Talk:Racism in the United States/Archive 2

See also section
Per Guide to layout see also, I have tried to trim it down a bit. Ideally, there wouldn't even be that section. Thanks, --Tom 19:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What about Jewish Task Force?
I think Jewish Task Force should be listed among Current Hate Groups. Tip: look at the past versions of that page, or look at the official homepage itself:[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fracastorius (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since nobody argued, I have included it today in the list.--Fracastorius (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is the Jewish Task Force a hate group? &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jewish Task Force issues a lot of articles spreading racism against arabs and african-americans.--Fracastorius (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Example? Arabs I have no problem believing, but African-Americans? Oh and, please don't confuse criticism of Islam with racism. There's no racial or biological connotation with criticism of Islam. It is however, very true that Jews are indeed, behind a lot of anti-Islam movements (such as, Jihad Watch, of which David Horowitz has an involvement). But that's not the same as "racism" or "hate". I would like to see some examples to which you are pointing to. Otherwise, it might be WP:OR. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing criticism of Islam with racism. You wanted examples? Here they go. See these: http://jtf.org/israel/israel.arab.moderates.part.one.htm http://www.jtf.org/ ("the nightmare of a black Muslim President") http://www.jtf.org/america/america.when.whites.fight.for.blacks.htm http://www.jtf.org/america/america.whites.go.to.black.school.htm (For example: "What will happen to America when whites are no longer the majority in this country?/How can we prevent this catastrophe?")

Did you read them? Sorry, but this is not WP:OR. These are the bare facts.--Fracastorius (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is WP:SYNTH. I checked the original SPLC source, and they do not mention the website, so I am removing it.  Yahel  Guhan  03:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Sorry, but unless you explain that more clearly, I'm afraid I will have to keep the article without removals. Good luck!--Fracastorius (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Minority Racism - Weasel Words
The section on "Minority Racism" is tagged as offending for "weasel words" because it uses the phrase "some", such as some consider the idea of "minority racism" as controversial. I think in this case that the use of some is not weaselly but accurate. Does the editor who tagged this have an alternative for portraying an idea which some do consider as controversial without using the word? If the section is deleted then a very very important segment of this discussion would be unfairly censored, and if it is portrayed as definitively controversial without noting that only some so think then the entry would be inaccurate. LAWinans (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Racism against white Americans" weak sources, doesnt demonstrate what it claims
This section is poorly sourced and does not demonstrate what the section title indicates, "Racism against white Americans":


 * In the United States, there have been crimes committed against whites on the basis of their ethnicity. These crimes are often localized and occur in areas where whites are a racial minority. They do not receive the same media attention as other racially motivated crimes.
 * This is sourced to a "Loompanics" website, a defunct fringe survivalist site.


 * The Nation of Islam, a religious and social/political organization with the self-proclaimed goal of improving the condition of the Black people in America, has been described as espousing antiwhite and antisemitic views. and anti-white.
 * This is sourced to weak refs that do not demonstrate "Racism against white Americans", which is the name of this section.


 * Some Black nationalists propagate pseudohistory to emphasize alleged Black superiority over whites.


