Talk:Racism/Archive 9

Archive 9 | Archive →

Vlaams Belang
I slightly disagree with the data on "Vlaams Belang" (the former "Vlaams Blok"). I am Belgian, Fleming, but don't vote for this party and think I have a more or less neutral opinion regarding this subject. There is more than one party in Flanders who advocates complete separation of Flemish and Walloon parts, and indeed, a confederalist attitude with as much individual autonomous power for Flanders as possible is the current stance of all Flemish parties and the whole of Flemish politics. So it is rather silly to single out "Vlaams Belang" in this regard. This has nothing to do with racism whatsoever.

Furthermore, "Vlaams Belang" has never been sentenced for racism. Its predecessor, "Vlaams Blok", has had several non-profits found guilty of discrimination. "Vlaams Belang" does have a hard stance on immigrants, perhaps harder than most would like, but this is a far cry from what constitutes 'racism' or a conviction therefore for the current party.

It's a controversial subject locally, and one may wonder if this discussion or the party itself belongs in this article. However controversial, I think it's not the best example of racism.

wvh

"Rebuttal"
I removed this link that was added after the PBS link:
 * And from American Renaissance, a "pro-white" publication, [ http://www.amren.com /0306issue/0306issue.html#article1 Race Denial: The Power of a Delusion], a detailed critique seeking to refute the film.

Now this is not because I don't believe that counter-points should not be given or heard out. But AmRen is not a scientific organization and they are known for their racist advocacy. The link is not high quality in any sense, it appeals to the basest conceptions of race and racism, with a marginal understanding of the science behind such distinctions. If we want to provide counter-points, let us make them worthwhile ones. Otherwise there is little justification for not including Neo-Nazi "counter-points" to every statement in this article. That's not how NPOV works. There are "serious" critiques of the anti-racialist approach, let us use them if any. --Fastfission 17:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's hard to imagine what could constitute serious opposition to mainstream anti-racism but would also pass muster under your criteria. PBS and California Newsreel are not scientific organizations either.  However, like AmRen, they have marshalled scientists and opinion writers to help put forward their views.  Ironically, AmRen has often been evaluated with alarm as more dangerous than other groups by anti-racists because of the quality of its writing and its calm and scholarly tone.  In any event, your subjective assesment, heavily influenced by your personal opinions on the subject matter, of whether AmRen's view of race is "worthwhile" or "base" or whether the piece's writing is "high quality" is not sufficient grounds for removal.  You will simply have to tolerate the occasional link to an article you disagree with, even strongly.  I will restore the link soon unless given an convincing reason why not. LeoO3 20:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of scientific sources out there which argue for the meaning of the term race. The PBS site was composed with the insight of experts from a wide variety of disciplines. The AmRen article was written by a guy without enough accountability to use his real name while publishing. If you are not familiar with actual scholarly work on the concept of race, I suggest taking a look at the article Race, which cites quite a bit of it on all sides of the debate. Your ignorance of the scope of the literature and what counts as a realistic critique does not entitle you to inserting links to poor articles. The article you want to link to does not even come up to the standards of some of the worst of the racial science. I'm not sure you really know what my personal opinions on the subject matter are, by the way. I'm a historian, and I spend a lot of my time reading articles on all sides of this debate. There are better pro-race articles and arguments out there. If you restore the link, I will revert it. Your time will be better spent finding a better-quality link. --Fastfission 21:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * None of this is convincing. You are correct that the biologist author's use of a pseudonym detracts from its credibility and accountability.  However, one can imagine a reasonable motive for his doing so (fear of negative career consequences for asserting highly controversial opinions), rather than leap to assume a desire to avoid subjecting shoddy research and writing to criticism.  Your flat assertion without evidence that I am ignorant of other writing on the topic, or have not read Wikipedia's race article, is rude.  Unlike you, I have not characterized any participant in this debate in a positive or negative way; you tipped your hand to your agenda long ago.  Let me recommend that you read or re-read Wikipedia's NPOV article.  While widely rejected opinions held by a small minority should not necessarily command equal space, they should be acknowledged or linked to at least occasionally, and identified as such with genuinely fair language.  My identifying the source as "pro-white", (with the slightly disparaging scare quotes no less), constitutes sufficient such warning.  Finally, the fact that the article specifically sought to refute the film in question, rather than being a vague and only slightly relevant article, made it interesting and relevant.  Your attempts at viewpoint censorship are highly inappropriate.  LeoO3 23:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Questionnaire
http://www.my3q.com/go.php?url=meiosis/accusedracism

I deleted this addition because I could not see how this odd questionnaire gave information to the reader, or even accomplished a legitimate academic purpose. -Willmcw 22:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I donno about you, but it brought tears of laughter to my eyes ;) Sam Spade 01:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is this post relevant to this page? Why are you not spamming?  LeoO3 23:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has a stake in any proposal to change a policy, especially people who might be opposed to it. I am obliged to publicize this as much as I can. It is not spamming because it is neither a stupid nor pointless message. The point is: people should know that there is a proposal. It is there choice whether they want to check it out, and their right to voice any opinion, pro or con. But they cannot do that if they do not know about it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  01:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

About the picture...
By definition, wouldn't that picture be slightly inappropiate. It is an example of racism - but more precisely, an example of segregation. I am new at editing articles, and cleaning things up - so instead of just deleting the picture, I decided to ask you all first.

Spam
In the Canada section there is a spam-link to "buyphentermineonline . t35.com" - could it please be removed? --Kristjan Wager 19:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racism in the Modern World
This section is clearly skewed towards liberal conceptions of white-guilt. I would ask anyone to contribute knowledge to this section by adding examples of racism by peoples of non-euro origin. EG, Malaysia, Singapore, China, Japan, Islamic concepts of dhimmitude and actions in Sudan, Lebanon and dhimmitude in other muslim states or write about countries like Russia, etc... The Khoisan concept of 'non-human' peoples, the chinese term 'hei-guai' or 'ri ben guai' or a paragraph on Han chauvanism? (to say there is no such thing as a non-western term of race is pure revisionism. In particular to say the chinese treat all foreigners in the same way? China is 96% Han Chinese, including Tibet and Xinjiang, which doesn’t give them a great many chances for expressing their racism in everyday life. Unfortunately this racial monotony also means that they have been unable to get over it, so when you come along you become the focus unless you are some sort of 'cute' eurasian, who they consider superior to themselves anyway. How about a section on pygmies treatment by the bantu? unless its only possible to be genocidal if you are white.

Theres no point in calling this section Racism in the Modern World, may as well call it 'whitey is evil -heres why'.

