Line 1,349: | Line 1,349: | ||
So when i deleted it was it added back? ohh i see anti-zionism is racism.--[[User:Halaqah|HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ)]] 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
So when i deleted it was it added back? ohh i see anti-zionism is racism.--[[User:Halaqah|HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ)]] 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Isnt it funny the Israel section whitewashes racism== |
|||
No one denies racism in USA, i dont think they will try and blame the African-Americas for that. Or the Arabs or the chinese. yet one read of the israel section does more to vindicate accusations of racim than to discuss racim. this article is not about middle eastern politics, it is about racism that has occured is occuring. Very simple. Trust me if that poll was taken in Britian i dont think British people who deny it and whitewash it. That is the difference.--[[User:Halaqah|HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ)]] 16:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:22, 11 February 2007
Sociology B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Archives | |
---|---|
Racism is crap
it is! equal rights be fair
Racism
[If you refer to the actual reference to Ham in the Bible, you will note that the curse of slavery was not pronounced on Ham himself but on Canaan, just one of the many sons of Ham. Some of the other sons of Ham went on to be great kings and founded leading nations such as Egypt. See Genesis chapter 10 for a list of the sons of Ham who founded nations --hardly slaves! The question then remains, who are the descendants of Canaan today? Perhaps nobody. There is every chance that the curse was only meant to last a generation or two.]
Racism protects privallage, thats why we do it, I have something which i took from you, and i need to justify keeping it-- enters racism.--Halaqah 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Racial discrimination - Europe
Hi, this may be inappropriate. Could the sentence "..the European Union banned racism" be attributed in the text itself? The Article 21 referred to is from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (dec 2000), and I was confused because of Article 14 in the European Convention on Human Rights that already defined discrimination. The ECHR was enacted into UK law with the Human Rights Act (1998) that came into force on October 2nd 2000 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998) and so is the more commonly referred to text.
Don't forget the UK Race Relations Act (1976) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2003/20031626.htm "..."on racial grounds" in section 1 (1) (a) of the Act ("...a person discriminates against anothe...if on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons..."). "On racial grounds" is defined in section 3(1) of the Act as meaning colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins."
I'd seriously include a reference to BBC vs Souster (http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0880006.htm) "...the Scottish Court of Session in BBC v Souster conclude that the English do have separate "national origins" to the Scots. As a consequence, the Race Relations Act 1976 does apply to discrimination between the Scots and English."
Why was the Argentinian section removed
it took me hours write that and i posted the siurce it was from the international anti-racist assicuation that made a research in evry coutnry. This is amazing because no official data was no deleted form th e russian, american or canadian section
NPOV, Bias
I noticed a great many instances in this article of blatantly loaded, biased phraseology. Please do not use wikipedia to promote a social or political agenda. If you can't represent both sides of an issue, don't edit wiki. Please.
Fourdee 07:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree... there is the dubious inclusion of the anti-Zionist movements of Hamas and Hezbollah listed as racist groups when there is a clear distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The inflammatory language also needs to edited out - this page has clearly been hijacked by people with an agenda. -Justin
Racist Elements
I think this article is ridiculously outdated. Racism should be a term interpertated for individuals to obtaining the roots of their limited mentally by analyzing their own eviction of skin pigmentation and need of ancestral roots. I mean I have freckles, does that mean I'm black? Believe it or not, Racists actually wade in groups of this nature. Even whole sale organizations do this from all sides! Like a baby deciphering the alphabet, racists need to decipher the evolution of an individual's skin pigmentation. A female, transgender and other have also been victim to taunts and threats. -From the racist planet and its rapid heat, ---69.255.16.162 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Canada POV
It seems awfully anti--Canadian, if you ask me.
I nominated it to be checked for its neutrality.--J3wishVulcan 00:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure you can do that, but sorry I had to revert your edit because (intentionally or not) you restored a version whitewashing German antisemtism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be anti-Canadian to me. The Canada section just seems to have more information compared to other countries. ViewFromNowhere 17:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- From reading the article, one would be lead to believe that Canada have fooled the rest of the world into thinking they are progressive, and have been hiding secrets about their racist behaviour from the public. Just check out the first sentence.--J3wishVulcan 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't read it that way. Many Canadians consider Canada to be tolerant and multicultural, so it is surprising for the average Canadian that Canada has a history of racism. It's not that Canadians are hiding racist behaviour. It's that most Canadians don't even know. ... I can see how it would look to non-Canadians though. But Canada has a history of racism just like every other country, despite it priding itself as tolerant and multicultural. ViewFromNowhere 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Still, every country has a history of racism. And Canada's is FAR less extensive than most other mulitcultural countries. Black slaves ESCAPED slavery in Canada, after all. Racism is also far less prevalent today than in other countries. One would not get that impression from the article. Isn't the object of Wikipedia to relay FACTS, not the opinions of an Editor. I would agree to remove the POV tag just with a little editing to how it is written.--J3wishVulcan 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it just looks that way because there isn't much information on the history of racism in other countries. Perhaps Canadians, being anti-racism, are more likely to learn about their own history of racism? Canada had black slaves as well, but most people (including Canadians) don't know about it. This is relevant information about racism in Canada, yet it is not included in the article. If the article was Canada-bashing, it would include this. ViewFromNowhere 16:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO It's Canada-bashing, and it doesn't help the definition of Racism, or history, which is why I put the NPOV tag back on the 13th of may --24.200.225.24 04:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely disagree. Clearly, Canadians are too hyper-sensitive and hung up and this tolerant, multi-cultural society idea, which is absolute BS, and I'm a Canadian myself. Ask the average Canadian in the street and they will tell you that they wish most of the immigrants would pack their bags and go home; and there is little more tolerance for the aspirations of the aboriginals. Canadians are no less racist than Americans, Britons, or Australians; they just keep it hidden slightly better...not because they are more tolerant, but because Canadian society is so politically correct....but go to the bar and have a few beers and then start talking about the subject! As to what is written about the history of racism in Canada, everything mentioned is true. If some people take offence because they perceive it as anti-Canadian, tough. The truth must always be told no matter whose delicate constitutions it might disturb. --207.161.3.162 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For all the Canadians' talk about being tolerant and multicultural, I think they're just as racist as other western countries. Just recently, there was this case about a 7-year old Filipino boy living in Canada, who was punished for eating in school with a spoon and fork, the usual way of eating here, rather than with knife and fork, as in the West. The next part of the story differs from version to version, but one version says that when the boy's family went to the school principal to complain, he told them that "This is Canada, and in this school we have to eat like humans, not like animals." (Gee, I had no idea that animals ate with a spoon and fork in Canada.) Anyway, this issue aroused widespread anger in the Filipino community in Canada, and even in the Philippines. If racism was that bad in Canada, just imagine what it's like in other Western countries. P.S. Despite all the articles on this topic about racism in non-Western countries, I think that if racism could be quantified, the First World (the term itself is racist), Western nations are, were, and, unless something changes, will continue to be the most racist places on Earth. Frankly, I think whites are still the most racist people on Earth. It's true that racism exists in people of other races, but there's no comparison at all with the amount of racism in whites, so this should not be used as a justification by whites for their own racism. However, I'm not racist. I don't dislike whites in general, though I dislike the racists, and I'm not saying they're all racists, I'm saying there are more racist whites than from other races. They were the colonialists, after all. Concerned Filipino 202.73.162.190 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Frankly, I think whites are still the most racist people on Earth." Your quote seems rather hypocritical. I'd encourage you to look more closely at the case which you sited. It's become clear that the facts of the case had been misrepresented in the media immediately following the incident. The punishment was for the child's behaviour and had very little to do with the utensils he was using and the aligations are against a man without any record or racism behind him. Perhaps he mishanded the situation, but to make the claim of racism is rediculous. The public outrage over percieved racism, though, shows that Canadian culture will not tolerate it. Of couse, you're unlikely to change your mind. You seem to be a victim of your own accusations.--130.15.129.18 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with the statement that most (white) Canadians hold the belief that racism does not exist in Canada. There is plenty of historical evidence which suggests otherwise in addition to multiple stories from other (non-white) Canadians. However, these experiences are often trivialised on the basis that Canada regards itself as an accepting society on paper. If the dominant discourse of the country teaches people that they are accepting then people begin to believe this. The reason I say that non-white Canadians are more aware of racism in Canada is due to personal experience. The word multicultural is used as a mask for denial of racism.
Will Beback edit war...
- The above text relating to Germany does not, in any way, imply that all racism leads to the experience of the Holocaust. And in your edit, you did not just try to "correct" such an impression, you removed mention of the Holocaust entirely, as well as any mention of the Nuremberg laws (which were explicitly racist), all of which in my mind borders on denial. But I'll try to be open-minded and assume good faith for the moment, though frankly I don't see very many reasons to so far. A number of other edits are thoroughly misrepresented there -- you did not just "black Supremacy and Hispanic Supremacy" (which are ridiculous in that context -- the paragraph is clearly about the 15-17th centuries when such things did not exist), you removed a significant amount of text as well. And yes, most people believe that people who espouse the belief that two racial groups should not marry is a form of racism. --Fastfission 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I stated with my changes that I dont oppose writing about the topic I just wanted them to be rewritten from a more balanced POV and my changes were only intended to be temporary to give people an idea of what I was requesting. I do agree with you other then that but I hope you atleast see my viewpoint.
Jerry Jones 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- While NPOV is a necessity, in this context it does not mean explaining why the Nazis were justified in persecuting the Jews. -Will Beback 08:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It certainly does not mean they were justified I am just showing their viewpoint and that is all. In my opinion you do not kill people no matter what they do. I jsut get tired of every single mainstream news source going on and on about poor people being the victims of evil white oppression and they never show the other side. Please feel free to browse any anti semetism and race related article and it will just say "The Purple people were victims of racism here. The purple people were yet again victims of racism in the 1800's. Anti Purpleism dates back to the 17th century and persecution against purples was widespread. They had a poll tax released against the purple people, and they were again victims of anti pupleism."
This is a joke and this is all I read everywhere. Most people do not even have a clue why this is widespread. This is not benefiting anyone hiding historical viewpoints because they might offend certain groups. This is what wikipedia is supposed to fight against. Wikipedia would be so informative and really improve if we can present all sides from a NPOV. This will keep people in the middle and informed and give wikipedia a great reputation. I merely want to present all sides and have people make up their own minds yet I am accused of being a white washing vandal.
Jerry Jones 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- You're not making the article balanced, you are deliberately whitewashing things, you are deliberately obscuring things, and you are deliberately being achronological because it serves your personal agenda. Please read our WP:NPOV policy before deciding you know what it means. The POV that the Nazi anti-Semitism played a major and decisive role in the Holocaust is considered an obvious fact by everybody except for Holocaust deniers, whose fringe POV deserves no role on this page. And just as a stylistic tip -- claiming that "censorship" is occuring when other editors overwhelmingly disagree with you will not get you very far, as a rule. It is not persuasive and it says "POV-pusher" all over it. --Fastfission 11:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont have an agenda other then to give wikipedia a good reputation and be fair to all sides. You accuse me of white washing articles but I removed calling black groups racists and you dont accuse me of blackwashing; only white washing. I remove far right and far left terms when its stated as a fact by a certain groups (All groups have agendas. There is no fair group) because its nonsense and tells people what to think. All I want is for readers to think for themselves without some viewpoint being shoved down their throats. Do you honestly think that me removing far left from communists groups is somehow going to make people think they are not far left and vise versa? I just believe in showing them why they are far left and far right instead of telling them. Let the information speak for itself. This will greatly improve the quality of wikipedia and keep people reading and coming back. Yet people accuse me of POV. I just want to make things fair and I would be more then happy to work together with all of you to do it. All viewpoints are valid and need to be included in wikipedia because no viewpoint is right regardless of how maintream it might be and we need to acknowledge this. Ofcourse anti semetism was a major reason why the holocaust happened I just didnt agree with implying that carrying any racial type viewpoint will lead to a holocaust especially because these viewpoints were widespread viewpoints all throughout the world before and after the holocaust. I didnt oppose including this in the article I just wanted it to be rewritten as with my other edits.
Jerry Jones 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Jerry Jones, the following falls into the category of nonneutral opinion based on original research. Nazi ideology believed that Jews were controlling the German press and were not patriotic, and were subverting the German government with Bolshevism. Especially in a matter where there is controversy, citing sources is most useful. For example, the following page explicitly states Nazi racial policy: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rassenpo.htm Summarizing the content and linking to it averts the problem of putting forward our own opinions. The Nazi viewpoint pushes Aryan supremacy. That is different from accepting the assumption of Aryan supremacy, and moving on to how Nazis justified their claim to white supremacy (by villifying others through false statements, and so on.) Skywriter 11:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ofcourse Aryan supremacy was a foundational viewpoint but if you look and read Nazi propaganda reels along with Nazi writing its common knowledge that this is what they said. It doesnt mean it's right it just means that was their viewpoint and people refuse to cover their viewpoint to sweep history under the rug. I am not sure why you are bringing up aryan supremacy because I merely included the German viewpoint saying that Jews were controlling the press and using it as tools of communism according to Germans. Both issues are related and if you want to include them together by all means feel free to do so.
Jerry Jones 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just so people get an idea where User:Jerry Jones is coming from, here are a sample of some of his recent edits: [1] [2] [3]. Here are some of his earlier edits: [4]. And, of course, there are his obsessive attempts to describe anyone who is either left-wing or a criminal as a "Jew", both as his current userid: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] and as his previous userid User:JJstroker: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] etc. Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Wth? You point out some other user and accuse me of making these edits? Who are you to do that? Show me the edits I made on my account.
Jerry Jones 02:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Half the edits are from your Jerry Jones account, half are from your JJstroker account. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- The majority of the edits are not even mine and the others are edits I admit to doing. We already established that I remove "Racism" and "Far right" if its used incorrectly. That is not your original claim of me saying that I add if someone is Jewish to every article. If you were to not only focus on certain things you will realize on many of those same articles where I would remove "Far right" and "Racism" I would leave it in other places just as long as it was accurate. I dont believe in stating if a group is far right because I believe the readers should come to that conclusion by themselves. Dont tell the reader show the reader. The articles seem amatuer when you say racist every two sentences and it doesnt comply with wiki NPOV policy. These groups deny that they are racists and regardless of what public opinion is you cant say that they are. The best thing to do is to show they are racist and let the reader make up their own mind. This will not jeopardize wiki NPOV policy while adding greatly to the content quality of the articles. This way all sides are happy and everything benefits. I dont appreciate what you are doing and I strongly feel that you are just destroying NPOV policy. I would also appreciate if you would actually discuss my edits instead of just making accusations and reverting my edits.