 * There is no indication has this demonstrates "Racism against white Americans". Absent sources that demonstrate what the section purports to present, it is being removed. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that editors check out the references for themselves. I find it interesting that you call Loompanics a "fringe survivalist" site, especially when their article as referenced in the above text is the most highly footnoted article on the list. Personally, I think you don't believe there is such a thing and racism against white Americans, as your edits in various Wikipedia articles show. Hopefully other editors will chime in with their thoughts here. Uncle Milty (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The internet is laden with fringe websites that contain heavily footnoted articles. That counts for zero with regards to reliable sources on Wikipedia. You might want to spend some time getting as familiar with that policy as you appear to spend analyzing what my "edits in various Wikipedia articles show." Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that source doesn't look reliable at all &mdash; regardless of how heavily footnoted it may be. This section appears to take one unreliable source which makes a statement, and them synthesize some other examples. --Haemo (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted Loompanics for not being a WP:RS last week. Nice bookseller in my experience, but not a WP:RS. [[Image:Smile.png|18px]] — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What about other ethnicities
The Italians and the Irish suffered plenty of racism and I saw no mention of it. I think that they deserve a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.99.109 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Italians or Irish people are considered a different race from other white people. Discrimination against Italians or Irish people may be ethnic discrimination, but it's not racism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then by that rationale, why is a Jewish section included ? 71.184.57.91 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You dont think Italians and Irish people are a diffrent race? They have the same color skin, but thats where the similarities end. White in general is not a race. "White" is comprised of many different races. Irish, Italian, Greek, German, Jewish, Swedish, and many others. They are all races. Not ethnic groups. So it is racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew R. Smith (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish and Italians are of course the same race: they are both white Europeans. They also obviously have some genetic differences. Not only that, within Italy itself there are differences. Italians from the north are taller, and are more likely to have blue eyes or blonde hair. These Italians are close to the Alps are usually "Alpine" European. "Alpine" Europeans have rounder faces than Nordics, and lighter skin than Mediterraneans. The Italians from the south are mostly Mediterraneans. They are shorter and have darker skin, hair and eyes. In Europe there are generally three racial sub categories for ethnic differences: Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean. Nonetheless, of all races, white Europeans have the littlest genetic variation. Much of the Irish population is descendants from Normans or Vikings. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that there was "racism" in America against the Irish. The Irish and Germans were some of the first settlers of America, right along side with the British. At one time a lot of Irish people were poor or even starving from the Great Famine, and other white Americans thought that they were lazy and shouldn't be coming to the U.S. A similar case is for the Germans. Benjamin Franklin was afraid that they were overrunning America, because they where strongly holding on to their language. There was never any racism against Irish or Germans, because they are both not only white, but also generally Nordic. Whether or not there was racism against Italians is trickier. I would say that circumstances such as religion and language was the largest factor in their discrimination, although their Mediterranean ethnicity may have also played a role. --77.185.238.100 (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, "race" is an elastic term. Irish, Jews, and many others, were once considered "races." People threw the term around pretty freely. Whether it makes sense to consider that obsolete usage in this article is another question. IronDuke  03:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reopen the article for new editing
Can someone with access to unlock articles please do so to this one? Someone locked this article from any future edits like an anonymous IP editor wrecked it or something else I don't know. I appreciate if anyone went ahead to take care of my request. Thank you + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

ACLU?
in the articale under the lists of anti-racism groups it says puts the ACLU this is not really true while they dont support racism there have been several times they have defended the KKK and various Neo-nazi groups in court

Agreed. The ACLU is pro-civil liberties, regardless of the racist nature of said activities. http://www.channel3000.com/news/381962/detail.html should make that pretty clear... 74.211.44.245 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Asians and African Americans
The entire section involving racism between asian and african americans is incomplete, biased, and completely out of place. It's simply a collection of large quotes from unknown/irreputable people. Quotes are fine, but they ought to be used in conjuction with factual statements. An entire section cannot be one huge quote. Also, the quotes unintentionally lead readers to believe that the racism between blacks and asians goes one way: the blacks harass the asians. In every example of racism, both sides are always to blame, and that should be represented throughout this section. For these reasons, I am completely removing the section relating to black-asian racism, and hope that someone will eventually re-write it in a more in-depth, and balanced way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenosagian (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hispanophobia and the use of language
Caesar was a great conqueror, so was Alexander the Great, but the Spanish Conquistadores just thugs and on top of that they murdered and destroyed those Amerindians. The funniest part is that to see Amerindians or Mestizos being a majority in an American country you have to go south of the Border: Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia, etc. How come? Most of those people living in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America are fully or partly Amerindians? And where are they in North America? There must be some mistake here. Well, I know, they are not Amerindians, because they were killed by the Spanish, so they must be Spanish.

PS. How the Amerindians became Spanish to suit the Black Legend and Anglo Propaganda, a short story.

What I propose is a debate that should end up in a contribution to the article following these lines:

Hispanic means Spanish in the same way as Anglo means English. Why is Hispanic all inclusive of people who come from former Spanish colonies while Anglo refers only to white people? Why do Pakistanis or Jamaicans or US citizens whose first language is English but who ar not white are not Anglos?. Is this not a clear example of the unprecedented racism existing in the US (probably with the exceptions of South Africa and Nazi Germany). Is it not overtly racist these differences in usage in these two cases. Maybe there is a relationship to the Black Legend, much more popular in the US than in Europe? Language is the main builder of the perception of reality. So, why not analyse these obvious issues. Or are these differences in usage just a coincidence? Are they naive? Or they hide something much more important? I think this issue should be discussed to enrich the article. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.45.50 (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