- In saying what you just said, I can already guess some of your political leanings. "Liberal conceptions of white guilt"? It's not a conception, it's a fact that many whites were racist in the past, though judging by the fact that there are people like you around, I think that many whites don't feel guilty for it. In fact, I think that white racism is increasing, rather than decreasing, nowadays because of things like Islamic fundamentalism, the rise of Asian nations, and right-wing blather about "preservation of Western culture" all of which combine to make whites feel rather thereatened. Anyway, the reason why this topic focuses (and should focus, in my opinion) on white racism is because if racism could be quantified, whites have always been the "most racist" of all races. Starting from the beginnings of the Colonial Age in the 15th Century, and the West's rise to world dominance, culturally, technologically, economically, and militarily - well, if they thought themselves the "best" at that time, don't you think that would make them more racist towards others? Not only that, but whites had Christianity to help them feel superior to other races. On the topic of other races' racism, the reason why they're not as well known as white racism is precisely because they did not have as much impact on the world as white racism did. On the other hand, you, who are almost certainly white, have devoted quite a lot of study to the racism of other races, instead of focusing on the blatantly obvious, your own race's racism. I wonder why - shifting blame, perhaps? For example, it's true that China and Japan, Oriental cultures, had a very superior view of themselves in the past, believing themselves to be the only civilized culture on Earth, and all other peoples: other Asians, Africans, even Europenas, to be barbarians. However, the big difference between this racism and that of the West was that China and Japan showed it by isolating themselves and cutting themselves off from foreign contact and influence. The West, on the other hand, actively tried to subjugate other races and countries. Japan's involvement in World War II? If you remember your history, that happened precisely because Japan was opened up, [i]by the West[i/] and were influenced by Western imperialism. They wanted to copy the West. In short, whites were responsible, again. - a concerned Filipino

- stephenf please dont append idiotic thoughts to this post.

I'm surprised that the gross imbalance in the Racism in the Modern World section is only mentioned once here....I am an Asian American and I can assure you that racism DOES exist in at least the asian community and historically, has existed in some form or another in most societies throughout the long evolution of human civilization.

-arnen


 * It is clear that there will be a lot of so called "white" countries included in this section. That is because the authors of the Wikipedia and the English section are mainly from these countries and are more familiar with these issues. I did try to redress this by putting various countries names, plus the comment "No racism in Country X" in order to get a discussion going. This was considered by some "trolling", but it was more aptly described laziness on my part. It was interesting to see that these countries soon had good useful text in them.
 * I don't believe this article is targeting certain countries. People are sometimes reluctant to highlight racism in their own communities, as it others can get a negative view of their country that they love. This is very understandable. I would really hope this whole article explains racism everywhere in the past and now. In particular success stories should be included as to how countries overcame it, or at least some of it, ie the way forward. Wallie 08:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Racist-dominated future
Do all racist organizations have plans for world domination or dividing the world among themselves? Does Al-Qaeda have plans for global genocide against the people of their enemies? Are their plans going to spark an post-apocalyptic future world war? -- Ed Telerionus 8 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

Added a bit on Japanese racism - feel free to fix it up if you have good things to put in. :)

Edededed 02:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Edededed: Thanks for the contribution. I carefully compared it to the dedicated article and found that it overlapped 90%, so I changed this section to a link to that article. The concrete examples you gave are all in the dedicated article. There's a lot of people working on the other article so it seems better to point to it instead. A few of the points you made were a little general and need some kind of reference to back them up. Though I don't necessarily disagree with your points, a hot topic like this one needs to be very thorough. Ken6en 09:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Racism occurs less in areas of higher education? NPOV?
"There are far fewer occurences of racism in areas where the population is more highly educated." Is this something that can just be stated with no links to supporting statistics. I just ask because some people believe that there is simply less "open" or "obviously" racism in more educated regions... Lisa 06:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That’s what a lot of people say, but I think racial discrimination is at least equal a problem for the educated as well as uneducated. I think discrimination is applied in the academic sense with educated people more so than uneducated people, via scientific studies, history, broadcasting, articles, etc. And educated racism does a lot more damage. --Vehgah 16:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Racism in Switzerland
This article suggesting that Swiss people won't sit beside black people is laughable. I have lived as an Auslander in Switzerland, and while the Swiss appear stand offish, they are like that to other Swiss too! The comments on Switzerland are completely false. I will remove them soon, if someone else doesn't. The Swiss bend over backwards not to be racist, and if anyone makes a complaint, I can assure you that the racist is in big trouble. Wallie 17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right Wallie. Some prat with a heavy axe to grind (possibly some left-wing nitwit)keeps changing it....but not to worry...I will keep removing any incorrect anti-swiss gibberish... Cheers!

Kj

No personal attacks, please: phrases like Some prat with a heavy axe to grind (possibly some left-wing nitwit) are calculated to cause annoyance and are not acceptable here. ➨ ❝ REDVERS ❞ 20:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Neither should be inaccurate, biased, politcally-loaded either. Thought Wikipedia was about content...not contempt. Please change your anti-swiss info or I will be back to change it ...as often as it takes.

Racism in France
The sentence "there is no racism in France is utterly stupid, btherfore i deleted it. What i have written instead is both short and innacurate, but i'm not really the person to write that article. (I'm Norwegian and doesent realy know french society that well. Would be glad if someone could do that.


 * I took French for about a year so got to know French people. The idea there is no racism in France I don't think is anything they'd agree. Although from what I gathered the tensions are more ethnic then racial in the US manner. African-Americans who go to France, like Josephine Baker or Richard Wright, were warmly accepted. Although interestingly I saw a movie Josephine Baker was in where the characters mocked her, from Africa, character as bad smelling and obviously stupid. This was portrayed as wrong, but not as unheard of. It represents that those from Africa, especially if they are of former colonies, got quite a different reception then African-Americans did. Although French ethnic hostilities I think are traditionally directed more at Algerians, the Romany, and Jews instead of at African blacks. Still some of the French celebration of "negritude" stated things like "Hurray for Africans because they didn't try to accomplish anything. They just played drums and had fun instead!" The image of Africans as childlike happy people was common in French imperialist circles.


 * Also I get the sense some of those changes were made by someone ticked off at New Zealand as they stated "New Zealand and South Africa have long been considered the most racist nations." I've rarely if ever heard New Zealand equated with South Africa on racism issues. I've rarely even it heard it equated with Australia.--T. Anthony 00:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am guilty about puting in the comment about there not being racism in Frnace. I did it about some other countries too, as there were no remarks. This implied that readers would think that there was only racism in the countries mentioned. Someone said that was trolling, but laziness is probably more accurate, as I wanted people to add something about other countries, which I suspect may have racism too, and was too lazy to do the work myself. I do note that this did have the desired effect though.
 * As I have also mentioned before, I would not take this approach now, as I know a little more about Wikipedia. Wallie 19:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

NAACP wars
I'm hesitant to mention it, but it seems like there's been an odd edit war with someone insistent on putting the NAACP in the list of racist orgs. Is there anything they can do here to just block really dumb things like that?