Jerry Jones 00:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of the Nazis insisting ever they weren't racists, but if you have a source it'd be interesting to see. -Will Beback 01:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics.
This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.
This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated.
Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?
This list cover a period of about 48 years since independence (1957).
List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):
(1) Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays
(2) 99% of Petronas directors are malays
(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese
(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays
(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status
(6) 0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies
(7) 5% of all new intake for government police, nurses, army, is non-malays
(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960
(9) 2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%
(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960
(11) 95% of government contracts are given to malays
(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Taxi permits, Approved permits, etc
(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers
(14) 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. UTC, UMBC, MISC, etc
(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses
(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given
(17) 0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)
(18) 8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period
(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(21) 2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000
(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%
(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible
(24) 10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays
(25) 5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004
(26) Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years
(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"
(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired i.e. Medicine (in 2004)
(29) 10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays
(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003
(31) 25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957
(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957
(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago
(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas
(35) 3 million Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status
(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenships compare with the Chinese and Indians
(37) 5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is rich or poor
(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget
(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names
(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort
(41) 0 temples/churches were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built
(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No temples, no churches are required to be built in housing estates
(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004
(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)
(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins
(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less
(47) 10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969
(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed
(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s
(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960
(51) 0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s
(52) 20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200
(53) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record
(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays
(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum
(56) 60% of places in university are reserved for the so-called Bumiputera(natives).
(57) UiTM(Universiti Teknologi Mara of Mara Technological University) are 100% 4 Malays There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism.
Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated.
Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.
If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.
Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish.
We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays.
We just seek for equal treatment, not to cause hardship to them. In our history book, it stated that Islam emphasises on merit not colour or creed.
- Writing this much is a good way to not get taken seriously.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Definition
I brought this up earlier and it was partially fixed, but the definition at the top of the article is not a good one. It says:
Racism refers to a belief system that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine cultural or individual achievement. This can lead to prejudice against individuals based on a perceived or ascribed "race". This racist outlook in assuming that the human species can be meaningfully divided into races, often breeds ignorance, fear and hostility towards people.
However, what most people mean by racism is the fear and hostility itself. Srnec 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not super happy with the definition either but think it is something we should try and be precise about. Here is what Merriam-Webster defines racism as:
- 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
- 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- And here is the Oxford English Dictionary:
- a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
- b. Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.
- Colloquially I think the MW definition is closer to what "racism" means in American English. But I'd be interested in what others think. --Fastfission 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's coming at it from a different viewpoint. Scientists studying the human genome are finding little in the way of real differences among the "races," according to an article that appeared in 2000.
www.latimes.com/news/science/science/lat_gene010212.htm "Tiny Gene Disparities Go a Long Way Science: DNA of people of different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show"
...SNPs--which stands for "single nucleotide polymorphism"--are not the only kind of variability that exists in the human genome. But they represent about 85% of the differences that exist.... different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show"
SNPs, meanwhile, are not only invaluable for medicine, they should help shore up knowledge of evolution and human history, scientists say. Though people cannot be clearly divided into "races," scientists can still detect certain patterns of SNPs that crop up more in some parts of the world than others. This should give researchers clues to the movements of different peoples during history. different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show"
By charting these subtle differences, researchers have already learned much about human migration patterns. Their findings are often buttressed by other fields of science such as anthropology or archeology. different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show"
"This kind of data is going to make possible a very complete description of the history of the human race--who went where and when," Altshuler says. "It is an unparalleled data set to explore the population history of the human race." (Dr. David Altshuler, a researcher at Harvard and the Center for Genome Research at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. Altshuler is senior author of a Nature paper that reports this week on 1.4 million SNPs found by the public genome effort.) different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show"
Skywriter 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's further discussion from a scientific perspective. http://www.henryholt.com/tangledwing/konnernotes.htm and this: http://www.yale.edu/yjhple/volume_1/pdf/033%20(koenig).pdf
Ethics of race-based medicine by Nicholas Wade in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/health/11heart.html
and in WP here:
"Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html
Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.
The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.
Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.
In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.
"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."
read the rest here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html
Skywriter 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The dictionary definitions provided seem good. Both Merriam-Webster definitions seem good, as does the second Oxford. The first Oxford defintion is interesting. The problem I have with it is that it is not a value-related definition. It better defines a form of racialism, as that Wiki article says:
- W.E.B. DuBois argues that racialism is the philosophical belief that differences between the races exist, be it biological, social, psychological, or in the realm of the soul. He then goes on to argue that racism is using this belief to push forward the argument that one's particular race is superior to the others.
I think DuBois is right in that racism is primarily about superiority of one sort or another. I propose an altered first paragraph below, changes in bold:
- Racism refers to a belief system that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine the value of human beings. This can lead to hostility against individuals based on a perceived or ascribed "race". [remove:This racist outlook in assuming that the human species can be meaningfully divided into races, often breeds ignorance, fear and hostility towards people.] Racism often includes the belief that people of different races differ in aptitudes and abilites, such as intelligence, physical prowess, or virtue. Some individuals who use this concept of racial categories, believe that different races can be placed on a ranked, hierarchical scale. By definition one who practices racism is known as a racist.
I don't like the second-last sentence either, but I can't figure out how to change it. Perhaps the idea of "racialism" should be brought up and I think the dictionary defintions should appear near the top of the page too. One more thing: this article throughout employs the term "racism" far too liberally, just about any differentiation between individuals could be called racist under the terms of this article. Srnec 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about hair color. Skywriter 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Being a "dumb blond" I do. P0M 01:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
How does hair color affect the perception of racial characteristics? Asians have black hair as do others. A small number of white people have blond hair and fewer still are red haired. Some black people are blond. Brown and gray haired people fit every racial profile. What is distintive here that merits inclusion in an article about racism?Skywriter 01:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Economic racism is by far the most serious form of racism in today's world. Most of the above definition focuses on individual feelings and attitudes but it is the larger picture that is most pressing. Economic exploitation based on racial barriers is much more devastating, and Du Bois identified economics as the central component of the problems between 'the races.' Skywriter 01:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I support the removal of the sentence "The term race plus the suffix ism added refers to a "meme" that the human species can be divided into various groups based on physical characteristics such as skin color and hair color, as well as cultural differences and beliefs." Indeed, the whole opening seems to take for granted that people can be grouped based on physical characteristics. That is self-evident. We can talk of "red-haired people": that set of people with red hair. We can talk of "white people": that set of people with light-toned skin. How is acknowledging such differences racist? It is not, it is the belief that such differences constitute differences in value of some sort between persons which is normally termed racism. Srnec 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Urk. I am certainly not happy with the current definition on the page. It equates racism with a claim about reality. There is a good Pinker quote to show that this is not a universally accepted definition. ("the case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable. It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups.") Whether or not Pinker's POV is correct is not for us to decide, but it is proof that this page's current definition of racism is too broad. Another way to say that is to compare racism with sexism. Sexism is not the claim that homo sapiens can be meaningfully divided into discrete groups called "sexes", nor the attribution of certain traits to the sex of the individual. The current article ought to either (1) acknowledge the fact that there are many definitions of racism (I would prefer that) or (2) define it in the narrowest, everybody-can-agree-with-that terms. Arbor 13:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is a terrible definition. If you are going to define it, a dictionary definition should be the only definition...not one that combines opinion with fact. Racism is not a "system" that once subscribes to as would be Catholicism or Protestantism. It is not a club. Additionally, there ARE different races of people, but identifying them goes beyond appearance. Since we view racism and being a "racist" as negative, it should simply be defined as the dislike of a particular race or races by another for no reason other than race. If you water down the real definition of the word and imply that different races do not exist, you cannot have racism.71.244.220.237 09:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The current definition of racism that is listed is based on the historical origins of racism and racial theory. Much as Darwin's theories were adopted by Social Darwinists, racial theory spawned a renewed belief in and justification of racism. The fact that many people don't understand the underlying meaning of racism and use the word inappropriately does not yet justify changing a definition based on the idea's origins.--130.15.129.18 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree with the definition of racism presented here. According to the this definition, many contributors to the article Race and intelligence would be considered as racists as a consequence of following scientific evidence. The first paragraph of this page does not represent the common English usage of the word: racism refers to the practise of prejudging individuals on the basis or race. It is possible to be a Genetic determinist without being a racist... Comments? JoshiFarron 07:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- JoshiFarron, I agree, the current definition is flawed. First, the corrollary is not a direct result of the premise that differences determine cultural/individual achievement. Secondly, as noted earlier, the definition is somewhat of a claim about reality; it seems that some wish to define racism so as to make controversial topics and findings like those in the article Race and Intelligence by definition racist. I myself have a problem formulating a definition with which I entirely agree, but it should be something along the lines of, believing one race is (morally?) superior to another, or hating one simply because of his percieved race. There are all kinds of problems with the definitions proposed (including mine). We cannot agree on what constitutes superiority, or even whether something could demonstrate that person A/group X is superior to person B/group Y. In more specific cases, claims of superiority might be apt, like say, Sherpas tend to be superior to Chinese in regard to climbing the Himalayas. Ideally, the definition for racism should not be falsifiable. For instance, I would say the theory that Jews cause all the wars in the world is not strictly speaking antisemitic, as it could be true; at most, it indicates a strong probability of the presence of antisemitic sentiment (and at the least, ignorance of history, meaning that one could be racist only intentionally, and never out of ignorance).
- This may not be of note, but I've often noticed that when an someone in writing asserts the existence of an average difference in intelligence between races, someone often responds that the person has asserted that one race is inferior to another, when clearly no such thing has occurred. This results in inappropiate uses of the term racist (and false accusations).
- As for prejudging individuals of a given group, to be more specific, operating on generalizations about a group is a strategy for minimising the number of errors in prediction. If men's favorite sport is generally but not always soccer first and then basketball, and no other related information is known, assuming that every man you see likes soccer most of any sport, will result in the least amount of wrong predictions given the constraints. I can't see how a sensible, optimal strategy is racist. You could say that prejudging when more information is available (in this case, that you have reason to believe a man prefers basketball to soccer but you still think he prefers soccer) is racist, but that seems pretty weak and narrow. The definitions of racism from Merriam Webster and Oxford seem somewhat like an exaggerated version of the possible reality, the possible reality being that traits and capacities are often influenced by race (or to be more specific, the allele frequencies associated with a given ancestry). Ashernm 08:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the definition is undesirable. In order to get to a true definition, you must take the word apart and get the specific meaning. The suffix -ism denotes a system of belief or practice. We are all familiar with terms such as communism, capitalism, etc. Racism is therefore simply a system of beliefs or attitudes based on ideas of race. It can take on a wide variety of forms. While that may be too general for some people's taste, not in keeping with some colloquial interpretations, and not supportive enough of some agendas, it is the true meaning of the word. If the meaning can be applied generally, it would be to anyone whose world view or ideas are significantly reliant upon race as a factor.
- In other words, if an American politician stands up and says, "we must [pursue a particular policy] to help black people", rather than advocating a policy that benefits all people equally regardless of race, that politician is voicing a racist viewpoint. Even if it is viewed as a way of counteracting the effects of previous racism, it is still racism...i.e. "fighting fire with fire".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.29 (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Racism in India
I tried adding some stuff on racism in India....Since this is my first "real" edit, i could use some help. Could someone improve the footers in the section on India. I seem to be a dunce :( Sshankar 12:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was adding this to your talk page but then I just saw your comment here...for citations, I think it would be better to just add the links at the end rather than use citations, like so:
- The markup for which is:
- It is claimed by some activists[http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/echoes/echoes-17-04.html] that [[casteism]] practised in India is a form of racism, but this is debated.[http://www.ambedkar.org/WCAR/Casteismas.htm]
- What do you think? -- 127.*.*.1
- I agree, thanks, and i cleaned it up.
- I added the Govt. stand on "caste as racism", though the link for reference i provided was not very exhaustive. Please change it if you find something better. Also, I have read many times in newspapers about 1) african-exchange students suffering racism here. In fact, i remember something about the daughters of the (ex?) king/president/whatever of an African country saying something about this in an interview. 2)'north-east indians' 3)'(white) tourists in India'
Please help. I also will try, but i might need to do a bit of offline research. Also, Can someone check if the pic on this [36] page comes under fair use? I believe it's an iconic image; when the incident took place, it was all over the papers. And besides, this article needs pix IMO.
'P.S.:'yes, i realise my entry is a bit too long and vague, but i'm trying my best.Sshankar 10:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
racism in india should be added--Halaqah 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for Racism has failed, for the following reason:
- (
From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted."
This article seems to be filled with assertions, especially the racism by country section:
"Austria has sometimes been criticised of trying to sweep its Nazi past under the carpet, typified by the widely pronounced myth that Austria was a victim of Nazi aggression rather than a willing participant."
"In fact, Canada's treatment of Aboriginal-Canadians is still governed by a document frequently described as racist, the Indian Act."
"Problems are currently under hot debate, although socialist Finnish government denies them."
It goes without saying that racism is a pretty contentious topic and accusing a nation of racism is a pretty big claim but even these assertions and historic conclusions for the most part aren't even accompanied by any referenced citations. The Good news is that problems with the by countries section and other POV issues are old news to you guys and you're already working on solutions. Because you guys are still debating solutions (like in the Canada section) the article really isn't technically stable.
Also I think this article would benefit from additional pictures (though this is obviously secondary); there must be tons more relevant pictures out there for this article than what it currently has TonyJoe 16:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Submit for Peer Review?
I have read the whole article now, and and quite disappointed. Racism deserves a better article on Wikipedia. We should work hard to make this the best article about Racism anywhere. I have little hope that the Good Article nomination will get anywhere. A more effective mechanism is Peer Review, and I am tempted to submit this article. But maybe the editors of this page can clean it themselves first? There are patches of brilliance in this article, but the rest is an opinionated mess. The most glaring problems I can see are
- Very strange definition. This simply won't do. There are (at least) three attempts—in different places, even!—to "explain" the relation to racialism, all are biased. I have little hope that we can find a definition of Racism that we can agree on, and neither should we. This is not a usage guide. Instead, this article must describe and explain all usages of this word, and not "take sides" about which is correct. Violates WP:NPOV
- Unverifiable nonsense. "This racist outlook in assuming that the human species can be hierarchically divided into races, is often bred of ignorance, fear, and prejudice." How exactly should this claim ever be verified? Violates WP:V
- Section 5, Racism by country, has no hope of ever becoming anything else than a badly edited list of anecdotes. A constant invitation to any POV-pusher who visits this page to add another personal grievance. I would have it removed completely. "By country" is simply not a very effective way to describe this. I am all for historical or geographical overviews, but the difference between Racism in Belgium and Racism in Luxemburg are bad categories. Antisemitism in the Medieval Europe (not caring whether that happened in Thuringia or Bavaria) and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany are good categories. Remove by WP:NOR, if you need a reason, unless there is a primary reference that has already made such a compilation.