False Information About Indian Slavery in California
"Following the 1848 American invasion, Native Californians were enslaved in the new state from statehood in 1850 to 1867.[3]"

Intriqued, I followed the link given in reference citation #3, only to discover the folowing:

http://www.ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html

"Despite entering the union as a free state in 1850, the California legislature rapidly enacted a series of laws legalizing Indian slavery. One of the laws sanctioned an indenture system similar to Mexican peonage in widespread practice throughout California prior to 1850. All levels of state, county and local governments participated in this ugly practice that evolved into a heartless policy of killing Indian parents and kidnapping and indenturing the victims children. Indian youth could be enslaved by the cruel act to the age of 30 for males and 25 for females. This barbarous law was finally repealed four years after President Lincoln's emancipation proclamation in 1863."

Clearly, the information above does not conform to the statement which claims to rely upon it for its veracity. In addition to the simple error of getting the year wrong (the practice ended in 1863, not 1867), the Wikipedia article clearly sets out to lead the reader to conclude that Indian slavery was a result of California's annexation in the the United States, rather than an old Mexican practice that was discontinued thirteen years after California was admitted to the Union. The article attempts to portray America as an initiator of California Indian slavery, rather than the force behind the abolition of California Indian slavery. Assuming the author has ordinary, adult-level reading comprehension skills, I am forced to conclude this is a deliberate attempt at deception, in order to bend this article in the direction of anti-White, racist propaganda. Needless to say, that doesn't conform to Wikipedia's standards of quality, and so I shall make the necessary adjustments. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're sure about the link about a historical issue you provided was entirely made-up and has a political agenda against white people in California? It is common knowledge here in the state that Spanish and Anglo-American settlers alike have captured (with help by US army scouts or forest rangers), placed in captivity and abused indigenous persons on their homes, farms and ranches in the 1850's when a few white settlers erroneously thought Indians "aren't human" and the state laws prohibited African slavery didn't apply to Indians. + Mike D 26 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Iranians?
The subsection regarding racism against Iranians does not appear to be focus on racism at all since Iranian is not a "race". Whoever created that section appears to have confused the concept of racism with xenophobia. The subsection should be removed or moved to a page that deals with that topic.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Racism is not specifically defined as hate on a race, if by "race" the true definition of race is implied; rather, it id often practiced against ethnic groups, such as Latin Americans. --Pgecaj (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed
"Racist attitudes, or prejudice, are still held by significant portions of the U.S population." - Is there any proof/source for this assertion? If not, the statement should be removed.

Agreed. If you follow the two sources following that statement, both refer to surveys of only minority populations, not surveys of the American population as a whole. New citation is needed, or the sentence must be reworded, or it must be removed. 74.211.44.245 (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What this article lacks
What this article lacks is an empirical description of contemporary American  racism. I think this is a flaw of the contemporary American left - to focus on the cultural discourses of racism or (even more) its history rather than  the material realities. The important questions are... How is racism practiced, and what are its effects? For example, how does housing discrimination contribute to racial segregation? How does racism affect employment and (thus) class? This means especially racism against African Americans, but here there is only a link to African American  history in general, which does not have virtually any information on the  nature of the racism they face. --Agh.niyya (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems racist what you just said. It makes it sound like African Americans are the only race that is discriminated against. We need less if that type stuff in the article. It seems like most of the article is about African-Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.82.89 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported statement
In the opening it is said

Racist attitudes, or prejudice, are still held by significant portions of the U.S. population.

There is no studies that support this statement. 1 and 2 are about minorities mistrust of each other. Regardless, what is a significant portions of US population? There is no proof that supports this statement and is just someone opinions.