There are many people who consider the NAACP a racist organization.Nnoppinger 14:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact that list of alleged racist organizations thing seems tricky even for an article like this. It doesn't take much effort to add or subtract an organization. Further just about any politically active organization has been alleged by, even credible sources, to be racist. In the US I've seen credible people declare that the Democratic Party, the GOP, Planned Parenthood, National Right to Life Committee, Christian Coalition, Congressional Black Caucus, etc are racist. In the rest of the world things can be similar. I hope I'm not making things worse by mentioning this.--T. Anthony 04:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are right to mention the problem. I think there is a difference between the article listing organizations that openly declare that one race is good and another race is bad, and listing organizations that this person or that person judges to be racist.


 * What is the point of listing racist organizations if the purpose of the article is to explain what racism is? If there were a need for anybody to have an example in order to be able to comprehend the definition, I guess one or two examples would not hurt anything. On the other hand, a list of all the arguably racist organizations in the world could get quite long. What purpose would a long list serve? Should we divide the list into (1)admittedly racist organizations, (2)organizations generally thought to be racist, (3)organizations thought by many to be racist, (4) organizations thought by a few to be racist? Or should we list organizations and their accusers in some kind of table?

P0M 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Until I get more confirmation to take the list out, or separate it into its own article, I'll likely not remove it. Although I'm glad to see my concerns aren't off the scales. Tell you what I'm going to see what results if I cutback the list a great deal to limit it to groups less debatable. I'll likely get some howls of protest, unless someone already did this so I don't have to, but it's worth a shot.--T. Anthony 07:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I know I said there are credible groups that call almost anything racist, but maybe requiring a source will add a helpful obstacle for people who have a grudge against some group.--T. Anthony 00:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Malaysia, Sri Lanka
Shouldn't Malaysia and Sri Lanka be included in the list of countries?

I haven't read the entire article yet, so it might already be there, but I think significant the fact that "affirmative action"-type policies always favor minorities in western nations but frequently favor the majority in non-western ones (Malaysia and Sri Lanka being examples of the latter).


 * Malaysia is mentioned in "expressions" and there is a link to an article on bumiputra. Sri Lanka perhaps deserve a mention, but I'm not sure it has one.--T. Anthony 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a smidge for both countries. Although in both cases there seems to be articles on the issue of ethnic or racial conflict in their nations so I just linked to those articles.--T. Anthony 08:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Important
1) Lets try to bring some positive viewpoints into this very important article. What are countries trying to do to improve the situation. Where are the success stories, where there was racism, and now it is mostly gone. I often feel when reading articles like this that it is all doom and gloom.

2) I honestly feel that the racism is probably less now than it was in the past. At least it is now more out in the open. Contributors could maybe split the historical racism from what is happening now. For example, the White Australia Policy, Apartheid in South Africa and what happened in Nazi Germany are highly relevant in a historical sense. But in these countries, hopefully, things are quite different now. Wallie 19:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Tell Anthony Walker, the black student murdered for his skin colour in Liverpool a few months ago, that racism is now 'mostly gone'. Or look at the front pages of some of the British right-wing press. Fair enough, this article makes a depressing read - but then it's a depressing subject. Ericatom 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Swiss 2
I have modified the article on Switzerland to remove the false bits and some of the emotive language, eg, POV. The other pieces about the SVP trying to review the immigration policy are largely true, so they can remain. Even offical reports are not good reference material, as these are often political in nature. The report is also in French, which is unusual. Does this only apply to the French part of Switzerland? Wallie 20:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it is available in German and Italian as well; there are links to pick the language at the top right of each page. Thanks for the changes - hopefully they will discourage the repeated vandalism of this section. Coming back to the report, as an official document, it can probably not be ignored, even if it may be political. After a quick search, I found some news articles about the report itself (e.g. http://www.swissinfo.org/sfr/swissinfo.html?siteSect=106&sid=5494774, in French), but nothing criticising it so far. Schutz 07:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope that the section on Switzerland is now reasonably fair. Wallie 15:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Germany
There is no data on Germany, just some mention of events around 1940, which probably refers to the somewhat unusal circumstances then. I am considering moving this material to a separate article and referencing it, similar to the Australian section. Wallie 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Follow up. I have now moved the detail regarding the Nuremberg Laws during the Nazi period of 1933-1945 to its own separate. article. Some of this article is also in the main Nazi racial policy article. Both are now referenced. Contributors may like to add information about Germany which is a little more up to date. Thank you. Wallie 19:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent update, Fastfission. Wallie 17:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the US section
The U.S. section is extremely poor. It originally started out with a ridiculously POV paragraph (I may agree with parts of it myself, but that doesn't make it any less unacceptable for Wikipedia) and then it goes on to two long paragraphs on Bacon's rebellion, skips directly to the Emancipation Proclaimation (no note of the slave issue in 19th century much less even a note about the Civil War!), and then skips about 100 years to the 1950s and 1960s where it rattles off about four organizational names (no real discussion of changes that took place in those years), and then skips to a strange and lackluster discussion of changing population statistics.

What is needed is a better historical perspective, one which can balance the various interpretations against each other and see them as a bit more symptomatic of the issue of race and racism being highly charged and contested in modern viewpoints. Any attempt to talk about the case of racism in the USA must discuss the origins of the Civil War a bit better, should discuss other aspects of race and racism besides African-American (for example, Chinese-American racism on the West Coast, and racism in regards to the Irish and Jews in the North East), and should definitely discuss the 1950s-1970s in a bit more detail &mdash; how they radically changed the debates on race and racism and worked to make it the highly-charged issue it remains today. It would be ideal if a note or two about the various ambivalences and ambiguities about race/racism/multiculturalism in the 1980s and 1990s were covered (constant raising of the question of whether race is still an issue, whether racism still exists, etc.) but at the moment I could live without that if the others were there.

It needs some serious work. I'm happy to try and help but I don't have very much time to devote to this at the moment. --Fastfission 00:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I note that you have taken out the split between Past History and Recent Events. I think it is quite important, as the whole article seems to have a lot of history and not much current stuff, not just for the US. I do think that given the topic, the racism article is surprising free of bias, except many countries are missing. But this is probably due to the fact that no one has got around to this yet. I do think that the US article could be improved along the lines you mentioned. But we don't want much this whole article to be about the US only, though. In the whole world, the racism in the US would only represent a small part, given that it only has 5 percent or so of the world's population, and so 5 percent of the racism, maybe. You could write as much about Russia, probably more as it has been around longer. The POV lead you mention should maybe moved somewhere else in the article. We don't really want the racism section to include bad news only, do we? Some nice success stories would be great too. Wallie 07:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Past History" is a redundant name, and starting "Recent Events" with the 1960s seems extremely arbitrary to me. I didn't see a great reason for the division, to be honest -- the whole thing is currently an extended history because there is nothing on the last 20 years or so. Obviously I'm not asking for the entire article to be about the U.S. -- I'm talking specifically about the sub-section, with the recognition that it should be very brief (there is a larger article for more expansion), but needs to cover the basics. "Bad news" and "success stories" are not the issue here; there are simply more or less neutral ways of writing things. --Fastfission 15:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe we are talking from the same script. I was just trying to speak plainly, when mentioning "bad news" and "success stories". All I am trying to avoid is the whole article dwelling on the negative aspects. The reason for the division was to split the big sections. Most traditional encyclopedias seem to emphasis the present day events when the encyclopidia was written. Of course the historical part leads up to the present. Anyway from the tone of what you are writing and your modifications, you would have few disagreements from me. Keep up the good work! Wallie 17:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Canada
Re: "Canada has been perceived as practicing systemic, institutionalized racism by allowing employers to require Canadian-based job experience in a potential employee. This puts landed immigrants at a clear disadvantage, and can often result in highly educated people working for much lower pay than their Canadian educated counterparts, or even struggling with a minimum wage job."

