Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 May 3

= May 3 =

Request for debate
how many more white americans must die in race riots before the american police force finally wake up their idea and reduces their discrimination against black men? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.60.111.95 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Forty two.          Widneymanor (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What was Highland Homes history back in 1946 502 W. Highland Ave Phx. Az 85013
+ I would like to fine out the history about Highland Homes back in 1946. Was it a Air Force, or maybe pow camp,or army barracks?70.190.231.174 (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but Lindsey Balinkie seems to lead a neighbourhood group that aims to "share information about the community". Might not hurt to send her an e-mail. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The subdivision is called the "Pierson Place Historic District" - according to their website, the area has been residential since 1929. "We are not the largest historic district, not the oldest, nor do we have the cachet of some, but we offer a great place to live near the resources of our large metropolitan area". Tevildo (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Politics in England
Does UKIP have any objectively racist policies? I had a skim through their election manifesto and couldn't find anything that fits the dictionary definition of racism, and yet everyone says they are racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordenGorne (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, their anti-immigration position can be construed as being racist - see, for example, this letter which appears on the front page of their website, with (presumably) their full endorsement of the views it expresses ("I am therefore not racist, but..."). See also Godfrey Bloom, whose remarks, using the term "Bongo Bongo Land", were described as "crude stereotypes that see Britain as a civilised place and overseas as tribal" by a spokesman for Show Racism the Red Card.  Although he has admittedly been dismissed from the party. Tevildo (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please redact or rephrase the latter part of your reply. Per BLP policies you shouldnt be using the Reference desk to accuse a living politician of being racist. Bosstopher (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourcing added. Tevildo (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bosstopher (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically what Tevildo says, none of their policies are "objectively racist" in a Jim Crowe sort of way, but their immigration policies are considered racist by some, or pandering to racists. Also quite a few members have gotten in trouble for making remarks that have been viewed as racist.Bosstopher (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Playing the race card is really slimy innuendo. Should we take seriously a question that asked how many labour supporters smoke crack when they cottage, and how many tories are supporting the children of their former aupairs?  Is there some reason not to google UKIP to find to their manifesto and read it, and judge for one's own? μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The OP did say they've skimmed the manifesto and turned up nothing. He reports that "everyone" says they're racist, yet he can't find any evidence that that is in fact the case.  That seems like the opposite of innuendo to me.  If people are never allowed to ask questions that have anything to do with racism, then PC has gone way too far.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh Medy, if you'd actually read the OP's post, that's exactly what they've done. UKIP is clever enough not to outright state their racism in their manifesto of course. Also, loving that Americans want to correct British posters about British politics (well, not so much politics as scaremongering and lying in UKIP's case, but I digress). Fgf10 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would draw Medies' attention to the following passages from the manifesto:


 * Page 16: "The NHS is the National Health Service, not the International Health Service."
 * Page 23: "Our common sense approach to benefits includes [...] Ending welfare tourism with a five-year ban on benefits for migrants."
 * Page 31: "We will support and fund free schools, provided they are open to the whole local community, uphold British values and do not discriminate against any section of society." [Emphasis added].
 * Page 34: "We will not allow non-British nationals access to the Right to Buy or Help to Buy schemes."
 * Page 41: "Allow British businesses to choose to employ British citizens first."
 * Page 47: "[W]e can insist animal products are labelled to show the country of origin, method of production and transport and whether the animal was stunned before slaughter". [Emphasis added].
 * Page 53: "Truly horrific, tragic crimes have been committed in Britain by foreign criminals with long records in their home countries and petty criminality has risen as gangs of thieves, pickpockets and scammers have arrived from overseas to target the UK."
 * Page 55: "We will adopt a zero tolerance approach to cultural practices that are either illegal or which conflict with British values and customs". [Emphasis added]
 * Page 59: "Make the setting up of a traveller pitch without permission illegal."
 * Page 61 passim. Particularly, "UKIP will promote a unifying British culture", "We reject multiculturalism", "those faiths and beliefs must exist firmly within a British framework".
 * Page 67: "But the fight with and against this ideology [Islamic extremism] is not best fought on a battlefield 3,000 miles away, but at home".
 * Now, those statments may not be "objectively racist". The electorate will decide on Thursday whether or not to endorse them. Tevildo (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dog-whistle_politics may also be informative (oops, I see now RomanSpa linked this already with a different pipe. But it's worth linking again for emphasis). SemanticMantis (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The key thing to understand about UKIP is that they speak in code. Sometimes the code is fairly obvious - their remarks about "NHS tourists", particularly their recent remarks about people with HIV - were fairly clearly aimed at black people (as well as helpfully reminding their audience about "disease-ridden homosexuals"). Other times the code is much more subtle - their advocacy of "British culture" really means "white lower-middle-class culture", but you have to dig through a lot of verbiage before the pattern becomes clear. They have been, and continue to be, very clever in not saying anything overtly racist, but it's clear to any Briton what they mean: British people use English with a great deal of careful circumlocution, because we don't like to be seen as rude, but we can all understand the code perfectly well. Basically, UKIP is the genteel lower-middle-class wing of the BNP. RomanSpa (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No doubt some or even most UKIP supporters are racist, but isn't it more accurate to describe their ideology as xenophobic? Apparently UKIP is attracting some support among black people in Britain who share its xenophobic perspective:   Marco polo (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What utter bollocks. Speaking in code means the leftist has psychic powers to detect racism in his enemies, again, an adjuvant of the race card.  Wanting to cut social spending or limit immigration may affect different races (you know, race, that concept leftists say is unscientific, unless they have need to call someone names) but unless the law says spending only on blacks will be cut or only Indians will be kept out of the country there is nothing racist about a law applied equally regardless of race. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is sounding much like a debate now. You know, that thing of which you have such an abhorrence that you regularly shut it down when conducted by others.  But I could be wrong. I think I'm getting a cold.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Medies, you are utter bollocks. The 'leftists', or as we like to call them, non-racists, don't have psychic powers, we have powers of observation. You clearly have no idea of British politics whatsoever, so I'm wondering why you are bothering to comment on this. I know racism is far more acceptable in the US, and in many ways is still institutionalised, but things are different here in the civilised world. Don't apply your warped standards to us. Fgf10 (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah yes; to proclaim that one intends to vote for some callow, economically illiterate middle-class quasi-Marxist politics geek is a public demonstration of one's own moral superiority; a bit like buying an indulgence in the Middle Ages.


 * And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. - Matthew 6:5 81.159.210.231 (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "some callow, economically illiterate middle-class quasi-Marxist politics geek"? Seriously? DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As Marco polo says, UKIP's official policies are xenophobic rather than overtly racist. There have been incidents where individual UKIP members have been surprisingly frank in expressing their opinions to journalists and documentary makers. For example, the BBC made an excellent "fly on the wall" documentary about UKIP which included several "I can't believe someone said that while being filmed" moments. But UKIP generally tries to distance itself from the more extreme views of its members. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, earlier today I was speaking to an older (60+) couple who (a) interpreted UKIP's desire for an "Australian-style" immigration policy as meaning something like the White Australia policy, rather than Australia's current "points-based" system, and (b) confirmed that this was the general understanding amongst other people of their age group and above. When told that Australia currently uses a points-based system, one of them freely remarked that "[Farage]'s just mentioning Australia to tell us what he really means". Interestingly, there are plenty of other countries (Canada, New Zealand, etc.) that UKIP could mention in providing examples for the points-based approach (which, in any case, is already implemented for the UK). Continually mentioning Australia does seem calculated to imply a "whites only" policy without explicitly saying so. RomanSpa (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How quickly people forget when it suits them, and how long they remember when it suits them. The White Australia Policy was abandoned in practice during the 1960s, the final coffin nail was hammered in in 1973 when it was abandoned formally, and ever since then it has been illegal for race to be taken into account when selecting people for orderly immigratiom to Australia.  The WAP has been gone for almost as long as it was ever in place. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are getting at here. No-one is disputing that Australia's policy is long gone. Indeed other countries, including Canada and the US, had somewhat similar policies in the early 20th century. The point being made was about how UKIP's references to Australia would be interpreted by a target demographic of voters in Britain. Paul B (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I knew that. But why would they still associate Australia with something that vanished 50 years ago?  We don't still think of England as a place where queens consort (and one regnant) are routinely executed; or France as in the grip of a Reign of Terror; or Germany as a place of unspeakable ethnic and other horrors.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)