argument. You both argue that race baiting and other political uses of racism/racism accusations are not directly related to racism. Shouldn't the political usage of antisemitic accusations be included in a section on antisemitism? Somehow yours seems like a self-defeating argument to me. Also, FYI: I have once edited the article on I.F. Stone is memory serves me. But feel free to check out my edits. I doubt you could call them anti-Jew/anti-Israel. VanTucky 22:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, the article summarize other articles, so it shouldn't contain new information unique to this article. Second, the article is about racism, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. This is about racism mainly, not arab-israeli conflict. However, you are right. This is just summarizing and I assumed that it was added because it was a topic already covered in Antisemitism. My assumption, my mistake. It isn't, so it should go. I'll let the contibuter of the factoid know why it's not okay for this article. VanTucky 22:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so in what article should it be included? Nobody have answered that question. // Liftarn
 * Why must it be included anywhere? Wikipedia isn't Google. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism against Arabs
Why does it portray Americans and hollywood as the only thing that is racist towards Arabs? There should be more on a worldly view on racism towards Arabs and not just American. The portrayal of Americans is..innacurate. Shantaclaus 02:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism against arabs is flase because arab is not a race. On top of that, the US lists arabs as white, so there cannot be any racism.--71.235.81.39 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A. Really? I had no idea that the US lists them as white.


 * B. Who said that there is no racism against whites? Haven't you heard of the Nation of Islam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maha Odeh (talk • contribs).

Racism and IQ testing
I wonder if global IQ testing may spark new forms of racism across the world:

Although most experts agree that IQ is environmentally influence and it depends a lot on sociological and economic levels of development of different groups and countries, still there are differences that could be used to spark new forms of racism, and some of these new forms could be quite different from the traditional ones:

1. East Asians (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) have the highest scores among nations. Could this spark new theories about the intellectual superiority of East Asians?

2. Italians are next in line, with the highest scores in Europe and in the world after East Asians. Could this move some people in the same direction in Italy?. They have the inconvenient of being below East Asians though.

3. Askenazic Jews have the highest IQ of any other group in the world. Could this spark new theories about the superiority of this group? Could be interesting in view of the place that Nordicists and Nazis wanted to assign them as an inferior race.

See:   "

We will see if humankind is mature enough to comprehend the complexity of human nature, much beyond those types of tests, or all this will spark new waves of racist theories.

I say this because I have already seen some white supremacist racists using these results for their propaganda, obviously, as usual, conveniently selecting the information and hiding the fact that whites, and especially those groups of whites that they like to propagandize about, do not come up first in the list. Those who come up first, East Asians, may also be tempted, and I think that some comments have already been made in that direction. About Italians, they have always considered themselves above other Europeans, although they do not waste much time on it. The Jewish issue may also be of interest. Just some thoughts. 72.144.17.9 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with many of your points above, but part of comprehending the complexity of human nature is avoiding the use of sweeping generalizations. It is widely acknowledged that most Italians view their rich history and culture with a degree of pride or even arrogance in some cases, but unless one were to take statements from the 58 million-plus citizens of the country, one could not validly claim that all Italians "have always considered themselves above other Europeans". This sort of statement is fine as an anecdotal or possibly "humorous", personal observation in settings of literature or entertainment, but one should be cognizant of its implications. I know this seems like nit-picking, but it the over-use of such generalizations is one of the roots of ethnic stereotyping.

Proclivities (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative Action
How can affirmative action be added to this article? Or are the double standard police patrolling this article? Rbaish 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have consistantly had my edits deleted that do nothing but shed light on the fact that racial discrimination is not experienced exclusively by minorities. I believe it is very important that on such a huge topic such as this that we make sure to allow all sides of the story to be heard. Misrepresented information in either direction is biased and misleading. We need to minimalize this.

Affirmative action is not racist. It is a policy created by caucasians to partially, but definitely not completely, offset the disadvantages that minorities are on the receiving end of. For example, the most clear case of subtle racism is the study that has shown that resumes with black names will be looked down upon more than the exact same resumes with white names. Also, many minorities are thrown into poverty from the day they are born. How are they ever to get out of that spiral of poverty? They receive below average education, below average housing, below average nutrition, and below average healthcare. It's true that there are many impoverished white people; however, like all laws- there are grey areas with exceptions. The amount of discrimination and disadvantages that minorities are subjected to is on a completely different level than poor caucasians in general. Only the absolutely brilliant can rise above all of those disadvantages. Without policies like AA, minorities are more likely to be locked down in poverty. I guess that's what many anti-AA people want. It's not enough for them to be born into a country that is ready to make you have the best future possible while relying on the misfortunes of others that look different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.114.99 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

-affirmative action for black people should be thought as: 'black skin privilidge'


 * Instead of endlessly inserting AA here, editor would be nice & respectful of others to argue his case here. There clearly is no consensus to include AA as a form of "racism," much less scholarly sources to back it up. Tazmaniacs 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank Heaven references are not limited to scholarly sources. I don’t feel there is a consensus to leave AA out of this article either. Rbaish 11:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. -- Orange Mike 23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Tazmaniacs