Question: Is this part of Canadian Law, which employers must obey, or is it "simply the way we do things around here"? The text is very important, as it could start a nasty and dare I say unwelcome trend, if followed in other countries, but it must be clarified as to what exactly is going on in Canada. Wallie 09:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

My contribution: Canada is a working example of multiculturalism, but it obviously isn't perfect: while I met many immigrant taxi drivers with Ph.D.s, I also see a great deal of people from different ethnic backgrounds being introduced to "higher", more publicly visible positions (university professors, physicians, MPs, GGs, etc. the list is ever-growing). Progress is happening, but mentalities at the whole population scale can't evolve that fast. I'd also be willing to know more about how people in other countries are open to those perceptions; not saying that we do it better, but I happen to believe that issues of ethnic minorities, sexism, etc., within Canada, benefit from lots of public interest and attention in the medias and else. That doesn't make anybody less racist, but the talk is there, and the will for peaceful neighbourhood is there too. Does an often difficult context of integration deserves to be branded institutionalised racism? I don't think so. As an immigrant, one needs to integrate to a certain extent to the ways of other countries. If local knowledge (Canada is huge, and very different from coast to coast) and linguistic capabilities are factored in job interviews and employees' appraisals, it is obvious that some sort of institutionalised segregation will make the integration of people from other countries difficult. The inverse, a utopia, would be to create a world society, with perfect blending; but utopia = out of reach. I believe the above paragraph should reflect that it's probably more a factor of local knowledge and experience of the country than any specific ethnic origin if immigrants have trouble integrating: so I don't perceive that as racism. I also believe that ruling bodies should promote better, clearer systems of recognition and comparison of foreign degrees and experience. But this goes over the aim of this article. Frankidou, 21-11-2005, 18:14.
 * Great. I know exactly what you are saying. This is clear favoritism (a nice word for racism), and goes on in (most?) other countries too. It is definitely there in most of the countries I have worked in anyway. I should have read it more carefully, as the word perceived is in there, and it is clear that it is not law per se. Thanks for the update. Wallie 13:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The section on Canada, doesn't help in any way the definition of Racism. It simply goes on in a tangent about a particuliar anecdotal issue of employment, and does not substantiate what the problem is, it simply uses general vague statements (which lead to questions such as yours.  Big red flag: it all starts with "Canada has been perceived..."  implying that this perception is universally agreed upon.

In fact, this whole per-country section is globally useless and is only a tool of activism, not of information. Note that the history of Canada and north america as a whole, including the treatement of the aborigine, is related in several other places where people are more likely to be looking for it.

Good articles on "Racism"
This can add to a more balanced article: http://stormfront.org /whitenat/racism.htm http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/what_is_racism.pdf

OK.

The first article seems to go on about the poor misunderstood white man. Well he does hold most of the power at the moment, doesn't he? Other groups have been badly affected in the past by him. It will do him no harm to have a good look at himself, maybe feel the odd pang of guilt, and try to improve the situation so we can all live together on this small planet. After all, it is the one in power who can most easily change things. Wallie 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Physician, heal thyself. The "poor misunderstood white man" does not "hold most of the power": certain white guys hold a lot of power, but to ascribe that power to the entire white male population is to engage in the rhetorical distortion that racists employ. --Kevin

I love the idea that Stormfront, an openly racist white-supremacist group, could have anything 'balanced' to say in a discussion on racism. Ericatom 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The second article points out that that problems of mankind not getting along is not just due to racism. This is true. But this article is trying to concentrate on this problem. Other articles are covering the social inequalities, politics, religious differences, etc, etc, not necessarily caused by racism. Wallie 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong
Chinese people in Hong Kong are exceptionally sensitive to derogatory terms against Chinese and would react angrily when racially insulted. However, the Chinese in Hong Kong are well known for shamelessly using derogatory terms against other races. It is most unfortunate that Chinese in Hong Kong, especially Chinese men, have gained the reputation of being racist to the core. Whenever there are any social discussions in Cantonese about foreigners or other races, racial epithets or derogatory terms are used openly and without hesitation. Comments about other races are usually negative and accompanied by racial jokes and laughter. No Chinese in Hong Kong would deny that this is the truth. Prior to 1997, foreigners and Chinese have lived happily and harmoniously for over 100 years and this shows that racial harmony can achieved if there is will. Racial prejudice and rejection of foreigners (pai-ngoi) have escalated considerably since 1997. This is creating a undesirable image for Hong Kong. Most foreigners living in Hong Kong have been complaining about social isolation and the lack of interaction with the local Chinese. No Chinese in Hong Kong would deny that the majority of the children are taught how to discriminate against foreigners and as soon as they know how to walk and talk. Chinese are fed with all sorts of negative comments about foreigners at a tender age. Hong Kong Chinese generally do not refer to foreigners by their nationalities and instead would assign a derogatory name for each race or nationality, for example, Kweilo(Ghost Man or devil for whites), Hung-So-Luk-Ngan-kwei(Red bearded green eyed Russian devils), Lopaktau(Japanese Radish shorties), Bunmui (Filipina worker), Hak-kwei(Black devils), Mei-Kwok-Kwei(American devils) and even worse insults against the Indian, Pakistani or South Asians. Chinese do not hesitate to use these derogatory terms openly in public and one can hear these references everywhere in Hong Kong or even on primetime television or radio. It is no so much about skin color, because Chinese are people of color also, but rather it is inadequacies or insecurities of the Hong Kong Chinese men. A respectable Chinese is not expected mix with foreigners socially. A good decent Chinese girl would no go with whites or other foreigners. A Chinese girl having a white boyfriend would soon be told to check if she has caught AIDS. White are generally thought to be sexually promiscuous and are likely to be AIDS carriers. A white male with a Chinese male socializing on the streets are seen as homosexuals. As for private employment, preferences are given to Chinese over foreigners, including whites despite. Since 1997 Hong Kong Chinese seem unwilling to co-exist with other nationalities. Attempts by the authorities to educated the public on racial harmony failed badly and the problem went from bad to worse. It has apparently gone to far and Chinese residents are worried about these developments considering it is affecting Hong Kong's status as an center for international trade and commerce.[ http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2006/04/hong_kong_confr.php]

Scotland
Re: Some feel that in parts of Scotland there is a culture of so called "Paki bashing" meaning anyone who resembles a Pakistani) particularly among younger men. An instance of such crimes is reported here [9]. Several items regarding racism in Scotland are reported here [10].