Arbor 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes please, peer review sounds like a marvelous idea. ScWizard 00:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- What's the point of a peer review? I think the problems you've mentioned are all good ones, but I'm not sure PR will fix any of them. What it needs is someone willing to spend a lot of time overhauling it and getting rid of most of the existing content, which I heartily support. --Fastfission 02:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- If we all agree on that, there is indeed no need for Peer Review. But in some collaborative situations it is often helpful to have somebody else make a painful big-picture decision that the original contributors are (understandably) loath to initiate. Arbor 07:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm completely sympathetic with any big changes you want to initiate! :-) One way to ease the pain might be to first separate out the "by country" section into its own article, and then to take from it as needed for a new historical section. A global history of racism is a big undertaking, but I'm willing to help out where I can. --Fastfission 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- The problem seems to be to engage those editors who actually like the current format in a debate about this. So far, everybody who has responded in this subsection wants the article to change. I suggest to implement your idea, Fastfission, about factoring the by country into a separate article, and slap an "Original Research" warning template on that article. But let's wait a few more days to give those who oppose such a heavy-handed measure time to respond. Arbor 13:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I Did It
I don't have a whole lot of free time, but I'm going to do what I can to help the people in here who are trying to get this article back on track. This article doesn't need peer review or nomination for "good article" status. It needs for those of us who aren't using this as a soapbox to fight back.
I excised the 'Racism by Country' section into a separate article which can deal with its POV problems on its own. It's absolutely riddled with wildly POV and unsourced claims and it does not belong inside the "Racism" entry.
I hope everybody agrees that the outline is far more manageable than before. I have a few questions, though.
- The thing about Finns and speaking Finnish and all that. It just stands out as more of a random factoid than some sort of addition to the piece. It's not even transitioned into well. If somebody wants to tell me that it is well-written and poignant then I'll digress.
- As for the Jewish thing, I'm sympathetic and think that perhaps a review of the racist attitudes Jews have contended with could be a welcome addition. That being said, this thing about Russia and not being allowed to migrate to Palestine and expulsion from the West Bank stinks of agenda.
- The snippet seems to imply that the British reason for limiting Zionist immigration was simple racism. It also seems to imply that the Jews expelled from the West Bank were somehow victims of a racist government. They may be victims of the government and the government may be racist - but it came off to me like the Israeli government was harassing Jews for racist reasons - which needs some documentation.
- I'm sure plans to re-insert the poorly written, non-transitioned, biased snippet are "...in the works" ...
- I have reduced the number of times the word "racialism" appears in the article to 6 and fully intend to reduce that number, given community support. Would it be too controversial to add a section like "Arguments for Racism" where proponents of racism can have their own sandbox within the article to list the historical and contemporary arguments for racism - including scientific racism. The bottom line (in my opinion) is that the term "racialism" is mostly a white nationalist synonym for scientific racism. That's what becomes obvious when you Google "racialism."
- Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, change the things I can't accept, and the wisdom to know the difference.
--Wikitopian 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Concerning "racialism", the term obviously has several different meanings. In French (I don't know in which measure this French definition may influence or not the English term), renowned scholar Pierre-André Taguieff uses it to qualify the "racist theories" which emerged in the 19th century; i.e. "scientific racism" as exemplified by Arthur de Gobineau, George Vacher de Lapouge, etc. Taguieff makes the point that the word "racism" itself didn't enter the French language until the 1930s, and at that time qualified the Nazis' policy (the term "racism" was closely related to nazism itself, at the point of being a synonym). I reintroduced this etymology which someone abusively deleted. In English as well, the term "racism" is relatively recent — I also reintroduced this deleted part. Lapaz 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am the abusive data pirate who committed this abomination. I will digress from removing your etymological analysis of the word "racialism" which boldly places itself right there in the introduction. It's not unanimously agreed that racialism needs to be breathed in this article aside from its synonimity with scientific racism. If the etymology of the term racialism does deserve an entire paragraph then it seems to break the flow of the article to make it the second paragraph.
- I respect your point, Lapaz. I will leave it alone and see if the audience has a concensus on the issue.
--Wikitopian 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi there "data pirate"! If there is any discussion on the sense of "racialism", I do agree with you that it would be better not to talk about it, at least in the intro. However, mind you but part of the etymology inserted does not concerns racialism but "racism" itself — the part which says that it enters the English and French language in the 1930s, mainly in reference with Nazi Germany. This should doubtlessly be kept (etymology is, after all, important enough), although not necessarily in the intro — but it is interesting to state it in the intro insofar as the intro discusses what "racism" can mean. How are we supposed to give an answer to such a complex matter without starting by the basis: etymology and apparition of the word, if not of the thing? Lapaz 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually moved the "racialism" content from the intro to specific subsection (I wasn't aware of this discussion about the inclusion of not of racialism; IMO, it should be included as this "racism" page is necessarily the hub for all racism-related matters, and "racialism" should be linked from here...). Lapaz 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a pleasure to have a dialogue with you, Lapaz.
I did some researching and I think you'll agree with me that this article is going to be one of the most difficult articles in the history of "wiki" to protect from POV problems. Since I am just a mere mortal I think the best way that I can serve this article is to help enforce Wikipedia's style guide - in a constructive manner.
If we can stick behind this new outline and encourage people to keep the different sections proportional in size and within the 32k style limit then some of the sentences may, just may, sit there long enough to get sourced, spell-checked, and stylistically improved. We may even manage to get ourselves a readable article. Article Size --Wikitopian 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Too exclusively Foucauldian
Honestly, I like Foucault enough to probably be called a Foucauldian most of the time. But he's not really the authoritative voice on the history of racism itself, and discourse analysis is hardly the most popular way for looking at the origins of racism. There are lots and lots and lots of authors who have written on the history of racism, and I think we should aim for an account less associated with a single author. (I am aware of the many ironies which could be observed here in terms of my trying to kill the author here.) The Stoler piece given in the references gives a good account of a number of different accounts of the origins of racism, whether it is a modern phenomena, etc. (Further irony: Stoler is explicitly Foucauldian in the piece.) I'm happy to forward a copy to anyone interested, but I'm going to (eventually) try and rewrite the "history of" section to take more into account the fact that there are quite a few different views on the subject. --Fastfission 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, very well. But How about someone answering my question about the pictures of anti-racists in the Racism in India part? And please someone tell me if that part is POV, as you say the others in the racism by country page are. I asked that question so long ago. Unsigned comment by User:Sshankar
- Well, Foucault's analysis is interesting, to say the least. I'm sure you can find many others authors, so why not include them? Lapaz 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Article Size
Racism fires up a lot of emotion, and a lot of folks get indignant if they think others are "sweeping history under the rug" by prioritizing what must stay and what must go. I have a proposal that I want to see if I have any support with. It's a proposal for a guideline for the article, not something to stop people from improving the article but rather some much-needed structure to assure the article's gradual improvement.
The Wikipedia style guide states that the preferred size of an article is no larger than 32kb. I think given the relentless pressure on this article to expand in every direction, taking this rule seriously can do the article a lot of good. Here's how my numbers break down:
Current number of characters in article: 41708
Section | Current | Proposed |
History of Racism | 16,602 | 11,000 |
Types of Racism | 9,111 | 11,000 |
Everything Else | 15,995 | 11,000 |
Total(Characters) | 41,708 | 33,000 |
How about the cause of racism???
A lot of people will think this is a bit obsessive but this is a really prominent and important article and it had truly gotten out of control. Any thoughts? --Wikitopian 13:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Reverse Correctism
I acted on a hunch and Google, wikipedia, and everybody else agreed that "reverse racism" is _not_ defined as minority discriminating against majority and the example (South Africa) that was used is a great example of a nation in which reverse racism defies the population dominance pattern. I'll source this when I get the chance.
- Many believe 'reverse racism' to be a misnomer. However, by trying to define it as a 'minority' group discriminating against a majority, that seems to be an attempt to broaden the base of the idea to make it seem, in it's self, not racist or specific to one group. See the following (from http://colours.mahost.org/faq/definitions.html ):
- REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites.
I've removed this phrase, at least temporarily, as it seems imprecise as currently formulated. Issues:
- Is this belief specific to Roman Catholics? Is there any reason to single out Catholics rather than Christians in general?
- At what period was this doctrine? Has it ceased to be doctrine? (obviously, yes; but the current language is unclear)
- Was "Deicide People" ever a established appellation in Roman Catholic or Christian usage?
Obviously not all these issues can be addressed in a passing reference, but they are relevant to the exact phrasing. If indeed, it's worth keeping - there were certainly many instances of European, Christian anti-Semitism outside the deicide charges.--Chris 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree --Wikitopian 14:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
--Wikitopian 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I know Wikipedia requires citation for everything, and rightly so, but to doubt that the Catholic Church had an official policy which considered the Jewish people as a "deicide people" is a sure sign of lack of minimal knowledge concerning this topic! Hum... Jesus was crucified, you're aware of that, ain't you? And, well, Catholic people believe Jesus was the son of God, and God himself, ain't I'm right? So, now maybe you understant why the Jewish were called a "deicide people" until VAtican 2 (1962-65) when the policy and official terminology changed by the POpe? I don't think we need a citation tag for that!!! (or, would you need one to prove that Jesus was crucified according to the Bible?) Lapaz 14:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it always negative?
I've heard different definitions of the word and some of them give me the impression that being racist isn't necessarily bad. Some of them are more strict than others, and the ones that loosely define racism classify a lot of people as racist, and not just the "whoops you're racist" racists. For example, one might say that racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability. I would not argue if someone called me racist under that definition, and I don't believe that is necessarily bad. I think race plays a much smaller role in deciding a person's traits than gender or the economic conditions into which they were born, but it still has a role. It's not wrong to make presumptions based on certain things, and while less things should be presumed on race than on gender and whatnot, it's not wrong to assume a few things. Think how long it would take to get to know someone if nothing was presumed. A black person in my part of the world is more likely to enjoy hip-hop than to not like hip-hop, so if I were getting acquainted with a black person, me assuming they like hip-hop before knowing for certain would not offend them, even though by the definition used earlier, it would make me racist because I noticed a difference in character based on someone's race. I don't think that makes me a bad person, and I don't believe segregation or oppression is a good thing. I've been accused of being racist by people before, and because the person calling me racist doesn't have enough of an attention span to enter into a conversation about what racism really is, I simply reply, "I'm racial; not racist," even though that is stupid to say. Is that correct? Am I racial or racist, or neither? If I'm "racial" should that actually be a term people use? There's a huge difference between saying "black people's lips are generally larger than whites" and "black people are all evil". If I am racist, is that inherently bad? 24.154.173.50 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing "colour" with "race". Although there are quite a lot of human beings who are black, our colour depends on the amount of melanin that we have. If you were to consider not this superficial colour question, but genetic differences, well, actually you may sometimes find more similarities between two seemingly far-related persons than between two similar looking persons. There is no "black race", as there is no "white race", and you can't jump from "colour" to "race". You're surely aware that since these DNA tests have become popular in the States, some (black) people are seeing that half of their family was white, or vice-versa: you may have half of your family black (or white), and yourself be from another colour... Now, you should distinguish "biological racism" and "cultural racism". If you consider first that "blacks constitute a race" (which is wrong as I've just explained), than you can say "all black people like hip hop better than white people": this is "biological racism": you say hip hop music is linked to "black genes" (although there is no black genes!!! genes don't have colour, and one may actually share more genese with a person with another colour than with another like-coloured guy!), dispelling any influence of CULTURE on it. But, you didn't say that, you said "most black people in my part of the world like hip hop": assuming you're speaking of the USA, you're here speaking not of a "racial" difference but of a "cultural" difference: you're not saying that Black people in Africa or that black people five centuries ago "liked hip hop". So concerning this specific example, you are not noting a difference based on "race", as what you thought, but rather a difference based on culture & social class.
Let's take another example: imagine I live in a racist country which practice racial discrimination between people with brown eyes & people with blue eyes (maybe someone said that blue-eyed people are Aryan and other African, whatever you wish!). So, people with brown eyes will be considered inferior (in much the same way that the aristocracy in the Middle Ages hardly thought of peasants as anything else than barbarians who couldn't read nor write, whereas they spoke Latin...) and therefore be forced in a lower social class position. In times of economic stress, the blue-eyed people will keep the food & money for them, and the brown-eyed people will have to survive with what they have. Because of this difficulty to survive, many will start relying on begging or stealing to find food. Some blue-eyed people, feeling guilty or just generous, will give them some money or food; others will say : "f... brown-eyed people, all thieves!". They have just transformed a social difference into a racial difference. What's the distinction between both? One is permanent while the other is an effect of society and politics. Take another example: let's say you're an American and you travel to South America, Bolivia or somewhere. Everybody says "hey! you're a gringo", and then poor village-people might say: "hey! gringo! that means he might beat me up; or, now, most probably that's he's a wealthy tourist, I can borrow him a dollar or two that won't mean much for him although it'll be a month-work for me..." Then he will say "all gringos are arrogant, they feel superior, they never want to learn foreign languages, expect everybody to understand them, etc." Suppose you're a poor gringo traveling without a dime, and that you learnt how to speak Spanish. But before you get a chance to present yourself, as an individual, the others say: "ah! a gringo!" and identify you with this stereotype. You have no chance to speak for yourself: this is racism. Lapaz 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. The term "racism" is pejorative and implies ill intent. Nowhere outside of perhaps a klan rally can you claim that you're a racist in mixed company and have anybody assume that you are a scientific racialist who merely accepts and respects genetic variations in human sub-groups. Even in a klan rally they'll assume that.
- This article should provide links to articles which deal with scientific racism, "race and multi-locus allele clusters", "race and intelligence" but should not waver from defining and describing racism as the term is understood by the overwhelming majority of the academic community and lay people alike. --Wikitopian 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Racism is a form of social discrimination. To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit, and is inherently unfair to each individual person.--Wiley 15:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- All racism is social discrimination but not all social discrimination is racism. The two terms aren't interchangeable, the definitions aren't interchangeable, and your conclusions regarding the fairness of discriminating based on class or category affiliation is POV.
- This is why I wanted to stick to a very formal definition of racism which is derived from an authoritative source (like the UN) rather than trust the community to arrive at one. And you mean to tell me that discriminating for/against somebody because of group or class affiliation is unfair by definition? I will "prejudge" a member of the KKK as being narrow-minded and bigoted. I will "prejudge" women to be less tall, less muscular, and more likely to be a stay-at-home parent.--Wikitopian 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Civil rights include, but are not limited to ... the right to be free from discrimination ..."[37].