This should be deleted.24.101.172.61 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Without proof the word SIGNIFICANT should be deleted. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Signifacant means nearly all but a portion so small that doesn't influence the overall number. One out of four is not Signifacant. Dtmckay (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines significant as "important, notable, consequential". I would say 25% is significant. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Read what stastical significant means for yourself. Even so you say say 25% of one small group of people contacted for a poll is a significant is your opinion. You are using the language to paint america as a land of racists and many polls will disagree with that assement. Why should this page hold on to such a word without proof. 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtmckay (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not going to get into a debate with you over the sampling methodology used for virtually every opinion poll in the United States. 25% is a statistically significant number. Anyway, the source doesn't say "a limited portion", so find a source that does. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The word substanial is no better WEBSTER refers to it as

1 a : consisting of or relating to substance b : not imaginary or illusory : real, true c : important, essential 2 : ample to satisfy and nourish : full 3 a : possessed of means : well-to-do b : considerable in quantity : significantly great 4 : firmly constructed : sturdy 5 : being largely but not wholly that which is specified

3. uses signifant and 5. says most. 25% is not most. Although I will admit 25% is to much for a civilized country. I have looked for a poll about racism in general and cannot find one that is clear. Many polls ask people how many racists are in our country but not if they themselfs are racist.

Example I think some may be a racist but just because I think so doesn't make it so. I believe the word used should be SOME or at least a quarter Dtmckay (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you would not wish to get into a debate over the sampling methodology used for opinion polls because it undermines the pollsters agenda. Dtmckay (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in a rush but if i dont say this... Jane Elliot relates to psychology prejudice, discremination and Dr. King death. brown eyes blues eyes study. very very very famous this page just needs to mention her or link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.233.58 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Kill Haole Day
This is a myth, it somehow has its own page and also is referenced mid-way through this one. I think all reference to it should be removed because it is not notable, and the cite referenced is a small newspaper article from a small newspaper a decade ago. Not only is it too distant and too insignificant to be noteworthy, it isn't even real.Shamhat456 (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Racism against Arabs
Please. Can we have one article without egregious Bush bashing? "Various critics have suggested that racism along with strategic and financial interests motivated the Bush Administration to attack Iraq even though the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction nor had any ties to Al Qaida. This has nothing to do with racism. It also happens to be untrue. While no WMD was found after Iraq was liberated, Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction twice and provided training for al-qaida, as official investigations have found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloydb39 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I Knew He was a Racist 'Cause He Didn't Vote Obama
Has the above subject been discussed in Public Image of Barack Obama? It may be labeled under hypersensitivity to honest criticisms of policies of the Obama administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.204.3 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

i am not sure whether or not
to get involved in this article, I have opinions on the subject and a wide variety of references to play with, but I thought that I'd test the waters by pointing out that the opening sentence, "Racism in the United States has been a major issue since the colonial era" seems a bit odd to me since there was no "United States" in the colonial era. Sure a bit nit-pickey, but is that not what we do here at wikipedia? Get things not just to the, "you know what we mean" stage, but past it? The standard wikipedia reply is 'Well if you don't like it, fix it,dude." and perhaps I will but first I want to check in with the folks who have been working here for years and see what they think. Life is supposed to be interesting.  Eomar   aka Carptrash (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As the existence of Colonial history of the United States, Colonial American military history, and Slavery in the colonial United States suggest, there isn't much confusion that the expression "colonial United States" refers to the colonial era in the present-day United States. If you think it's necessary to clarify the lede to say that, go ahead. Frankly, I think it's a non-issue. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-issue is good enough for me. Carptrash (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction cites affirmative action as a form of racism. This is something that is still under debate and therefore does not provide neutrality. Also it says a substantial portion of the US population still has prejudices. This is vague wording, and the sources to back up these facts, if you read them, do not show this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.130.1 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-American Hatemongers
Do you f ucking wiki idiots realize there is racism in every country? You demonizing anti-American pricks, you're just like the Nazis were towards Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.198.163 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the editors here are Americans and as far as I can tell none of us, Americans or Other are suggesting that anyone be marched off to the gas chanbers. Or did I miss something?  Any way, the way to effect wikichange is to point and rebuff specific points in the article rather than tossing out blanket statements such as yours.  So, let's begin with   .   .  .  .  .  . . . . . . . ..........  what claim in this article that is untrue or misleading? Carptrash (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've discovered a series of pictures
in various wikipedia articles that I believe to be racist in conception and execution. These include, but are not limited to,

These images were created during the mid to latter part of the 19th century when the United States and various other elements was trying to justify its treatment of the Indians by portraying them as, among things, blood thirsty savages. However if I just remove these images I will be accused of pandering to the dreaded political correctness, etc, so am looking for someone who might be able to provide a reference and/or citation documenting that these images are racist. I am inclined to put little versions of them in this article in any case, but want to give concerned editors a say first. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)