However, it is encouraging to see that the Scottish authorities and people are well aware of the problem and are trying to tackle it.

Hi. I was responsible for putting up this text, and some people are obviously not happy about it. I know it puts Scotland in a bad light, but it is happening there. People can dismiss this as just "football culture". This amounts to lame diversionary tactics. The problem must be confronted honestly and head on. I lived in Scotland for a while, and saw these things at first hand. The articles also support it, and anyone who lives in Edinburgh especially, will know exactly what I am talking about. You will note that I also mentioned that authorities and people are trying to tackle the problem. It is clear that there are plenty of decent minded people in Scotland too, and they are also appalled at this sort of behaviour. Wallie 20:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not object to factual, sourced information being posted about this topic and have left such material intact. I do have a problem with the lack of sources and with the use of weasel words. If there is a "culture" of "paki-bashing" find references which describe the culture using this term - a term which was coined in England and commonly used there. If true, it should be easy enough. However, Wikipedia is not for "original research" nor is it for documenting your own personal experiences. 82.13.187.155 09:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "paki bashing" may have been coined in England, but the pity is that it actually occurs mainly in Scotland, and the English are rightly alerting us to that fact. Wallie 18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is there an "United Kingdom" section and a separate "Scotland" section? As things stand, it appears from this article that the "paki-bashing" takes place in Scotland but that Stephen Lawrence was murdered in the United Kingdom. Seems somewhat POV. Rhion 12:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Racism in various countries???
I noticed there is a large hunk of this article devoted to discussing the history of racial discrimination in mostly western countries (USA, Australia, UK, European countries, etc) and only very few Asian or African countries. Could some members please contribute to the impartiality of this article by providing a balance - ie. sections about racism in Indonesia, Sudan, Singapore, China, Japan, etc.


 * Dont forget to include South Africa, India and Namibia Omoo 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely right. You have to remember though, that most of the contributors to articles are from those countries which have more coverage. Remember that just because there is more written about a country, doesn't mean to say the problem is worse than some other country with little said/not there. I would like personally to add something about the countries you mention/not there, but am not an expert on them. That is the problem. It is not really bias in my view, just not enough expertise. Wallie 18:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a little easy, it certainly looks biased. This section should be as complete as possible, or not there at all. The information given is most of the time also highly disputed or just wrong. Like the two sentences about the Netherlands. Neither Fortuyn nor Van Gogh where racist nor seen as such. Fortuyn wanted stricter immigration laws and a more active integration policy. Van Gogh disliked religious fanaticism and took a stance against Islamic fundamentalism. True, both where controversial because of what they said, but not because they where racist. [26 may 2006]

racism and racial discrimination
I think there should be a greater emphasis between the two terms "racism" and "racial discrimination". "Racism" is essentially the belief that the human species is divided by physiological differences into "races". "Racial discrimination" (which this article focuses on) is discrimination based on "race". There seems to be in this article (not to mention the media) a confusion between the two.


 * No, racism is not just the belief that humans can be categorised into races. Is sexism the belief that there are men and there are women? Ericatom 20:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed split
I think the article is way too long and not very encyclopedic, in part because of the lengthy "racism by country" section. Would it be so wrong to make a separate article for these summaries? Racism around the world or something of this manner? That way the article could focus primarily on a generalized "racism" without having to list every little bit of the history of world racism. --Fastfission 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A wonderful idea. I'd support that. I'll just note that there is a completely unreleated article Race Around the World about an Australian show, but I don't think that that matters. BCorr | Брайен 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds OK to me to. Wallie 14:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
The definition of racism is faulty: Racism is a belief and not a "system of oppression". This article abuses the English language, and is designed in such a way as to make it impossible to accuse minorities of racism. This is blantantly unfair, and is "racially prejudiced" itself. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.40.210.35 (talk • contribs).

The following link shows the various definitions of racism. All of these definitions have the same theme. For example, one definition mentions: "The inherent belief in the superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance.".

So, to cover your points: Correct ''Nope. It is a system of oppression. This is what the definitions say.'' ''It may do. You can always correct it.'' ''You are absolutely correct to say that minorities can practice racism. You are quite welcome to quote instances of this in this article.''
 * Racism is a belief
 * and not a "system of oppression".
 * This article abuses the English language,
 * and is designed in such a way as to make it impossible to accuse minorities of racism.

''Again. you can always change it.''
 * This is blantantly unfair, and is "racially prejudiced" itself.

Regards. Wallie 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs were self-contradictory, since they embody at least two conflicting conceptions of racism, but don't show how they relate to each other. I've re-ordered this material and tried to make the relationship between these ideas more accurate and logical. Metamagician3000 02:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Racial discrimination ≈ "Apartheid" laws outside South Africa
Currently Racial discrimination redirects to Racism which is a very long article that explains and illustrates the phenomenon at length and provides numerous examples. The article is written mainly from a US perspective and with the mental baggage of someone well aware of recent US history. Apartheid outside South Africa has an article of its own that deals specifically with legislation based on racial discrimination, even though the term "Apartheid" is a historical term used officially only in South Africa and Namibia during the Cold War years. "Apartheid" when applied elsewhere is merely a political epithet; it is not the proper official term in those regimes whose legal and political systems are currently based on racial divisions within their societies. In other words, these countries never refer to such laws as "Apartheid laws"; it is an anacgronistic misnomer used for the effect of drawing parallels and perhaps to draw on the negative connotations of the word "Apartheid" even before the reader has had a chance to reflect for him or herself on the effects of racially discriminatory laws. Therefore, I propose moving the content of the Apartheid outside South Africa article to the redirect page Racial discrimination. //Big Adamsky 16:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Scientific racism" should be merged here
There obviously doesn't exist such thing as "scientific racism". This should be merged into "racist theories" subsection. Not doing it is allowing Wikipedia to support racism. Lapaz
 * I disagree and consider your use of the word "obviously" to be incorrect. The scientific racism article has tons of significant and highly relevant sources that would likely be lost in any merge. zen master T 23:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems merging or downplaying the existence of "scientific racism" (racism and racist advocacy with the appearance of science) does more to support racism within Wikipedia than keeping this a separate and distinct article. zen master T 00:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're pretty confused, Lapaz. There are entire books about "scientific racism" as a historical phenomena, as the scientific racism page cites. The term gets over 66,000 Google hits in quotes. "Scientific racism" is not a racist theory at all; it is a term used to describe racist theories which purport to be backed by science. --Fastfission 02:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be merged in subsection Racism where it belongs. Google hits are no arguments (beside, 66 000 is not that much for Google...) The term may be, in your view, only descriptive, I reiterate that the real term is racialism, as demonstrated by Pierre-André Taguieff for example (French expert on the study of racism). Merging it is certainly not downplaying the existence of pseudoscientifical racism. Furthermore, it must be note that almost all kinds of racism claim to be scientifically founded (to be racist, you first have to demonstrate that humanity is divided in various races, which is a total pseudoscientifical lie). Hopefully, we don't live anymore in the 1930s. I am impressed by the US common use of this word without brackets, thus legitimizing it, whereas as "Nigger", it should always be quoted (see hate speech for discussion of this), especially concerning US caution with words (politically correctness). In Europe, the word "race" is always used in brackets, and not as much. A "cultural" notion of "race" is an oxymoron, since "race" is supposed to be a biological concept. This is why it has been replaced by the concept of ethnic groups, which is not confined to biology. Lapaz