- Okay. So even if discrimination has changed over the last century to mean only negative discrimination - that is also how the term "racism" has evolved. Even when I'm wrong about something it just makes me that much more right about something else :)--Wikitopian 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I remember hearing Larry King get really nasty with a caller who maintained that for a member of a minority group to hate a member of a majority group on the basis of genetic/cultural/language (or whatever his exact criteria were) was also racism. King claimed that it is only "racism" when the person holding the negative attitude is a member of a group that has the power to come down on the other group.
- I think I recall reading approximately the same opinion expressed here. It's interesting what happens when one person or a group of people think they have the power to tell other people what the right thing to believe is -- even if it's about who is a racist and who is merely a person with hateful attitudes.
- What happens to me when I react incorrectly to somebody else because of an irrational factor? What happens to the other person? There is a real story about a white family living in a frontier situation somewhere, Australia if I remember correctly. Some adult needed emergency medical help, and the nearest adults who could help were members of the wrong race. So the adult told the kids to go to the much more distant white people for help. Help came, but it was too late. If I think somebody is a potential enemy when s/he is a potential friend I cut myself off from help. If I think somebody is on the up and up because s/he shares my race, but a more objective look would warn me that s/he is rather shady, then I hurt myself.
- What happens to the other person when I react incorrectly? It's pretty obviously bad if I hurt somebody because s/he is a member of the "wrong" group. But if I have responsibility for guiding the behavior of a person (e.g., as a teacher) and I fail to correct what somebody is doing wrong because s/he is a member of a favored group, then I'm actually letting that person down. Suppose, for instance, that I'm teaching some combat skill to some person who is going into battle and I keep telling them they're doing well when in fact they are doing all the stupid things. They feel good, go out on the street, and get killed. P0M 06:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Racialism and intro
I recently moved a short paragraph on DuBois' definitions of racialism and racism because his definitions are probably widely (though not universally) held and the distinction he makes, whether applicable to the words he seeks to define or not, is the one the previous paragraph is trying to make. Furthermore, adding that comment to the scientific racism section seems out of place because DuBois specifically denies that racialism as he defines it is racism and therefore it has little bearing on other definitions of racialism, ie scientific racism. Also, by placing so high up in the article, the pertinent link to racialism—and its myriad definitions—is provided early on. Srnec 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- See "I Did It" section above for reason why I put the text on DuBois invisible. Lapaz 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but did you read what I wrote above? I think that DuBois makes a distinction that is very important to differentiating between racism and making racial distinctions. A while back, this article defined racism in the opening line as "various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes." Clearly this is not the commonest definition (if it is used at all). I can separate people into groups based on hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, skin colour, shoe size, and many other things. Such groupings may be meaningless, but they are possible. I tried to fix the intro a while ago and I originally added the DuBois quote because his distinction between simply recognising differences, even more severe and meaningful differences, is not what most people call racism, because racism is an axiological (usually pejorative and relatively nondescript) term. I linked to racialism to provide an understanding on the ways the word is used contra DuBois's usage, but DuBois's distinction (not his terminology) was the key. I understand that DuBois does not have some innate importance such that his comments deserve to be in the intro, but because they were clarifying to the points made in the first paragraph, I thought they were pertinent. Can they be readded? Srnec 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong categorisation
Racism is stored in Category:Racism. Category:Racism is a subcategory of Category:Prejudices. But, Racism not a Prejudice! The word "Prejudice" appears only once in the text, in the item Related_concepts. --Injinera 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- One of the definitions of racism in many (perhaps most) English dictionaries is "prejudice based on race". --Wiley 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about the article on Racism with its current content, not about Racism itself.--Injinera 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Bad definition
The first sentence of this article is bad enough to turn me off already: "Racism refers to various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine or influence cultural or individual achievement or the essential value of human beings. "
Racism is not about separating people, it is a lot more than that. That opening totally undermines the concept of racism.
- Please sign your postings. You can do so by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~
- I agree that racism is about more than separating people. We separate people into blonds and brunettes, but nobody gets killed on that account. Are you perhaps saying that the first sentence should reflect the existence of the institution of racism and describe the damage it does? P0M 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Discrimination on the basis of race exists regardless of whether or not an institution is associated with it. -- Wiley 10:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is true that the existence of discrimination does not imply the existence of an institution based on it. If one person decides I am the spawn of the devil because I have a cast in one eye and so he puts that eye out with a pool cue, that is already bad enough.
- Technically, "to discriminate" means simply to take cognizance of a difference in characteristics. A good doctor should discriminate between patients who are allergic to horse serum and those who are not. If a doctor should fail to notice the difference then some patients being treated for or innoculated against certain diseases might well die.
- So what does "discrimination" really mean in the context of this article? It is the affective contamination of any characteristic in the mind of the beholder. A doctor would not act appropriately to hate or to love those people allergic to horse serum. If the doctor did, then he would be a poor doctor indeed. Characteristics are contaminated with affect for many reasons, but the prototypical case is probably when some powerful event occurs in the presence of the distinguishing characteric. In the case of positive affect, the result may be a paraphilia. John Money describes the case of someone whose sexual history was marked by a very intense experience, the "defining" characteristic (from the standpoint of the patient) was the presence of insects crawling over his body. After that defining event the young man could only achieve a satisfactory orgasm when insects were induced to crawl over his body. In the negative cases, something terrible happens to somebody at the hands of a person wearing a red baseball cap (for instance) and ever after the sight of a red baseball cap creates extreme apprehension, visions of violent retribution, etc.
- If an affectively contaminated discrimination is taught to a group of people, then the individual sharing that characteristic is not up against a single nut but a subculture of nuts, or maybe even a culture of nuts.P0M 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category instead of individual merit. Distinctions between people which are based on individual merit (such as personal achievement, skill or ability) are not socially discriminatory. -- Wiley 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- That meaning of "discrimination" is an extended sense of the basic sense of the word, to distinguish. Humans distinguish others on the basis of "class or category" as you put it. There is nothing wrong or even dysfunctional with, e.g., putting all humans with red hair in one group. If you are allocating resources for skin cancer screening, it would perhaps be worth it to budget more money per red head than for brunettes. Doing things that way might save more lives than spending the same amount of money per individual regardless of hair color. For instance, it might pay to tuck in a skin cancer screening advertisement with hair care products and cosmetics intended for red heads. It is the cases where people have strong emotional reactions attached to red heads that may be problematical. If some guy automatically raises a girl from an 8 to a 9 just because she has red hair, that doesn't necessarily do any harm to either one of them. But if somebody hates all people with red hair then that irrational hatred can motivate harmful actions directed against Carrot Top and his ilk, and it can also prevent the person who hates redheads from finding his soul mate or his perfect business partner.
- It doesn't work very well to tell people that their extra appreciation of or their hatred for redheads is irrational and hurtful. That is because people typically have evolved strong defenses to protect these instances of affective contamination. Just try to tell a dedicated racist that s/he is irrational and hurtful.
- In order to be able to ameliorate racism we must understand its etiology and then dig out the root rather than periodically lopping off the branches. P0M 06:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Civil rights include, but are not limited to ... the right to be free from discrimination ..."[38]. --Wiley 07:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to get the definition improved for so long... This is a much better intro now. Srnec 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Racism against Asians
Asians are like the main target for racism, many Asian Students that go to another country and educate there get discriminated. What is wrong with being an Asian. I'm and Asian student myself and everyday I'm teased bullied, name calling and more , it gets worst and worst. Sometimes I even feel ashamed of being and Asian...
- That's interesting, because I've noticed in Asia that the people usually look down on "foreigners", be them black, brown or white. I guess what goes around, comes around?
I don't know what's wrong with being Asian, I hope you have a better time at your school. --r0m
Seriously... Chinese, Vietnamese and Some others are targets. jackietang33 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you want, you can get in touch with me via my userpage and then e-mail. Whether one is in a primary school, a secondary school (middle school, junior high, high school), university level, or graduate level, your educational institution has a responsibility to discipline people who make racist attacks. At my university we occasionally have outbreaks of negative behavior and the administration takes violations seriously. (The same applies for abuse directed toward other groups, too.)
- There is not anything wrong with Asians. There is something wrong with a portion of the American public that feels (perhaps at an unconscious level) so bad about themselves that they have to knock other people down and stand on them in order to make themselves six inches taller. They are pathetic, but they can also be dangerous at times. Organize with other Asians, document (video recordings would be excellent if you can do them without putting the racists on their guard), and complain as a group to the authorities. P0M 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Racism against Asians seems to be global. I have spent some time in the Middle East (which technically is part of Asia, but really a whole different continent) and have been made victim of sometimes unbearable degree of mockery or degradation just for the fact I was East Asian. When I came to the United States to attend college as an international student, I was actually hoping the situation would be a little BETTER than the "Middle East", but I was wrong. Yes, racism is less explicitly expressed here but I learned that non-Asian Americans have a stereotyped, belittling point of view on Asian Americans or (actual) Asians. European Americans, having already dealt with this problem with the African Americans in the past, try not be as explicitly racist. But they indirectly hint racism in forms of racial discrimination, racial prejudice and indifference. To be a little honest, they are full of Eurocentrism and white supremacy. In one extreme case, a white man shouted these words, "Fucking Chinese!" directed at me. Now, I stood there, appalled, dealing with the same situation that I had dealt in the Middle East (quite infamous for racism against East Asians) right here in America. Good God! I'm not even Chinese! At another point, a group of white people in the streets demanded me to show them a Kung Fu move, a traditional Chinese move which I had no clue how. I told them so and they consistently asked for it. I guess Americans know only one thing about Asia, China. Oh actually another one, not forgetting to make fun of Asians if they get the chance to.
Coming back to the subject, while the issue of racism against African American people, though it continues to exist, has been at least widely addressed, the issue of racism against Asian Americans has been totally ignored, even Asian American people are being indifferently submissive to it. I mean, seriously, just go watch Hollywood movies. If there's anything about Asians at all, it's always a mockery or an insult directed at them. Isn't it? How often do you see Asian people in Hollywood movies, that are not short, ugly, fat, old and excessively nerdy-looking?
Jamesse 129.116.23.47 10:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
commercial[s]
I have a vague impression that several Budweiser-Light commercials released this month, or this week, seem racist,... In addition to whatever about this industry.
Does anyone know of any articles thereof?
Thank You.
Hopiakuta 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Bias
This article focuses pretty my only on White-on-(your race goes here) racism. It COMPLETELY ignores racism practised by other nationalities. There is extreme racism that exists Yellow countries such as China, Korea, Japan, etc. North Africans completely look down on Black Africans, etc. This article should be here to describe racism and some key points in history. Not label Whites as racist in a hundred different stories.
- Could you restate you point? What exactly is bias?
- Bias means something is measured unevenly. I shouldn't have to give you English lessons.
- My friend, the term -Yellow countries- is considered to be racist.
- Bias means something is measured unevenly. I shouldn't have to give you English lessons.
- Could you restate you point? What exactly is bias?
- Ry0d0x 11:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you have been brainwashed to think so. If one says White and Black, then it makes sense to also say Yellow, if you actually want to be fair and consistent.
In the Chinese language, the terms "Yellow coloured people" (Huang Se Ren); "White coloured people" (Bai Se Ren); and "Black People" (Hai Ren) are standard, and only perjorative if the predjudice of the speaker or listener is against that race anyway.
However, it is believed by some that the absense of "Se" (= coloured) in "Hai Ren" is perjorative against black people, and "Hai Se Ren" may be used as an attempt to redress this. ~~ADM 19th Oct 2006
This article is way too Eurocentric. It has only a brief mention of racism not involving whites, this needs to be expanded. So I agree that this article is biased. People with a knowledge of Asian, African, etc history should add sections. --rom
- That is interesting because as a 'white' person I was surprized when I heard Chinese people reffer to themselves as being 'Yellow' and didn't understand me when I said that where I come from we don't use that term, I guess if they use it in their own language it makes sense to transfer it into English to them. I myself don't use the terms white black or yellow even when reffering to myself, maybe I am alone in this. Anyway I agree that there needs to be a section on racism in asia/china/whatever, we should as always try and document all aspects of the issue. This is a difficult subject and we should try and remain even and try not make comments which could be considered racist themselves (including on talk pages imo). It would be good if someone who has some knowlage in this area could write something. Also I think that we should refrain from attacking people and their opinions on talk pages, especially what people consider to be racist regardless of what brainwashing you may think has happened. I personally would consider 'yellow countires' to be racist, just as I would consider 'white countries' and 'black countries' to be, that's my personal opinion and I think we can all understand what a subjective topic racism is if we have experienced it or not. Also I would encourage everyone to sign their comments. In short, be polite. Ta. -- SnakeSeries 11:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am starting to agree with you SnakeSeries after what you just said made me realise that We(chinese People) can be racist ... But we chinese people do not always use the phrase Hai Ren, we mostly refer them as the nationalities, not their colour.jackietang33 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
BZÖ
I removed this entry from the list of racist organisations:
"Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) - leader of the party, Jorg Haider made a lot of Anti-Slovenian statements and is very similar to Adolf Hitler."
Out of various reasons.
Firstly, the FPÖ is more actively racist in the present day than the BZÖ. If you'll list the BZÖ, you'd need to list ALL similarily far-right parties. FPÖ, BNP, NPD, DVU, et cetera, just for concistency.
Secondly .. as much as I dislike Haider, and as racist as some of his statements have been, saying that he is "very similar" to Adolf Hitler just doesn't make sense.
ChiLlBeserker 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Crypto-racism
A claim recently made (in an editing comment for this article) that a Google search for "crypto-racism" returns over half a million "google results". FYI: a Google search of web pages with the argument "crypto-racism" returned only about 1,240 hits. BTW, a search of web pages for "racism is a" returns about 304,000 results, while a search for "crypto-racism is a" claims about 71 hits (although only 1 is displayed). Regardless of popularity, an editor needs to show reliable published source(s) for content that they add. --Wiley 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
User: Anonymous Wikipedian and I (User:Arbor) are having an edit war over his new section on crypto-racism. Here is the current format:
Crypto-Racism
Hidden racial bias is often termed "crypto-racism". It is used to describe both open racism in which code words and phrases are used in place of blatant epithets, and individual racism in which self-denial of ones own racist attitudes is a major element. Crypto-racism is most prevalent in nations in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict, but open racism is not socially acceptable. It is often passive aggressive in character.