There isn't a consensus, but I think it's clear to most editors that only a very small but vocal minority want it included. Most people in the country don't see affirmative action as a form of racism; on the contrary, they see it as a measure against racism.Pihanki 15:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If most people thought it was a means to correct or prevent racism, they would have voted for it to continue in CA and Michigan. EVERY time AA is on the ballot, it is voted down by HUGE margins. Most people DO think AA is racist and they go to the polls to speak their voice. Rbaish 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your reasoning here. Are you claiming that the votes in California and Michigan were not motivated by racism and right-wing lobbying? The articles, op-eds, letters to the editors, etc., made it quite clear that most of those supporting the rollbacks did so because they thought "others" were getting too many rights over traditionally privileged white Anglophones. -- Orange Mike 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (a white Anglophone heterosexual evangelical Christian Southern male, in case you were wondering)

No, what I am saying is that Americans don’t want AA. For someone to say that “most” people don’t see it for its negative aspects is simply baseless and false. It’s a simple enough concept for the average American to understand, so any push from either side (I see you conveniently left out the push from the left in your statement :S ) was neutral. AA is a racist policy. AA oppresses people (poor and MC whites) who were not responsible for the “racism” AA supposedly aims to fix. It creates a dual-class structure for hiring, college admission, grants, and gov. contracts based on race. This is racism. Rbaish 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * AA is certainly relative to the US. However, the concept is discussed in other countries. The fact that you think that "Americans don't want AA" is not something to argue on the "Racism" entry on Wikipedia, but something that you might want to consider talking about your local governor. This page is dedicated to "Racism", and is not named "Race issues in the United States". If you want to argue in the latter article that AA is "racist", well, good luck! But please stop badgering us here. Actually, your arguments are not all so much non-sense as this appear to be: classifying people on race is not necessarily a good idea. But the US chose to ask people to self-define themselves according to "race" on their annual census. So, if you follow your logic to the end, it is not only AA that is "racist" (although it clearly is aimed at countering a racist bias in US society), but the whole social structure of the US which is racist, starting with its census. In any cases, this is off-topic, as this article is dedicated to the phenomena of racism in the whole world, and not on a discussion on AA. Tazmaniacs

What a very Orwellian statement. Rbaish 10:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Affermative action is regarded by a lot of people as racist, it disadvantages Whites somewhat, but disadvantages Asians a lot, and I think that this perception, which is born out by facts should definatly be included, the Wiki page on AA actually states that it disadvantages better qualified Asians and Whites for the benifit of less qualified African-Americans and to some extent Latino's. However I certainly agree that is should be fully discussed and worded here with proper sources before it is again re-added to the article. MattUK 10:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

new racism
it appears that a new type of racism is growing.its spreading through medias.its subject is not colour but culture and religion.it insults people beliefs history and culture.its against asians iranians(persians)arabs and moslems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roshana (talk • contribs).

Maybe new to be against islam, but its been a long standing tradition for it to occur against Christianity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam is a religion not a race, their are moslems of all kind of races. So, discrimination of Islam/Moslem people is not racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why's racism so powerful?
In the UK, you'll often hear news reports that would not have made it into the news if they'd been replaced by 'ageist', 'tall-ist', 'red-hair-ist', etc. I don't think racism is any more hurtful than other kinds of insults (ie. it's bad but very much distorted out of proportion). Why doesn't this WP article discuss how the very word 'racist' managed to gain so much power as almost a weapon to use against people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jez9999 (talk • contribs).

Let me guess...you're of European ("white") descent?

Let me guess... you're Black of Sub-Saharan descent? The point that racism is perhaps overplayed is a fair point to make. It may or may not be true, but it worth debating.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the intent of the above post? The word 'racist' carries weight because it can be applied to tangible discrimination or derogatory remarks that would be deemed as racist? The word in and of itself cannot be powerful without evidence to back it up. There is still racism in UK, unfortunately a lot of it stemming from govt (laws against Muslim girls wearing hijabs in public schools). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enhancedvibes (talk • contribs).

There's lots of racism everywhere though not convinced that laws about hiding people's faces are racist. To answer the orginal question - race is taken so seriously as throughout history it has often been a basis for war, enslavement, murder, oppression etc. This is not true of fat / tall / ginger people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to apply NPOV to article, but getting vandalized
My citations to challenge the tone of the entire article keep getting removed by vandals.