 * It is obviously a rich enough topic to have its own article, and this article is already much longer than it ought to be. Look at the over 5,800 Google Books hits if you don't think Google itself is a good enough metric. The term is used in thousands of academic press books, under the different headings of "history", "medicine", "social studies", "literary criticism", and "psychology", to name a few. It is a very common term, the standard term for what the article describes currently, and as the article itself states very clearly the term is never used to imply that the "racism" is actually scientific, but that the science is actually racist. --Fastfission 03:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As for your views on "race" as a concept -- that's fine, but you need to read WP:NPOV and take it seriously. You're advocating one POV, not some sort of universal truth. --Fastfission 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your interpretation of Lapaz's comments. Its racism portrayed as "science" and there are quite a number of historical and current examples of it. zen master T 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission writes: Look at the over 5,800 Google Books hits. I tried that search and somehow I came up 5,510 hits short. --hitssquad 13:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's really weird. When you are on page 1 to 28, it says 5950 hits. On page 29, it changes to 289. Some sort of weird Google books way of doing things I imagine, or some sort of bug. (Maybe 5950 hits within 289 different books?) But who knows. In any event, a similar search for "racism" comes up with only 278 hits at the end of it (as opposed to 375,000 hits on page 1), so I'm betting that the smaller number doesn't mean much. --Fastfission 13:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The more I play around with Google Books, the more I think this is a bug. Try any generic search term, and no matter how many hits it says it has, around pages 27-29 of the Results it will suddenly say it has only a couple hundred. I've sent an e-mail to Google Books asking about this, will post the results if I hear back from them. --Fastfission 14:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still in beta. I'm sure they are working on it or have it on their to-do list. I think their main worry right now is keeping the scanners fed. --hitssquad 14:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the MEChA listing?
What happened to the MEChA listing in the Some examples of organizations often accused of racism section? --hitssquad 13:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

part about Turkey is extremely exaggarated
"The number of fascists and racists in Turkey are extremely high. The supporters of MHP (Nationalist Movement Party of Turkey) wants a country without Kurds, Armenians and Greeks. It is normally to hear that almost everyone in Turkey hates the Greeks, especially after the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus in 1974, and many also hates the Kurds because they want to split Turkey and get their own country."

This is not true. It is obvious that this is written by an anti-turk guy. Especially the "extremely high number of fascists" and "everybody hates greeks" parts are ridiculous.

Probably a greek or an armenian wrote that dribble. I took it off and added a link to the grey wolves(which defines itself as nationalistic, but is considered facsist and racist by some) - PhantomX6 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You could exclude pictures, which seems like advocating racism more
(no comment posted besides heading) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.14.220 (talk • contribs).
 * Pictures which are clear examples of historical racism are of course highly important. Currently there are a total of three pictures, one historical photograph of segregation, and two racist stereotypes which are well captioned as examples of racism. I don't think these encourage the "advocacy" of racism. --Fastfission 00:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The definition of racism needs to be clarified
Racism is an ideology--a set of beliefs that legitimate or justify an existent set of practices--and should be defined as such. Racism, per se, is an ideology that justifies the negative, differential treatment of a specific, racial group. Racist ideologies take the form of myths concerning the origins of a group's perceived inferiority. Whether this inferiority be cultural, biological or genetic in origin, these myths, once established as fact, severely limit a group's ability to challenge the status quo and, consequently, limit the group's access to social reward. It should be stressed that racist beliefs follow discrimination; racism serves to reinforce existing differences in social power, wealth and status and perpetuate such differences intergenerationally.

A more detailed analysis of the relationship between racism and prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination is in order. The article also puts far too much emphasis on the confusion about the definition of racism; though interesting in it's own right, this ought to be the subject of a related article.

Niko481 09:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The article badly needs correction, reorganization and clarification.
The article's opening sentence defines racism. "Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed 'race'." Let's examine this definition carefully:

Racism refers to...

1) Beliefs that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race.

People discriminate. Beliefs, as far as I know, do not. And what is discrimination? Assume I don't know. And if you think the racism article is messed-up, try reading the discrimination article. In the context of racism, I would think twice about linking to it.

2) Practices that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race.

Indeed, discrimination is a range of practices--from hateful speech to segregation to genocide. Here is a good definition of racial discrimination. Unfortunately, we're trying to define racism (I believe I've offered a fair one, above). The assertion that racism is equivocal to racial discrimination is simply incorrect from a sociological POV. I'm learning that "racism equals racial discrimination" is a common misperception, and as I've stated elsewhere it deserves examination. But let's please not make the mistake of examining it here.

3) institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race.

The definintion suggests that institutions that practice racial discrimination are racist. While this sounds correct, it is problematic. Clearly, it falls short of defining racism. But more importantly, it's not necessarily true. Sometimes discrimination is not linked to prejudice (racism is a form of prejudice) at all; I believe sociologists call this normative discrimination; others call it "not rocking the boat"; "going along"; etc. In any case, discrimination is not as one-dimensional as people would like to think it is.

Presently, this article is in danger of drowning in the debate over so-called 'racist' institutions. I believe the root of these arguments is in the article's first sentence. Until a clear and concise definition of racism is presented, expect more arguments like 'the NAACP is a racist organization' (it certainly is not). I'd amend the article, but I would like some discussion first. What I call for is pretty radical--completely restructured outline. Most of what is written is useful and informative, but misplaced.

Niko481 04:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Typo?
"It was set aside largely because Billy Hughes and Joseph Cook vigorously proposed it as it undermined the White Australia Policy"

Opposed surely?


 * there is also the "basid" comment. Also, i'm not sure this is correct.  It's been a while since I read this, but I was under the impression that Woodrow Wilson used parlimentary tactics to kill it.