The hallmark of crypto-racism is strong self-denial of the term by those accused of it. Still, some behaviors are widely acknowledged in popular culture as being crypto-racist, including, 1] intense focus on non-association (for example, "white-flight" in housing developments, racially exclusive golf associations, silent discrimination in hiring), 2] the use of tokens (lone members of the minority in an attempt to disprove racial bias), 3] stated views that racism does not exist and/or accusations of oversensitivity to "jokes", and the phrase: "I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are <racial designation>".
While instances of real crypto-racism are difficult to cite, parodies of crypto-racist attitudes do exist. One of the recurring elements on the Colbert Report is Stephen Colbert talking about his "new black friend" and claiming to be "color blind". blackpeopleloveus.com is a website with similar humor. [39]
My problems with this section are numerous. The last paragraph is simply non-notable and cannot be defended on any means. The middle paragraph aims to identify behaviour that is termed crypto-racist. The problem is to make this verifiable. I can see no way to do that. The term is an ill-defined neologism or insult which seems to have the same semantics as racist but for the lack of self-admission. Since I know very few instances where racist behaviour is self-identified as such, the meanings of racist and crypto-racist seem to coincide in almost all cases. I might be wrong, but WP is not the place to arbitrate such debates over word usage. So, the second paragraph needs verification. It also needs to be precise about who uses the term crypto-racist in that way. Finally, the first paragraph begins with a word definition. First two sentences are fine by me, but don't need their own section. We could simply state somewhere else that "many attitudes, while not overtly racist, are sometimes labeled crypto-racist because they display blabla". The third and fourth sentence of para 1 are unsalvageable. ("most prevalent in natioos in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict"—I'd like to see a reference for that. Also, I fear there is no way to verify the claim that crypto-racism, ill defined in the first place, is often passive agressive.)
In short, there are two sentences here that are worth of inclusion. That does not a section make. The rest is some combination of essay, opinion, wild guesses, and soapboxing that violates WP:V and/or WP:NOR. This article needs the opposite: a cool, detached, helful, edifying description of racism. Preferably the best on the planet. Which is why I just removed AW's section. I won't do it thrice, so it's time for other editors to chip in. At least give us give us a one-liner (remove, festoon with references, 'expand, encrypt or whatever). Arbor 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a Template:Unreferencedsect tag to the new section, with a comment quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. --Wiley 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- First, Arbor - deleting my section out of the talk page so that only your point of view remains, is not in keeping with the wiki guidelines.
- I will be providing references as time allows. I don't have time to babysit this all day long. I have a job.
- Your google searching skills leave much to be desired. A doublequote will get you only terms exactly as specified. Equivalents, such as "crypto-racist" are left off, as are constructs like this: "Coded (or plausibly-deniable) appeals to crypto- (and not-so-crypto-) racists have been part of southern GOP politics for decades. As Bill Clinton noted, despite the current right-wing outrage over Lott, “he just embarrassed (the GOP) by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day.”"
- [40]
- The fact that crypto-racism (as opposed to open racism) is the most prevalent form of modern racism is all the more reason to give this term its own section. Surely you recognize that Apartheid was a different character, don't you? Or do you need a citation for that as well?Unsigned comment by User:Anonymous Wikipedian
- Anonymous Wikipedian, in the future please sign your comments in discussion pages by appending four tilde characters. --Wiley 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- AW, (1) I have no idea what you mean by me deleting your section out of the talk page. Please provide a diff (or just re-insert whatever you mean I removed). (2) If you don't want to babysit it, then don't enter it in the first place. See Wiley's quote above. No source -> information can be removed. (3) I did no google searching. (4) This is not a word usage guide, nor the place for original research, no matter how well-intended. If there is an established body of literature that makes a meaningful distinction between racism and crypto-racism then please tell us. Otherwise the section dies by WP:NOR and WP:V, even if all the editors here agreed that crypto-racism was the hottest thing since sliced bread. Arbor 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In conformance with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, I've removed the unsourced material (which could be added back as time allows in later edits if published reliable sources are cited).
- - I withdraw the accusation, Arbor. I created a Crypto-Racism entry on this talk page, wrote several paragraphs describing my position, saved - and just assumed wikipedia was heathy enough to absorb what I wrote. The servers seem to be dying a lot more often than they used to, there's not a day that goes by that I don't get the wiki-unavailable page, so I doubt it has anything to do with my end.
Insofar as the crypto-racism entry is concerned, this is not original research by any reasonable definition of the term. Or, if you wish to apply an inane and pedandic standard to this page, the entire page is "original research" because it contains dozens of assertions that are not strictly sourced, even when the statement appears obvious.
I really don't have time to work on this page now, but come the weekend, I will regularize this page to eliminate all unsourced material.
Anonymous Wikipedian 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Quebec bashing
A "Quebec bashing" section was added without references and with weasel wording (example; "It has been argued that ...") --Wiley 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of removing that section altogether. Maybe the case has been made somewhere that Quebec bashing is considered racism, but this section doesn't describe this. This whole article has spiraled out of control, but even still, the Quebec section seemed bizarre and out of the blue. It was just an assertion, no context, only one or two sentences. Personally, I have know opinion on the subject either way, so if someone wants to add a section like that, by all means, stick it back in, but put a little effort into this time.Bobanny 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A paragraph in "Racism as official government policy" has been added. this paragraph, as with the "Quebec Bashing" one above is without references at all and with weasel wording. This seems like an attempt to bring the Quebec/Canada bickering (which can be seen elsewhere on wikipedia) to this page. I have removed this paragraph altogether. Should someone wish to re-instate it, please cite references. Furthermore, study of this issue will probably result in a non-involved person (unlike me) to conclude to a long standing, hard to solve dispute and not present day governmental racism on either side. In which case it probably doesn't belong in a page about racism. --Pixx 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
National Vanguard... as source?
Racism#Allegedly racist groups: "Al-Queda, Islamist militant group vowed to destroy Westerners, Jews, and Christians.[41]" ...the source is from National Vanguard.
But...
Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites: "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia [...]"
And the reference isn't even pertinent to the subject. --Liberlogos 18:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the above mentioned link- most links under the heading "Allegedly Racist Groups" seem to be dubious and non reliable links. I will look into making it more 'encyclopedia-like' later but would appreciate some help. --khello 08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
--71.192.88.79 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)==Allegedly racist groups section== Is it really appropriate to have radical fundamentalist muslim groups in this section, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc? Much of the muslim world is anti-jewish/anti-israel, but are they against jews as a race, or as a religion? I would think that they would accept the conversion of jewish people to islam, who would then be acceptable to these groups... but that's just my impression. Do we have any sources on this? --Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- The appropriate question is whether there are actual allegations of racism being lodged against them, not whether the allegations are true. There may be other allegations that maintain them to be involved with religious intolerance. If there is an article on "religionism," then that information could be discussed there. P0M 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If the title is Allegedly Racist Groups that any group alleged to be racist can be listed. A source isn't even warranted because listing that group alleges racism by atleast one person. Finally, I allege that the UNCF and NAACP are racist groups.--71.192.88.79 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Caucasian not technically accurate term for white people
I deleted the use of Caucasian as a term for white people because it is inaccurate, out of date, and was almost only used in the United States. Wikipedia is supposed to use accurate and universal terms. The proper meaning of Caucasian is people from the Caucasus or people who speak the Languages of the Caucasus. Also, if you click on Caucasian, it goes to a disambiguation page, not an article. Spylab 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- So what is the correct name for White people, surely it cant be a layman term like "white people", in USA they say African American, ahh how about European-People-Halaqah 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with Skylab. I think the word we use has to depend on popular and scholarly usage. In some cases, White people is exactly what people say so we should use that term too - as long as the precise context is clear. Indeed, it all depends on contexts. English scholarship on Brazil, for example, typically distinguishes between African-Brazilians, Indigenous Brazilians, and Luso-Brazilians, although even the scholarly literature there also uses the word "white." Let's follow our sources, and just provide the proper references. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The term Caucasian is not out of date, and is also used by forensic anthropologists. You are correct that it is not a technically correct term for white people because it is also used to refer to middle easterners, Indians etc who have a similar skull shape. These people (at least middle easterners) are classified by the US government as white. In popular usage Caucasian refers to people of European descent.
I believe that the term Caucasian is not out of date, it just doesn't technically refer to whites. Whites in America should not be known as whites, but as European Americans, like African Americans. Blacks get their special name, so should whites.
- Race is a word that purports to refer to a category that lacks a proper definition, and names of specific supposed races are words that likewise lack proper definitions. Racism is a real activity and involves behaviors that depend on various names and definitions of supposed races. So what is significant is what particular racists term the people they are for and against. "Whites," "pinks," "Caucasians," "Aryans," etc, etc. are all words that get used for the purpose of manipulating others or fooling oneself. It would be a waste of time to try to find the correct name for a set that has not been formed, and it would also be a waste of time to find and use single words that have as their multiple referents a large number of overlapping sets.
European Americans doesn't cut it either. Could a black man who emmigrated from england be considered a european american? Theres really no term that could be considered NPOV. It's all drawing lines in the sand --71.192.88.79 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Racist quotes section
'The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown.' - H.L. Mencken
This is an amzaing contribution, i mean if that isnt racism then i dont know. But they will say "he was a man of his time" so it was not racist just natural.--Halaqah 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Halaqah, I think when people use the "he was a man of his time" line, they do not mean "therefore he was not racist," because they mean that at that "time" so-called good people were often racists; their point is that despite his being racist we should value those things he did or said that continue to be of worth by present-day standards. Let me give you an example closer to home: Wagner was an anti-Semite, but many Jewish music-lovers understand that he was a creature of his times. If we stopped listening to all music made by anti-Semities, we would stop listening to a great deal of mustic from the 19th century. In other words, I think the goal is not to excuse anti-Semites, but to excuse Jews who want to enjoy music written by an anti-Semite even as they reject his anti-Semtiic statements. I am sure there is much music and literature by whites that Blacks today enjoy and appreciate, despite the fact that for a very long time in American history even seemingly progressive Whites were held beliefs about Blacks most people would today find abhorent. The question is, do we through the baby out with the bathwater? I have a feeling Lincoln said some things about Blacks that would upset most of us today, but I don't fault anyone Black, White, or any other American, who appreciates his role in ending slavery in the US. I bet many GIs who fought in WWII were anti-Semitic, being "men of their times." But if they killed Nazis, man, that is just fine with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what the point is of the Racist quotes section. Is this necessary for the broader understanding of the topic of racism? It seems kind of random. Spylab 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I do not see the usefulness of so many detached squibs without any attempt at analysis. Four Score And Seven Years Ago 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, it's not good. Some of them are not even racist — Darwin's from Descent of Man is actually meant to be something sad, not something desired, and is not a reference to genocide but reflects the concerns of ethnologists of his day that believed that indigenous peoples were rapidly becoming an "endangered species" after their encounters with "civilized people". --Fastfission 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
My best quote ( black man some years ago - maybe on c-span ) "Don't hate me because I am black. Get to know me first - you'll find plenty of other reasons."
innocent content fork, or back-door POV fork?
You judge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_african_type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_type Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Re-ordered topics
I started re-ordering the topics so they will be better organized. I tried to put similar topics together in appropriate sub-sections. I put the Racist Quotes section near the end, because that's more of a trivia section than a main topic. I deleted a paragraph on Affirmative Action because it duplicated a paragraph that's already in the Reverse Racism section. There are probably more cases of repetitive content, or topics that should be merged together under one heading. Spylab 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
So why cant i find racist quotes, i think you put it so far at the end it fell right off the page/.--Halaqah 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed paragraph
I removed the following paragraph from the Racism in Mexico, Central America and South America section. It was oddly written and questionable and unsourced: "With respect to racism, the "Mestizos" term by adoption gives Spaniards and Portuguese decedents in Latin America a claim to racial purity that in fact does not exist. A Spaniard or Portuguese is actually a Mediterranean amalgamation, created by rape, plunder, and conquest, consisting of Celtic, Greek, Roman, German, Arab, (Moors and Berbers) Black Africans, Jewish, and Gypsy bloodlines. Were a "Mestizo" in Mexico can trace his ancestry neatly and relatively purely to the Aztecs and a Siberian land bridge; a Spaniard is a truly complete Mestizo mystery". --Xyzzyplugh 13:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Is the Falun Gong homophobic
Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic. The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.
According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.” [42] Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.” [43] Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” [44]
It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here. Thanks--Samuel Luo oli 12 November 2006 (UTC) the end
Feedback
Something that's been bothering me about: The people who have "White" skin and call themselves American are absolutely wrong. Well, they're actually from the British Decent (Mostly) as their ancestors are from England or Europe. The Native Americans are the true Americans.
Also, a classmate once told my teacher that he hate Germans. Not good. Just because they, in total, killed eleven million people in the Second World War does not mean that all Germans are bad.
But, I heard that there are these Germans who shave off their hair and kill Aisans.
The world is getting sicker than I thought.
Very Messy
I have changed Anti-Semitism to Racism against Jewish people, as i think the title is a POV, this is about Racism and it should be consistent, I know people say anti-Semitism is racism but i think it is a very subjective argument, as anti-Semitism today has a very political slant, i.e. for me writing like this can be considered "anti-Semitic". Also i have deleted the box as the full article has the anti-Semitism box and is of no use here when it is only suppose to be a brief discussion. It is all of these things that make the article a mess. Also there needs to be a fluid theme and not things dropped in all over the place. If one group is being discussed then Arab racism needs a cat, African American needs a separate cat etc etc. --Halaqah 11:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop removing racist quotes
Everytime i come back to this page some smarty has removed racist quotes, the topic is about racism yet they delete the racist quotes. How are people suppose to appreciate the toungue of racism? the best way is to snatch it from the mouth of those racist that said what they said. DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION AGAIN!---Halaqah 11:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
the below is not a racist quote, i am sorry: --Halaqah 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) "When you look at the black race, black people are very gifted in what we call worship and celebration. A lot of us like to dance, and if you go to black churches, you see people jumping up and down, because they really get into it. White people were blessed with the gift of structure and organization. You guys do a good job of building businesses and things of that nature and you know how to tap into money pretty much better than a lot of people do around the world. Hispanics are gifted in family structure. You can see a Hispanic person and they can put 20 or 30 people in one home. They were gifted in the family structure. When you look at the Asians, the Asian is very gifted in creation, creativity and inventions. If you go to Japan or any Asian country, they can turn a television into a watch. They're very creative. And you look at the Indians, they have been very gifted in the spirituality." - Reggie White
- See the discussion above (titled "Racist quotes section") to understand why the section has been deleted. It serves no genuine encyclopedic purpose. The rest of the (very-long) article does a good enough job explaining what racism is, without the addition of random racist quotes. Spylab 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's still pretty cool that they can turn a television into a watch. Man, without the Japanese my life would probably be a little more dull, I mean I just about LIVE for Nintendo and gadgets JayKeaton 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Link glut
That's an awful lot of See Also links. Would anyone care to help build a Template:Discrimination to condense some of that? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
demographics
I was interested to read who is more likely to be racist, but couldn't find it. I was expecting things like "studies have shown that upper clase white families are more likely to be racist than lower to mid class white families" or summat like that, you know? Racism is largley conditioning I should think, in this day and age the fear and hatred of other races can only be taught, it wouldn't come natural. So what societies and groups are breeding racism? What societies are more likely to not be racist, poor people? Educated people? What, what is it? This article wont tell me, that makes me a sad panda JayKeaton 07:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does WP permit Racism against Gibraltar?