Check these sources.1991: Illiberal Education (ISBN 0-684-86384-7) and 1995: The End of Racism (ISBN 0-684-82524-4). I merely stated that the use of racism is sometimes exploited as a tool of victimization. The citations is a legitimate source of this counter-position. Refusal to include the existance of this position violates NPOV.JusticeIvory 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You did not merely state it, you added it to he lead thereby giving the poorly-phrased addition weight. You were reverted by multipe editors and called their legitimate edits vandalism. You breached the 3RR policy despite being warned about it. You directed others to the talk page, but only after it was protected, did you, as the person introducing the disputed addition, opts to make use of it. As seemingly a single-purpose editor, especially, your conduct appears increasingly disruptive. Elsewhere, too. El_C 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors, lacking NPOV, have locked out further changes. There is no NPOV on this article, currently. Attempts at adding balance have been locked out.JusticeIvory 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be me, and one section is enough. Established editors can edit the entry, it's only locked to very new accounts, such as yours. El_C 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can tell you did not research the legitimate neutral sources provided. Otherwise, you would know I did "merely state" that such a position exists.  Your refusal to include such a position is disruptive and lacks any NPOV.  I did not violate 3RR.  I suggest you read the rule carefully.  After three reverts I made another attempt at a neutral discussion by rewording the point.  You refuse any attempt at such civility.  You have violated SPA by virture of your refusal to include postions that would create a more NPOV article.JusticeIvory 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't need to read WP:3RR, I've been enforcing it as a Wikipedia sysop for years, and I helped write it. Partial reverts do count. Again, established editors can edit the article, and it only takes one to agree with you. Thus far, not a single one has, but several have diagreed with you. Which should be an indication to cease from reverting back the contested addition, partially or otherwise. El_C 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, when you say "several" have disagreed with me, you mean you and OrangeMike. As a sysop, you should be more precise.  And it looks like another has agreed with me, at least in principle if not precisely in my wording.  And you still have not justified any specific claim you made aobut my sources being "anecdotal".  How is it more anecdotal than the last sentence of the intro paragraph?JusticeIvory 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier to Assume Good Faith if these edits were not coming from an editor whose handle seems to mean "white justice" or "justice for whites"! ("Ivory" being the twin to "ebony" and all.)-- Orange Mike 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (mostly "white" himself, as far as melanin distribution is concerned)


 * wow. I'm from Justice, IL and my name is Ivory.  My father is a first generation immigrant from Hungary and my mother is half Lakota Sioux from South Dakota.  The presumption of racism in here is so thick I can't believe it.  I will have to change my user name to avoid the labels generated by such attitudes as these.JusticeIvory 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

G'day. I have to retype this since it seems like there is a lot of edit activity. Without taking sides on which of you has been more disruptive, I would like to say that Dinesh D'Souza, the author of those books, offers an interesting insight that could only improve the neutrality of the article. He is a Stanford professor from India who has challenged racial issues such as affirmative action in the US. I think there must be some way to include his position in a truly neutral article.Hubbardaie 21:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but it would be tricky, given his extreme views and polarizing reputation as part of the American extreme right-wing. -- Orange Mike 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't think Dinesh D'Souza is extremist or right wing at all. I would consider him a fairly moderate counterbalance to the rest of the tone in this article. I don't see how it would be that tricky. Just insert his positions in a matter of fact style.Hubbardaie 21:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the history on the changes today a bit more closely. The original change by JusticeIvory read as a little inflamatory. But after reviewing the entire article, I can see the point that entire article lacks neutrality. I think a NPOV tag is justified, especially without any opposing views even mentioned.Hubbardaie 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it was inflamatory. I think it was a fairly literal and accurate statement of D'Souza's point in his books.  But if one of you can think of a way of phrasing my original point to satisfy everyone, then I'm for it.  (Excuse me, I haven't changed my user name, yet so forgive me if my existance on this Earth continues to offend Orangemike and El C.)JusticeIvory 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the contribution JusticeIvory made to the opening para is that it was in an inappropriate place in the article. Whatever one thinks of D'Souza's views on racism, they are not germane to introducing an article on the topic. If there is value in what D'Souza has to say, then the place for it is further down the article, at least, after the definitional issues have been dealt with. In any event, the original contribution was rather ambiguous and D'Souza's views deserve more than this kind of one-line summary so that readers can make their own mind up regarding their value. Certainly, if his views are to be covered, then they need to be contextualised rather then appearing as the voice of Wikipedia (which is how JusticeIvory's contribution made them look). Eyedubya 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best way to resolve this is to take the last sentence out of the intro paragraph and move it to a separate section. I don't think the "race as a social construct" is any more relevant in the first paragraph than D'Souza.BillGosset 02:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Please proceed with an appropriate edit. Eyedubya 12:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First, by way of disclosure, I know BillGosset personally. That aside, when I read the "racism and whiteness" article I see just a lot of "hate whitey" babble. Several of the claims have had citation tags on them for a while and it appears no neutral sources are forthcoming. I'm deleting the section until someone can support these claims.Hubbardaie 20:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Its prevalent throughout wikipedia for racism and sexism to occur against whites and men, while hypocritically pretending the statements are neutral, honest, fair, factual, and/or morally right... As it is throughout most media and academic sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So most academics and media are biased, unfair, false and immoral? That is definitely a POV generalized statement if there ever was one. LinoPop (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)