Austria
The item about Austria is partly unrelated historical excurse and partly ranting about current politicians. The whole section, as it is now, is off-topic. (This is first mention of Austria on Talk including older archives.) Pavel Vozenilek 08:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. In fact, the entire "Racism by Country" section should be renamed (to "Race and Ethnic Relations by Country"), expanded (so that race relations are more fully explored, not simply instances of--sometimes arguable--racism) and moved to the "Race Relations" article (which should itself be remamed to the more precise title of "Race and Ethnic Relations").
 * Part of the problem with this section is that the article does not offer an objective definition of racism. As it is written, any instance of differential treatment against a racial or ethnic group can be defined as racism. It's a common, but inaccurate, suppostion. As racism is defined by a set of beliefs, not practices, it's notoriously difficult to substantiate a claim of racism.  Inevitably, what one ethnic group does to another ethnic group will be subjectively seen as racism.  These claims bounce back and forth and the article loses focus.  We're missing the point: Racism should be seen as an element of race relations, not the other way around. Niko481 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Critical theory of racism
I'm not opposed, of course, to having good coverage of critical theory on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how useful discussions of Deleuze or even Foucault (who I think is much more accessible as a philosopher) in an encyclopedia article about racism. As it is, the reader has to wade through a lot of high interpretation of racism before they get into some concrete understanding of the basics of racism. I don't really have the spirit to go through and edit things into a more readable level, but I don't think the current version works very well, and some aspects of it seem rather haphazard (i.e. the bit on the Japanese denunciation of racism in 1919, which seems to serve only the principle of denigrating the Australians. Amazingly, there is nothing on this page relating to Japanese racial history in WWII, and the only link we have for Japan is exclusively about modern ethnic issues in Japan). Anyway, I thought I would just note my dissatisfaction, even as someone who thinks that critical theory has a lot to bring to these questions in general; I just don't think it really ought to be the first thing a person sees when they come to a topic (I'm afraid the reaction will primarily be one of confusion, frustration, and ultimately misunderstanding). --Fastfission 22:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I should be more honest and say that I generally find Deleuze to be useless anyway, though I think Foucault is often quite useful. ;-) But I still wouldn't suggest he be the first thing people read on a given subject. --Fastfission 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess
I've just skimmed it, but throughout there is confusion between "reverse discrimination" and "reverse racism." The two are not the same. Also, "racism" is confused with bigotry"/racial bias/racialism in the section on the "Origins of racism." A major rewrite of some sections is in order.  Also, I find it exceedingly curious that a section -- inadequate as it was -- was devoted to anti-Semitism, yet absolutely nothing in the way of a separate section devoted to Afrophobia/negrophobia -- which is, by far, the most prevalent form of racism on the planet.  Absurd.

I deleted, restored, then deleted again the text related to and containing that pathetically self-loathing passage of the guy with the French name. It just didn't fit. Further, there should be a brief section on white supremacy as a corollary/twin ideology of racism directed at nonwhites. deeceevoice 09:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV paragraph
I just removed the following paragraph added by an anonymous user:


 * "The African American struggle can't even be understood clearly. I believe white people feel they are superior over every race. Even though they weren't here first they took the land and made their own. They took the rightful owners and made them slaves in a different way. Now only Indians can own casinos and things of that sort, while the struggle to unite all races still continue especially between blacks and whites. Black people continue to keep themselves down by presenting themselves negatively to the public, but the media can share the blame for that though. They never want to tell about the good things we do only the bad, and until we can really be united we'll never see peace here. How can we can try to establish peace in other countries when we're still fighting the same war that has plagued and killed this country for so many years."

While I don't agree with some of this sentiment, it is a valid, argued and significant position. However as written it seems highly POV and doesn't belong in the article as is. If the original poster can rewrite it into a NPOV tone or attribute these views properly I think they deserve adding into the article. Gwernol 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Affirmative Action definition
In the entry for Racism I found the definition under 'Related Concepts' for Affirmative action to be incorrect as 'the practice of favoring or benefiting members of a racial minority in areas such as college admissions and workplace advancement, in an attempt to counter-balance what are perceived as systemic biases towards the racial majority'.

In the United States and maybe the UK that definition might hold, however South Africa has an official Affirmative Action policy that benefits the racial majority to counter-balance the biases towards the racial minority.

Change the definition?

Yes, it is inaccurate as a definition in U.S. as well. skywriter 15:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Denmark Entry NPOV
I did a rewrite which I believe conveys the same information while refraining from the accusatory tone of this section.

...Denmark in recent times opened another box for religious racism by allowing its newspapers to violate the respect for other religions and communities.

Denmark didn't do anything other than allow freedom of the press. Only a few Danes, none of whom represented Denmark as civil servants, published these cartoons. "Religious racism" seems like an interesting accusation to me. Is criticising Islamofascism really racist? That claim could use some corroborating evidence. This article is about racism, not religious discrimination or communityism.

...The Muslims being the second majority of Denmark were termed as terrorists and their religion as source of terrorist activism.

What's a second majority? The cartoons didn't term these things, they were an act of satire regarding a current event. But, alas, my own POV just got exposed there. Anyway, I believe my revision is a bit more tactful encyclopedic.--

Just a quick note: I believe this whole topic is greatly flawed in that you tend to deal extensively with racism amongst white and Asian countries portraying them as the only racist people of the world, while ignoring the fact that racism exists extensively throughout the world amongst ALL cultures. Blacks are increasingly racist in Africa, and there is religious racism throughout the world that is not based on skin color. Your portrayal of racism seems to also focus on cultural ethnicity and ignores other forms of racism. This is accomplished by allocating racial characteristcs to various 'country' catagories. To sum up, this article is greatly flawed, and should either be removed entirely, or rewritten to exclude a focus on racism representing 'country' specific, and an almost exclusive focus on the 'white' people of the world as being the only racist people. Why not just focus on the definition and relegate racial profiles to the history section of various countries, etc? --unsigned


 * Please sign your postings.
 * I think you are basically correct. It is easy to let an article on racism become an exercise in "You are more racist than I am." There is also the problem caused when some people claim the right to decide what racism is, and to exclude many of the things anon. has referred to as something other than racism. "It can't be racism when I do it because I am in the powerless minority." Worldwide, we are all members of minority groups. We are all capable of misusing power if power is given to us in a specific situation. The principal phenomenon that needs to be understood is how ideologies can be used to facilitate domination and/or abuse of one group by another. (And sometimes two groups do it to each other.)  It can be Protestant vs. Catholic in Eire, It can be Japanese vs. Koreans (where the genetics and languages are very similar and the issues are primarily social and historical). It can be gays vs. straights. Fear of what "they" will do to "us" is one major factor in many cases. Desire for what "we" can take from "them" is another major factor. A third is unrecognized culture shock -- "The only right end to eat boiled eggs from is the way my group does it. Why can't they be normal and decent human beings?" Projecting self-hatred on an available and socially sanctioned target seems to produce especially virulent effects.  Projecting guilt works the same way.  Unfortunately for the chances of this article, the grounds of this problem in "myth" and abnormal psychology get swamped in day to day discussions in which while race is an illusion the penalties for being perceived as being a member of one race or another can be severe. So we need to deal with the trauma to society produced by irrational beliefs and behavior, and we consequently lose sight of the real causes of the problem.
 * How to find and marshall enough information to cover this topic without being accused of using original research is a big problem. Probably that is the reason that the article is so imbalanced. Like TV new programs, it's easier to just report on what all the big wigs are claiming rather than to report on who really has mange on his scalp.
 * In the 12th century, China's "St. Thomas Aquinas" wrote that the non-Chinese people living to the north and south of China were "between humans and animals." I guess that is not "racism" as narrowly defined since Zhu Xi had no concept of race, but the remark was not just tea-time conversation since it was implicitly an argument that could justify social, political, military, etc. domination of other peoples. P0M 07:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed NPOV paragraph
This paragraph appeared to be inferior in both style and substance to the rest of the intro. It conveyed a NPOV that is both subjective and dubious. The article reads better and more concisely without it. Anybody who believes that racism was exclusively a 20th century problem hasn't done their homework. Racism and racial strife have plagued every century in recorded history. The 20th century is only novel in its application of technology to the age-old routine.