This seems the ideal place to expose the racist attitudes of some WP members, including admins, who have allowed a racist user Ecemaml to poison the Gibraltar pages with fascist inspired, racist, anti-Gibraltar propaganda, and then had the cheek to ban a Gibraltar user "Gibraltarian" for taking a stand. The situation is scandalous. It MUST be overturned. WP cannot continue to claim it runs on an NPOV basis otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.120.224.143 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
- I don't think it's technically possible to commit "racism" against a geographic location, since it's not a race. Are the residents of Gibraltar a distinct race? *Dan T.* 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it isn't racism, but some kind of prejudice still? JayKeaton 11:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The racism is against the people of Gibraltar, who are a distinct cultural and political entity. Racism & discrimination is not only about skin colour. That a user can abuse WP to peddle his poison, and the response of WP is to unjustly ban another for making a stand against this is quite frankly repugnant. And none of the admins seem to give a damn. User "Gibraltarian" should have his ban lifted immediately, as its initial imposition was totally unacceptable and unjustifiable.
Where is Israel In Insitutional racism?
I have just notice Uganda, that little African country got a nice place in racism, can someone please discuss the possiblity of adding Israel and South Africa.--Halaqah 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I removed Israel because it was pure editorializing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is, nevertheless, institutional racism in Israel. If someone can do serious research on it, it is worth including. I suggest work by political scientist Ian Lustick as a start. As long as the results do not violate NPOV or NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
IMPOSSIBLE TO BE CRITICAL OF ISRAEL
I have to strongly say do not remove this, you can reedit if you belive it is an editorializing, you can bring your view, but you will not ignore this while adding UGANDA. This is really wrong. all USA USA what about Israel? please show a worldview. India i asked to be mentioned and it is in here, now lets continue the debate, again do not delete, you are free to modify and make it correct but do not delete.--Halaqah 15:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [edit] Israel this is the section in dispute Israel has been accused of practicing open discrimination to Palestinian people, some argue that there status in no more than second class citizens, they have no rights to vote within the Jewish system and are denied the freedom of movement and settlement afforded to Israeli citizens. Desmond Tutu is a staunch critic of this system and makes parallels to South Africa. ref name=tutuNation>Desmond Tutu and Ian Urbina, Against Israeli apartheid, The Nation 275:4-5, June 27, 2002 (July 15, 2002 issue). Accessed online 28 November 2006.</ref> and has likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of Black South Africans under apartheid.[1] Tutu used the analogy on a Christmas visit to Jerusalem on 25 December 1989, when he said in a Haaretz article that he is a "black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa." [2] He made similar comments in 2002, speaking of "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about". There has also been some debate about the treatment of African Jews primarly the Beta Israel who occupy the bottom social economic positions. [citation needed] Critics are claiming racism is behind what they say is the Israeli government's establishment of a 400-person monthly quota on immigration from Ethiopia — even for those who qualify under the Law of Return. Ethiopian Jewry activists complain that the quota and what they cite as a lack of humanitarian aid from American Jewish philanthropies are doubly offensive because of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent calls for a mass immigration of Jews from Argentina, France, Australia and South Africa.[3]
- Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. Tutu is not a reliable source on Israel. Every single country in the worls has some ethnic tensions, but you picked the Jewish state for your harsh criticism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Many would be had they not been forced out at gun point on grounds of RACE (Lod, 1948 for example, 20,000) and Tutu is possibly the most reliable source alive on apartheid, which is a form of racism. Be thankful some zealot hasn't dragged the war of independence and refugees into it. Rcnet 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how it is relevant that Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. The Israeli government still has a policy towards Palestinians, and it's conceptually possible that that policy is racist. As to Tutu - he is given as an example of the widespread claim that Isreali policy in the occupied territories is analogous to apartheid; he's a reliable source that he did in fact make that claim. VoluntarySlave 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- See appeal to authority. Find an expert or a good example of racism in this instance. Another editor has already recommended an author on the subject of institutional racism. Pretend you are a Palestinian. What evidence can you offer to state your case? Quoting Tutu isn't helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how it is relevant that Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. The Israeli government still has a policy towards Palestinians, and it's conceptually possible that that policy is racist. As to Tutu - he is given as an example of the widespread claim that Isreali policy in the occupied territories is analogous to apartheid; he's a reliable source that he did in fact make that claim. VoluntarySlave 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you must think we are silly or something, this site is not your opinion, disuss but dont you dare delete, every day on the news you hear about this conflict now you will have us believe there is no policy against the "palestinian people", So what country are Palestinian people a citizen of? No Desmond Tutu would know about Israel,he has no qualification to make comparisons to SA and Israel. R u comparing the UK to Israel? And you can if you want to add them, by the way USA, UK, UGANDA, are all there, and Uganda is in the past so is Nazi Germany. DONT REMOVE AGAIN as this is vandalism, discuss here. I have said you can improve the article, and correct mistakes. Other editors here have supported the inclusion of Israel. If you see a problem correct it DONT DELETE IT.--Halaqah 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- No need to SCREAM. You are 30 years too late: Even the UN revoked its bigoted Zionism = Racism resolution. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not intrested in the UN i am intrested in your rude editing policies, i have ask you to hold a discussion before deleting my work. --Halaqah 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have ask for a discussion i do not appreciate what i research to be aimlessly deleted maybe you have a point but we will never know if you keep deleting my work and not allowing a dicussion. if you read the article you will see i also discuss racism against African Jews, with sources. so if u were honest you wouldnt be deleting you would be bring your point and we will make adjustments, other people have agreed with this and you are the one reverting all of the time.--Halaqah 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No one even has a voice, save yours, i have research it and reedited it and you keep deleting my work. Go and read the WIKI POLICY, this is called vandalism, it is my work you r deleting i am not deleting yours. This is childish. What does the UN have to do with it? This is WIkipedia and we are having a editing conflict i think most people worldwide including desmond tutu and others share this view, yet it isnt allowed. But you can talk about Uganda, is that fair, is that balance. Can i go an delete Uganda ? Why dont you go and delete indian pure political editing, one rule for you another for everyone else. I wish Americans came and deleted the racism there, and what about the UK?--Halaqah 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your entire section was based on Tutu, who is not a reliable source on Israel. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, and the conflict is not race based. What you are doing here is original research and quote mining. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No it isnt race base, The Falasha arent African, I wonder if racism only refers to race. Do you think European Jews are not part of the same race as Hitler, race, ethnicity it is all racism. see def. Hitler was a racist, he had a rule for one set of people and a rule for his "people", Israel has a rule for Palestinians who i beleive where there before the majority of European jews arrived, and another rule for European Jews. So lets discuss unless now CNN is mis reporting the situation. either way if i am wrong the discussion is for such debates. I am not Palestinian, i dont even know and Israeli or Palestinian people, i just wish they would stop fighting so i dont have to see dead humans on the news everyday. "u will never get peace down the barrel of a gun"--Halaqah 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If you were so honest why would you be deleting it, you make dam arguments before deleting material, then i make adjustments or someone else makes adjustments. The African jew issue isnt racism either is it. Read the UK one, it is has opinion of G galloway so go and delete that. The more you do this the worst it becomes, did you get a friend to delete it again? I will have to raise this issue beyond here.--Halaqah 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Most honest editor put a POV flag, they cite original research to allow discussion but you just delete.--Halaqah 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
U r so blind in your edits you dont even see you are destroying other work, follow the protocol because the issue isnt going anywhere, i dont really care, I am not offending if someone puts my country up there. I am offended if Arab racism towards Jews is discussed, or African racism to anyone is discussed. I am trying to add honesty and balance. Ur trying to control wikipedia to protect something. I am sure this is why the world is in the mess it is in, we cannot speak, we have to watch you be a dictator and just delete my work without a plural discussion, address the fairness of that!--Halaqah 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please read my posts above. I suggest you deal with your prejudices elsewhere. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I yes i will be adding Sudan next, --Halaqah 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Humus Sapiens, can you explain to me why Tutu is not a reliable source on Isreali racism. Aussie King Pin 08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- He is not a scholar, but a clergyman, politician, and anti-Israeli campaigner. Beit Or 08:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
U c what i mean, is that a good reason, he is not a scholar, so only scholars can be a source on Israeli, I beleive he doesnt need to be a scholar for the content he is lending here, anti-Israli capaigner is a serious POV, you would slander such a great PEACEMAKER to back up your POV. Tutu needs to be heard just like how everyone else is heard in all the other topics on racism. Imagine that Desomond Tutu is antisemitic--Halaqah 10:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- You had me at U c.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the proper process is to leave in Desomond Tutu until the discussion is finish, the more you behave in this way the more crediablity you lose, the more attention it will attract, the more research will be done, and the bigger the section will get, when i first put it, it was only 2 lines. Is Noam Chomsky a suitable critic? Please someone re-edite the desomond tutu bit and discuss its inclusion as i can see the revert wars have begun. No need for explanation just between your editing gang decide.--Halaqah 10:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You are so making my case for a pro-Israel tag team editing gang on wikipedia.--Halaqah 10:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article has been on my watchlist for a long time, I could care less what you believe. Let me know if you have trouble reading this and I will try my best to help you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I have nada to add, what i will do is allow others into this debate, and i will let other have their say, and allow plurality to bring democracy by outcome. thanks for you time. so if i have issues we will see, let our peers decided.--Halaqah 12:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- First, there are Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of Israel - not all Arabs live in the Occupied Territories, some were born in the state of Israel and have israeli citizenship. Second, I do not see how Tutu is an appropriate source as he is not an expert on Israel/Paelstine. What is wrong with relying on established scholars, especially when there are established scholars who are well-respected for their expertise on Israel who have written about institutionalized racism in Israel? I think anyone who genuinely cares about putting information on this topic in the article should be willing to do the required research. i mentioned one good name to start with, above. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
U r correct but i am unwilling to do this after the whipping i received for even daring to ask a question. Tutu is still relevant as he has made a comparison. But i will allow another editor to continue because i have been clearly marked as disruptive.--Halaqah 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What a disgusting display of censorship by people with a LONG track record of POV defending and removal of criticisms of Israel. Rcnet 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would think that sourcing someone as experienced with rasicism, in the form of apartheid, as Desmond Tutu, would be a very good source. Labeling him as "anti-Israeli" is non-sensical, you can not dismiss an argument based on claiming the other side opposes your side. Nonsense.Rcnet 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The more I explore Wiki, the more I am disgusted to find it being used by some to stifle any and all legitimate criticism of Israel under the cover of new antisemitism by the same people across a wide gamut of articles. Halaqah did violate 3RR here, but in my opinion only when ganged up on my users, including Admins, who had no interest in discussing the merits of his contribution and wished to simply remove criticism of Israel. There isn't a country in the world that does suffer from racism, and that includes Israel. Rcnet 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. People accuse you of being anti-semetic just because you reveal a jewish state for what it is, racist. Israel continously hides under the wing of the American government in fear of being critisized. I think this should change. A page about racism in Israel should be created. (Ssd175 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
Opening sentence needs improvement
The current version of the opening sentence needs work.
Racism is commonly defined as a belief or doctrine where inherent biological differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
It is too wordy, grammatically awkward, and doesn't adequately define the topic. Also, the words are almost the same as the ones that appear in the reference. Spylab 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
ummm...has anybody noticed that most of the pictures are european ones? why not get some (forgive me for this) auction pictures from the americas?
Medieval Racism
Is there such a thing as medieval racism? Setting aside the terminology, there appear to be no examples in the section that are from the medieval era. Are changes in order?Homagetocatalonia 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- That section was clearly mis-titled; I've changed it to early-modern, which is broadly the correct historical period (although some of the examples seem to come from the enlightenment), although that makes some of the phrasing a bit confusing, as it now contrasts early-modern with modern racism. VoluntarySlave 04:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Fiji
I've added Fiji, as Racism was one of the reasons cited for the coup. Still a bit of a stub - needs more work. Rcnet 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Original research in Israel section
I've moved the following original research to here for further discussion:
Some Israeli politicians and leaders have used negative language when discussing Arabs and Palestinians. In 2004, Yehiel Hazan, an Israeli member of parliament, declared at the Knesset that "The Arabs are worms. You find them everywhere like worms, underground as well as above." and went on to describe them as "murderers" and "terrorists". [4] [5]. Raphael Eitan, former Israel Army Chief, said on 12 April 1983 that Palestinians who endanger cars on the road should be treated aggressively and their freedom of movement should be narrowed until they will be like "drugged cockroaches in a bottle". In 2004, then Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim asked "What is it about Islam as a whole and the Palestinians in particular? Is it some form of cultural deprivation? Is it some genetic defect? There is something that defies explanation in this continued murderousness." [6].
Moshe Feiglin, a Likud activist who lives in a West Bank settlement, stated to the New Yorker: “You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches.” [7].
We need reliable sources that use these statements as example of racism; it's not up to Wikipedia editors to cherry-pick various quotes and decide for themselves that they constitute racism. Furthermore, finding various offhand quotes from individuals is hardly a way of showing any sort of systemic racism in Israel itself, particularly when you're quoting non-notables like "Moshe Feiglin"; why on earth would we care what he has to say? Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fair call on these on reflection. I'd like to bring the core issues in to that section - the inherent racism of Right of return law, but there is a strong organized mob pushing a POV unfortunately. Rcnet 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You'd have a hard time making a strong argument that Israel's Law of Return is inherently racist, for a number of reasons:
- At least twenty countries, including many Western democracies such as Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, etc., have similar laws;
- It is supported by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination articles 1(3) and 1(4); and
- It would seriously undermine the Palestinian demand for a "Right of Return".
Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes and no, the use of this by many countries doesn't make it less racist, by any of them - though Law of return is more sectarian in character. Right of return is a very different case, involving in many cases people who were forcibly evicted from their homes and their property stolen, being allowed to return to where they had lived (Lod etc) - that is not an immigration issue at all. Rcnet 02:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, in the vast majority of cases the "right of return" is asserted for people who have never lived in Israel; at most 100,000 of the 7 million or so "Palestinian refugees". For the rest, it's a demand for preferential racially based immigration, based on some paternal bloodline through their parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, etc. As I said, claims that the Law of Return is racist inevitably implies that the "right of return" is racist as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Please someone look into this guys work Ian Lustick as suggested above. i have lost my ablity to be nuetral after yesterdays debate--Halaqah 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Israel, Noteworthiness of Desmond Tutu on Apartheid
I have reverted the deletion on Tutu, this is an impeccably qualified source. Rcnet 02:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- No he is not. What makes an Anglican cleric and a South African politician an expert on Israel? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Neutrality NPOV & experience. With the possible exception of Nelson Mandela he is one of the most highly notable sources as to what is Apartheid having deep personal experience with it. He is not noted for anti-Semitism, as are some members of the clergy. Someone with that level of experience of Apartheid who analyses a foreign situation, as he has, and draws a parallel with his own experiences of Apartheid is noteworthy. I also plan on sourcing Jimmy Carter who has intimate knowledge of Israel through his role as president, and activities afterwards, however I have not yet read the book. Rcnet 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- On an issue which involves such serious comparisons, it is difficult to find a noteworthy, yet neutral source on the Israel. A Zionist or anti-Semitic source is of little value due to POV bias, hence under the circumstances Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate with no other political/religious agenda on Israel either way and widely acknowledged statesman is a good source. Israel should not be held to a higher or lower standard than any other nation; nor should the validity of criticism of it require a different threshold than any other country or individual mentioned on this page, as that in and of itself is discriminatory. Rcnet 07:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for that self-righteous POV stream. You are not original, as this already has been answered (see above): Tutu has some expertise on South Africa, politics and Anglican Church, but not on Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please make sure that any sources you use are both expert sources, and assert governmental racism on the part of Israel. Not what you decide is "racism", but what expert sources have deemed to be racism. After all, the title of this article is "Racism", and we must be very careful to avoid original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
so we can apply this threshold as the user above said, to the rest of this article and it will meet the standard you have just outlinned? I will then have to ask that this standard be extended to everything on this page.Because if it isnt called original research then it is a POV, if it isnt a POV, it is "racist", if it isnt racist then it is "unreliable source."--Halaqah 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Answering RfC: I think that Tutu's opinion is relevant to article as he is a very notable individual and he is clearly speaking of Israeli state policies; I disagree with the opinion that he has to be an "expert" in Israel for qualifying as an important voice in the subject. Regarding the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism it should be reinserted but NPOV'ed by adding that this resolution was rejected some years later JRSP 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the position of the UN is not by any means any form of vindication or anything, remember these people on Rwanda? UN is a highly flawed body and has very little weight outside of what America backs up. I think readers here shoudnt treat the UN as GOds final decree. Just take a look at the security council. Look how powerless they are now that they contradict the USA and their "friends". Tutu should be added as one writer said it works by argeement so lets count the votes and re add it.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think you should check up on the UN a bit better. "Remember these people on Rwanda" is meaningless rambling. The fact that the UN didn't intervene doesn't mean that an assessment of the situation is right or wrong. You seem somewhat confused as to what the primary task of the UN is -namely regulating the relationships between its member states, NOT dealing with events inside one member state. --84.60.104.27 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
A different rule for Australia/South Africa/Uganda/Nazi Germany/UK
Please take a look at this: The policy of excluding all non-white people from the Australian continent was the official policy of all governments and all mainstream political parties in Australia from the 1890s to the 1950s, and elements of the policy survived until the 1970s. By official estimates, at least 30,000 the Aboriginal children were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972. There is no refernces and no one the same people who put this up are fighting, why havent they applied the above rules to Australia that they applied to Israel? I have to ask that this section be removed unless crediable sources be cited, as it looks like original research.--Halaqah 01:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Only india has proper references so why dont the same people complain about the standard of the rest of the countries? I hope i havent made a mistake but those discussions dont have refernces so please add them and delete my tag.--Halaqah 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Halaqah, other editors have clearly come to a consensus that Israel cannot be racist. This encyclopedia works by consensus... Mostlyharmless 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- It would be ridiculous to have an alleged "consensus" that a particular country (Israel in this case) is incapable of being racist in any of its acts, past, present, or future. The consensus is more along the lines of that the current activity of the Israeli government should not be labeled with the term "racism". This doesn't mean that they, or any other country, gets a permanent free pass against ever being labeled by this term should they do something that deserves it. *Dan T.* 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think they are making a mockery out of democracy "consensus" I and many above have not agreed on this verdict, so where is the consensus? A consensus among one group of people is has no validity. I think reader here i would be lead to believe the last 20 years of ethnic conflict, the statements of Desmond Tutu, John Pilger are isolated unusable sources.please stop begging the question and deal with facts.--Halaqah 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Am I right in thinking that the comment of MostlyHarmless is intended to be ironic? --MaplePorter 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
South Africa needs more info and a refe
Let me explain, "blatent racism" is a POV, it is clearly an emotional statment, Now you guys know i support this but let us be fair and assume and alien is paying Wiki a visit, they need to know immediately in this article (not somewhere else) what is the source of this accusation, and we need more info and some references, as explained above. and considering who owns the BBC and the politics i think we need more than to simple have BBC said, BBC said Sudans Arabs were killing Africans, BBC is a reflection of western politics.--Halaqah 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Lets reopen the Tutu/Israel debate
I vote for the inclusion of tutu's statement on Israel as view to racism as part of Israels policy as racism was part of South Africa's policies. The word consensus was mentioned above so it is time to hear all voices here.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
this statment was made Halaqah, other editors have clearly come to a consensus that Israel cannot be racist. This encyclopedia works by consensus... Mostlyharmless so in the spirit lets open democracy and plurality.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Answering RfC: I think that Tutu's opinion is relevant to article as he is a very notable individual and he is clearly speaking of Israeli state policies; I disagree with the opinion that he has to be an "expert" in Israel for qualifying as an important voice in the subject. Regarding the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism it should be reinserted but NPOV'ed by adding that this resolution was rejected some years later JRSP 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is a clear consensus that it should be included, which has been aggressively opposed by a group of 3 editors whose primary purpose on wikipedia seems to be ensuring all articles have no criticism of Israel regardless of merits. This section is grossly POV and deliberately includes a tiny, almost irrelevant "placeholder" about a minor issue. What about there being no way for someone to marry a non-Jew in Israel (no civil marriages), or the massive land confiscations based on race, racial profiling at airports - all forms of state sponsored racism. The Israel section is highly one sided. Outright censorship by activist editors POV pushing. Arbitration with a view to removing POV pushers a-la-Zeq may be the only way to go. Otherwise restoring this section will require organization and coordination as this POV gang operate as a team and will otherwise push you into 3RR 89.100.52.30 09:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. --MaplePorter 12:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added Some consider the laws within Israeli government concerning the invalidity of Jew and non-Jew marriages as a form of institutionalize racism. [[45]]. Either Racism is wrong all the time or some of the time. But i must add i dont think the marriage law is an easy one because, MOst religious states would be like this, but we can consider it for racism. I know in Sharia a woman Muslim cannot marry a non-Muslim, is this racism, i personally dont think so, but we have to add it for consideration of plurality. P.s. The Ethiopian Jew issue is not a "minor" issue.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
To discuss the marriage issue, as a form of "racism" was just reverted as "soap Box" is it clear what is going on here?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- No one really considers Muslim a race per see which would negate that for consideration, however many Jews do consider themselves a Race, as do many non Jews, so in this Marriage case, the first test for Racism is passed - there is a racial element. However I'm not sure this is noteworthy for inclusion and I just mentioned it in passing. We can't list every form of governmental racism for every country, that would require it's own Wikipedia - we should stick to the most known factual issues, such as the land confiscations which were done racially, and the current system of Apartheid practiced by Israel. 89.100.52.30 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Desmond is key in the discussion Apartheid in the Holy Land I wish more people would bring the research as i started this discussion out of sincere observation that it actually didnt even have any single reference to Israel until got it added--can you imagine that. The longest biggest most popular conflict in human history doesnt make it into racism.As one editor said "there is no racism" WOW i wonder if those in Jenin thinks so--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I quote "My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden? " Tutu.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Tutu is an expert on South Africa and perhaps on Anglican Church. Not on Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
He is an Expert on Racism--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think that the "Heart aches" quote from Tutu is highly relevant and belongs in the article. I think that the argument about marriage is more problematic, because points to Israel as a theocracy, but is not necessarily evidence of racism. --MaplePorter 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- However, I think that this may be evidence of racism. --MaplePorter 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the "Heart aches" quote from Tutu is highly relevant and belongs in the article. I think that the argument about marriage is more problematic, because points to Israel as a theocracy, but is not necessarily evidence of racism. --MaplePorter 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well we agree so lets include it but it will be taken out immediately by the page watchers, but we need to serious add stuff about the European settlers who take palestinian land. sorry i think tutu would know all about that pattern --dont you?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Even if Tutu were an expert on Israel (and he's not), did Tutu talk about "racism"? No? Oh well, because that's what this article is about, Racism. Tutu's opinions are well-captured in more relevant articles. But you know that, of course, because you copied your insertions from other articles in the first place. Please stop trying to spam as many copied condemnations of Israel as you can into any article you imagine to be even remotely related to the topic. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Tutu has a string of honorary doctorates as long as your arm. These are a clear indication of the esteem in which he is held by academic institutions around the world. Several of those doctorates are in subjects such as law and civil law. This indicates that those institutions consider him qualified to address issues of justice and right in an international context. Likewise he would not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize had the prize committee not considered his human rights activism to be of international significance and scope. Human rights have long been considered an international issue and therefore the opinions of international commentators do carry weight with regard to specific situations.
- Unfortunately the argument that so-and-so source should not be considered reliable because such-and-such a matter is outside his or her area of expertise is made far too frequently in this corner of wikipedia. Recently, for example, somebody on another talk page tried to make the same argument about Noam Chomsky, dismissing him as a "linguist" and completely ignoring his long and distinguished parallel career as a political analyst. True, there are certainly cases of experts going out of their depth in other fields (such as Willhelm Reich's crackpot physics), but each case must be decided individually and with great care. For instance one might think that a physicist would have nothing authoritative about theology, but individuals such as John Polkinghorne and Alfred North Whitehead have shown this to be false. To say that an acknowledged authority on racism and human rights has nothing to say about issues of racism and human rights as they pertain to a particular state is as absurd as saying that a judge in Canada could not be qualified to conduct a war crimes trial because she was not already an acknowledged expert on Germany or Poland. The principle here is that individuals with more generalised knowledge and facility at certain modes of thought and enquiry are often able to apply those abilities to more specific situations, even if those situations lie outside their own specific field of expertise. Ireneshusband 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Jews are a race or not irrelevant
this is the def. of race: Racism is commonly defined as a belief or doctrine where inherent biological differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.[1] this then applies to same race racism described as Self-hating jews, the term racism is not limited to narrow definitions of race, because by that same argument there are no races, just human beings. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The topic of the article is Racism. None of the sources you listed referred to Racism. Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
none of the sources refer to Uncle Tom as racism, the title is same race racism, it isnt going to say this is racism, by this argument we would have to delete the entire same race section. being an uncle tome isnt going to be listed as racism it will be called uncle tom .--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- by the def of the title same race racism the jewish condition is valid, by the def of the section.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please avoid WP:NOR; it doesn't really matter what some Wikipedia editor put in as the "def of the section", or how you imagine Jews relate to that. Use reliable sources that refer to Racism. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"Self-loathing Jew" is used synonymously with "self-hating Jew". "Self-hating Jew" has also been compared to the term "Uncle Tom" as used in the African-American community.[46][47] the above is a form of self racism by the def of the article, since the def has not been an issue all topics fitting the def are critical, if the def is an issue then you should challenge that first and not delete sourced work.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um, possibly, but please find sources which describe it as "racism". Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I do not see the connection between self-hating Jews and racism. If certain Jews critical of Israel are called self-hating Jews solely because of their political views, then race is not a factor. Halaqah, what you must demonstrate is the racial element in the labeling of certain Jews as self-hating. As of yet I do not see that element. KazakhPol 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The topic is called same race racism, according to this def, self-hating jews needs consideration as a form of same race racism. i am going by the def of same race racism. see uncle tom.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I will leave this one alone, as i have no real passion for it, i just added it to broaden the topic. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter New Book Peace not Aparthied. next sentence discussing Israel and Racism
Well lets see now, Is Jimmy an authority on Israel? Is he anti-Semitic? Is he too old to have an opinion? Is this original research, is it coming from an unreliable website? or personal opinion not factual, or maybe he said Apartheid and not racism so we cannot add it. Please see the new book by Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Apartheid in Israel book. I would like to keep it as a NPOV and all the other things so please get involved, as this is an open encyclopedia not the political backyard for the suppression of truth, I think the world is better if we all report honesty and have one rule for everyone, one threshold for all content in the racism section.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Also see that tutu is crediable enough to be mentioned here. so we can use him, no more whitewashing--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me help the retort the writer is Sherri Muzher is a Palestinian-American who directs Michigan Media Watch. so the source is corrupted. lets look at the book and the statements of Breyten Breytenbach.I think two SA are the most qualified people to recognize apartheid when they see it. on these grounds their opinions are relevant 100% Let me add The Fateful Triangle: United States, Israel and the Palestinians (Paperback) by Noam Chomsky and author Ilan Pappé Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, i building the case so i am giving the defense time to prepare.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- How many articles are you going to try to push this POV in? Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
please deal with the facts given as opposed to a POV which isnt a pov actually everyting is a POV. It belongs in racism how many articles is that. address the discussion and not editing patterns.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here are the facts:
- The name of the book is Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid; you added the "Israel and Racism" stuff yourself, Carter doesn't use the term.
- Carter himself has explicitly stated "I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism..."