I hope the removal of an entire paragraph from the intro isn't seen as sloppy or threatening. The rest of the intro is pretty sharp, concise, and balanced. --Wikitopian 16:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism as Racism
The section "Anti-Semitism as Racism" does not belong as one of the main sections of this article, especially as early on as it is in the article.

This entire section should be removed IMO, or at least moved under a more appropraite section. Thoughts??

Definition
Where does the definition "a belief system that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes" come from? It is a horrible working definition for it is not what anybody means when they say "racism". Srnec 04:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Muslim antisemitism
Someone forgot muslim antisemitism here?

Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. Muslim 41:6985

In a weekly sermon in April 2002, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs."[1]

In one of his sermons, Saudi sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam and preacher at the Al-Haraam mosque – the most important mosque in Mecca – beseeched Allah to annihilate the Jews. He also urged the Arabs to give up peace initiatives with them because they are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."

these quotes don't violate any copyright and are verifiable

thanks


 * One can as easily quote the Sephardic grand rabbi of Israel calling Arabs snakes and vermin, and can quote many passages from the old testament which condone not only racism, but also genocide. But this is neither here nor there, the Arab-Israeli conflict is mainly political and has severe religious overtones but it's hardly racial. Since when have Jews and Muslims been races?
 * To some there is a "jewish race" (see Jewfro =) ) and when it comes to Muslims, they're all Arab as far as Joe Sixpack cares. --mboverload 07:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the Muslim account of the origins of their religion, God sent prophets first to the Jews and then saw that the Arabs needed their own prophet. So originally it could not have been a religion that identified the future Muslims. It could not have been a nationality either, since the Arabs of the time were tribal groups. They worshiped a multiplicity of gods. There were two things that identified them: Language and genetics. Probably I should add cultural items to that list. Some of the ways that we decide that somebody is not "one of us" but is "one of them" are general physical appearance, language(s) spoken, and the general unspoken ways that people learn to behave in the company of the other members of their community.


 * The Koran says that all "people of the book" are equally members of the religious community. Jews and Christians are "o.k." by that standard. So, technically, religion should not be a source of division that would cause Muslims to hold enmity toward Jews. But once people start looking for rationalizations for the negative feelings the;y hold against each other, it is easy to forget what your holiest of books have to say about the matter.


 * The whole idea of "race" is cockeyed anyway, so don't expect people to make sense. Even by their own religious texts, the Jews and the Arabs should know that they speak variants of the same language and are genetically closer to each other than to other groups. And Christians who cannot tolerate the name "Allah" forget that Jesus spoke Aramaic and said "Alaha." Only identical twins are genetically identical, and even chimps are so similar genetically that there are some who argue that we and they belong in the same genus.  Where does one draw the line between "sub-sets" like northern Europeans and southern Europeans and "races" like Australian Aborigines and whites? Where does one draw the line between "dialects" and "languages"? And the differences between "different cultures" are really interesting.  What are the cultural things that may set an individual off as "one of them"?  Some of the most violent expressions of anger at "the others" have been over ways of doing things that "everybody know are wrong." Do you let people see the soles of your shoes?  Do you fail to belch after a meal in somebody else's house? Do you look at somebody's face while you are talking to them? Do you wear raggedy jeans despite not being poor? Do you eat your sandwich with your left hand? And, do you condemn others on analogous grounds? P0M 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism by country
Spain was in there twice - I've removed the second one, which was just a link to the PNV, a link which seems to me to be totally unjustified. The section on Hong Kong is a highly POV hatchet job and should either be drastically revised or deleted. In general the "racism by country" section is a mess - it is simply being used to attack countries or groups which various contributors don't like by accusing them of being racist. Rhion 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada
Re: this... ''Recently, Canada has been perceived as practicing systemic, institutionalized racism by allowing employers to require Canadian-based job experience in a potential employee. This puts landed immigrants at a clear disadvantage, and can often result in highly educated people working for much lower pay than their Canadian educated counterparts, or even struggling with a minimum wage job. This unequal footing has left many new immigrants feeling disillusioned with the entire immigration process, and segregated from Canadian culture as a whole. Both as an expression of protest, and as a means of warning potential immigrants still overseas, online groups have formed to share information and stories of victimization. [5], [6] Such experiences have led to ongoing jokes that "Toronto has the world's highest qualified taxi drivers".''

I am not a Canadian, and have flown over it, but not touched down. I am probably also responsible for some of this. I got into it by correcting someone who was being accused of vandalism, but really, it was because the English of the text was not so good. With a minimum of research, I thought it was the case. Now I am not so sure. I believe we have to set a higher standard in this article than NPOV, and be honest, especially in the area of racism!

More recently, I have asked various people, non Canadians who have worked in Canada, if it is true that Canadians are massively advantaged, and non Canadians are effectively shut out. I have spoken to a lot of people, and all assure me that this is UNTRUE. I would like to know what is really happening from people who have worked in Canada. You can be either Canadian or non Canadian. Wallie 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am Canadian, and this section seems to be accurate. See this article from the Toronto Star, "Immigrant talent being squandered" PDF HTML. ViewFromNowhere 15:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel
Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs are not different "races"; that is, in itself, a racist concept, and the genetic evidence tells the opposite story. In any event, the entire section was poorly worded original research. If you can find some reliable sources (i.e. not polemical screeds) that talk about Israeli "racism", then we'll have something to talk about. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because a population may share similar y chromosome origin doesn't mean they can't be racist to each other (i.e. British anti German/anti French/anti-Irish sentiment). Arniep 23:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ethnocentrism and racism are not the same thing, and no-one considers the English and Germans to be different "races". Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What abt the "demographic threat"? If calling the Arabs a threat and advocating their expulsion or emigration is not racism then when is racism? Robin Hood 1212 01:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Racism" is what reliable sources say is racism, not what you've made up with your own original research. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)