- Now, please read the policies, and stop wasting our time. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Halaqah: Tutu and other South Africans you mention see every development through the prizm of their South African experience. They are not experts on the country you singled out for target practice, Israel. Chomsky is a linguist and polemicist. Please stop this quote mining and misquoting to support your POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry there seems to always be something wrong with anyone you dont like. and watch the civility as "stop wasting "our" time" is a violation here. Official needs to removed as it is discussing actual events in these countries, many countries list here have no legislated policy of racism. I will ask you to bring evidence of legislation in the official body of these governments if you push have official in the title. I have misquoted no one, Carters book is Peace not Apartheid i dont think he was talking about Trinidad or South Africa, which shows it is not a POV but a reality. The POV is yours so lets discuss the facts and drop the accusations okay? We are here to make this article balance and NPOV not protect any kind of racism because a select group on wiki have a pov that there is no racism in Israel.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please use on-topic sources. As it is, I had to clean up the material you had inserted, which severely misrepresented the source it used, essentially making things up that were entirely false. For example, Sharon had actually called for a doubling of Ethiopian Jewish immigration; your wording made it seem that he had called for immigration for everywhere except Ethiopia. This kind of editing is very troubling. Jayjg (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Official Governement Policy
I dont know if we are working on making this article better or not, i have removed official and someone put it back. I have made the topic more inclusive. These titles were placed here by editors like me, they can be changed. But if you want to leave it as official then UK, Uganda and more will maybe India have to go. Idi amin did not make removal of Indians official policy he just did it as a dictator. Indians still live and always lived in Uganda, so it wasnt official government policy and they are no sources given to suggest it was part of the official policy of UGANDA, to add UK George Galloway a very nice man, is making a personal statement, again there is no evidence of an official policy of racism just manifestations of racism, Discuss here or admit my changes to the title.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The case of Uganda certainly fits, and the argument for the UK seems to be a general one against racial profiling, though if that isn't official policy, its inclusion might need to be reviewed. TewfikTalk 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This is why i removed the word Official, Uganda did not have an official policy of kicking indians out. So why is it there. official is a problem. show balance, dont edit beyond your means, what do you want your cake or do you want to eat it. You are so careful to revert what i did, but you didnt look at why i took out the word official because it is next to impossible to prove, unless you can bring the Ugandan official documents to say it was part of their government policy legally.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Official" doesn't mean "in the constitution". Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
why dont you tell me what it means then? Is it clear what the purpose of Official serves. isnt Government policy then enough. Official means written in the body of the parliment; look it up and see. Official policy, what is the dif between official policy and policy? --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Official" means a policy written down by the government somewhere; it doesn't mean it's "in the constitution". Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
My question explain the dif between "official government policy" and "Government policy" very simple. where did Idi Amin write this down? r u sure he wrote it down? or did he just do it.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- If something is "official", then it is "authorized by a proper authority" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition); thus something that is "official" does not necessarily have to be written down but merely authorized by a civil officer, whether through legislation or (non-written) decree, explicitly or surreptitiously. "Government policy", conversely, must be written into law or government documents, and it is therefore inherently official and explicit. So, something can be "official" (authorized by a civil officer, whether through written or non-written means, explicitly or surreptiously) without being "government policy" (explicitly written into law or government documents). But to avoid the confusion surrounding this terminology, I hereby propose that the title of the section be changed to the more broad "State-enforced racism". -- WGee 06:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, racism applies to perceived races only, not to castes or any other social classes (cf. Racism#India). -- WGee 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the section "Institutional racism" desperately needs to be expanded, as it is the most common and effective form of racism in the West. As a measure of its preponderance and significance, institutional racism is the main subject of debate on the CNN series Paula Zahn NOW: Racism in America. It is also the most widespread and serious form of racism according to civil rights groups such as the NAACP. Moreover, institutional racism is frequently cited as a major cause of civil unrest and low economic status amongst Europe's Muslims, for instance in "France and Its Muslims" by Stéphane Giry, published in the October/November issue of Foreign Affairs. -- WGee 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- i agree with the rename but suggest Government endorsed racism, as the current title actual is incorrect.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, "Government-endorsed racism" is probably a better title than the one I suggested, since "endorsed" means "formally supported especially by public statement" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). Thus, we avoid the complex and controversial debate that would accompany my original title, about whether or not certain states are informally or surreptiously enforcing racism. -- WGee 02:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- i agree with the rename but suggest Government endorsed racism, as the current title actual is incorrect.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the section "Institutional racism" desperately needs to be expanded, as it is the most common and effective form of racism in the West. As a measure of its preponderance and significance, institutional racism is the main subject of debate on the CNN series Paula Zahn NOW: Racism in America. It is also the most widespread and serious form of racism according to civil rights groups such as the NAACP. Moreover, institutional racism is frequently cited as a major cause of civil unrest and low economic status amongst Europe's Muslims, for instance in "France and Its Muslims" by Stéphane Giry, published in the October/November issue of Foreign Affairs. -- WGee 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, racism applies to perceived races only, not to castes or any other social classes (cf. Racism#India). -- WGee 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting this
State racism]] played a role in Nazi Germany, fascist regimes in Europe, and in the first part of Japan's Showa period, before World War II. These governments advocated and implemented policies that were racist, xenophobic, and often genocidal. Even if the main purpose of shôwa Japan policies were not the genocide of other populations, degrading terms such as as kichibu (beast) were frequently used by the Japanese government and military to describe neighbors such as the Chinese, Koreans ans Phillipines — and the policies implemented caused the deaths of millions of civilians.
Now i dont know much about this but i dont think it should be included without refernces--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Nazism, Facism and Shôwa imperialism
Zakisan5, this section is in the article from the beginning and your argument that only Nazi germany comitted genocide and, in consequence racism is irrelevant. You tried the same tactic in Japanese war crimes article, but the peoplewho followed that article had good knowledge of the subject and you had to stop your deletions. So, please, stop your propaganda.
The policies of Showa Japan such as the decision made by Hirohito to ratify on August 1937 a proposition of his Army to remove the constraints of the international conventions for prisoners of war and stop using the term "prisoner of war" (Akira Fujiwara), the sanko sakusen (2,7 millions chinese according to Mitsuyoshi Himeta), the vivisections of unit 731, the Nanking massacre (200 000 chinese according to Tokyo tribunal), the bombing of Chongqing, the practice of cannibalism etc., all motivated by the pursuit of the hakko ichi'u and the racist theory that Japan people was the chosen race guided by the descendant of goddess Amaterasu, have caused the deaths of millions of civilians in far east Asia whether you like it or not.
Propaganda like the Kokutai no hongi, approved by prime minister Fumimaro Konoe, all refered to the concept of uniqueness and superiority of Japanese "race" common to the concept of nihonjinron. The use of terms like maruta (log) and kichibu is the expression of that racism.
Apart of what can be found on Wikipedia, there are many books that discuss the aspects of the racist theories of the Shôwa period, such as A short history of Japanese war crimes by Edward Russel of Liverpool, Hidden horrors by Yuki Tanaka, The thought war by Barak Kushner, The enigma of Japanese power by Karel van Wolferen, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan by Herbert Bix, Unit 731 testimony by Hal Gold.
--Flying tiger 14:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If there are no refernces in the article it should be removed. its as simple as that. add sources or anyone can add anything.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Flying Tiger, I would discuss this matter more productively. At first I’d like to say that you labeled my sentences quite easily as ‘Propaganda’ without investigating the contents of my idea. It is easy way to label something like it, but it will create nothing new. Please make sure the points below; 1. I would never advocate everything what the Emperor of Japan had done in the past. As I stated in the sentence which you deleted, ‘We also have to take notice that in those times, at the height of imperialism, the tendencies of racism were all around the world. it is fact that Japanese Military also had the similar tendency to it, for example, they sometime called white superpowers, which colonized almost all Asian Countries except for Japan, as 'Kichiku'(Devil)’. Of couse I hate all kinds of racism, But in those days it did exsist all over the world, of course in Japan. 2. However, as I stated ‘we have to take notice of the fact that Japanese regime had never tried to do the genocide on Chinese, Koreans or any other races in Asian countries. Japan genuinely had warfare against the Allies and China, in contrast to Nazis which tried to exterminate the Jews who were pure civilians’. As you may admit, the Emperor of Japan never had such genocidal policies. I mean, it is a evidence that it is not ‘State Racism’. It makes big deffrence. 3. Nevertheless, you deleted all my sentences and add your ideas on ‘State Racism’ and intentionally, you emphasized the wrong doings of the Emperor of Japan much more than Germany (to make readers feel that Japan did worse things regarding rasicm than Nazis Germany, even though you admitted that the Genocide had never been the officail policy of Japanese government), that is ‘Propaganda’. If you really hate the ‘racism’ itself, why you have done like this? 4. Also, I would like you to explain the reason why ‘Chiune Sugihara, who had saved thousands of Jews by his single-handed decision as the consul of the Empire of Japan to Lithuania, was never punished or accused by the his Government’? This story has been well know all over the world as now he is called ‘Japanese Schindler’, Still you insist on your idea that Japan had obvious sysytem of ‘State Racism’? If you only want to advocate specific ideas and attack somethnig specific, you should not do it on Wikipedia. 5. Also, you misinterprit my idea; I did never say that ‘only Nazi germany comitted genocide’. But as I stated above ‘in those times, at the height of imperialism, the tendencies of racism were all around world. it is fact that Japanese Military also had the similar tendency to it’. I just stated ‘to consider Nazism and Japanese government before and during World War II as similar racist movements’ is not fair regarding its scale and also substance. I already have written the reason above.
Please answer above, and let me know whether you would like to do the pursuit of the truth of the history or just propaganda of your own ideas. If latter, if though I give you millions of references, you will easily deny them all for the reason being ‘every reference is propaganda for classic-right wing’. ...from Zakisan5
First, let me write that I read all your arguments. The main problem I think is your will to adequate racism and genocide. I did not wish to emphasize about Japan. It was in answer to your comments. In my mind, all three regimse should be trated equally.
As I tried to wite before, it is true that the main purpose of the shôwa regime was not the genocide of other yellow people. However, that does not mean the politics implemented were not RACIST. Many authors have wrote about the imperial propaganda that washed the brain of shôwa soldiers to make them think that neighbors such as Chinese were not worthy of respect. All the massacres of civilians were greatly facilitated because of this perception. I'll just refered you here the case reported by historian Tsuda Michio in Nankin daigyakusatsu to Nihonjin bo seishin kozo of a japanese seargent who had raped and killed many chinese women and became impotent when he discovered that is last victim was a japanese immigrant.
Apart, from degrading other yellow people, the shôwa propaganda also degraded occidentals in general and Jews in particular (USA = Country of the Jews, see The Thought war by Barak Kushner)
When you write that Japan as not try to exterminate chinese or philippines, may I reply that 10 millions civilians were enslaved for slave work in Manchukuo and 2,7 millions died only because of the sankô sakusen. Is it not near genocide ? Those were not warriors, they were civilians.
Even if the policy was not : "let' go exterminate neighbors." Was not the effect the same ? And those poor maruta exterminated by Shiro Ishii with the approval of Hirohito ?
The work done by Hideki Tojo's wife in eugenism is also an illustration of the shôwa ideology : create a super race of sun warriors for the glory and expansion of Japan. You can not deny the main goal of the hakko ichi'u was the implementation of the kodo above all asians whether they wanted it or not ? The shôwa soldiers were convinced that they were superior as expressed by nihonjinron.
You give the example of Sugihara who saved lives. What about the nazi John Rabe ? He did the same in Nanking and was not punished either by Hitler... Does that mean that Nazi germany was not racist ?
I'm sure we can come to an agreement but Nazi germany must not be isolated for the only purpose of direct genocide. Shôwa regime was a racist state.
--Flying tiger 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Flying Tiger, I read all your argument above and I also hope that we can come to an agreement, on the ground that both of us hate all kinds of racism and genocidal ideologies.
I would like to discuss this matter on the basis of the policy of Wikipedia, neutral and fair.
At first, I would like to ask you, what does your sentence’ The main problem I think is your will to adequate racism and genocide' mean? If you use the word 'adequate' as 'advocate', I would repeatedly state here; I hate all the racism and genocide! Also, one more question about your sentence above, why did you use the term 'yellow people'? in this case, I think 'Asian people' is appropriate.
As I repeatedly wrote, it is fact that Empire of Japan was influenced by the racism of that era of imperialism, but you may admit that 'eugenism' was nothing new even in those day, but it had been used some hundreds years prior to those era when white superpowers started colonized all over the world.
I understand that you really studied about this era and read lots of books as me, but I would like to point out that your ideas came from both appropriate source and biased, uncertain source. Some authors who you referred to are based on specific ideology and point of historical view.
I know there have been lots of books described how Japanese military was cruel, but lots of them were biased by emotional, ideological ot political reason, such as Iris Chang.
What I hate is, to stir the people’s hate against something by rhetoric, even if the rhetoric advocates my own race, if it drives people to hate something, I deny and hate it. You may admit that, if some people dislike specific race and label them as ‘racists’, it is ‘RACISM’. ‘Wikipedia’has been my favorite website for it’s abundant information and neutral, fair attitude, but recently sometime I have been disappointed when I found some articles using that kind of rhetoric to degrade some specific people.
Last but not least, as for the Mr.John Rabe, please refer to the Wikipedia article; ‘Instead, Rabe was detained and interrogated by the Gestapo. Due to the intervention of Siemens AG, he was released. He was allowed to keep evidence of the massacre, excluding the film, but was not allowed to lecture or write on the subject’. Indeed, he was punised by Hitler. Also, you quoted that Empire of Japan ‘also degraded occidentals in general and Jews in particular’, as I stated in prior message, it is fact that ‘Japanese sometime called white superpowers, which colonized almost all Asian Countries except for Japan, as 'Kichiku'(Devil)’ at the time when all Asian people, including Japanese, were despised by the severe prejudice from them. But at the same time, I would like you to refer to the Wikipedia article of Chiune Sugihara, who is one of the guys I mostly respected all the time; ‘Despite German pressure for the Japanese government to either hand over or kill the Jewish refugees, the government protected the group.’ Please read my opinion above carefully…I am not in hurry. ...from Zakisan5
-What I mean is I disagree with your will to make an absolute link between racism and genocial ideologies. You can be racist without being genocidal and that was the case of the Shôwa regime.
-"Asian" is a vague term reffering to people as diverse as arabs, persians, indians, and thaï. Race is not a scientific concept but when you refer to "white, black and yellow", everybody understand. The Dai Tô'A sensô was only against people from far east asia and thus, from the yellow race.
-You admit that the Shôwa empire was "influenced bay racism of that era", I argue that its ideology such as the hakko ichi'u of the shôwa restauration was racist in substance and that the ideas promoted the view that Japanese "race" was superior to others.
-eugenism as a science was promoted by Francis Galton in 19th century and it is as a science that it was promoted in Japan by Tôjô's wife.
-You argue that my sources are biased and you cite Iris Chang. I never referred to her and I cited japanese authors such as Himeta, Fujiwara, Yoshimi and Kubo. However, in all your interventions, you never refered to any author... just your personal feelings about racism.
-I know John Rabe'story well, I have his diary. He NEVER was punished for having helped chinese, he was just ordered to stop doing "propaganda" in Berlin against Japan, the main ally with Italy. This is a BIG difference. Rabe was never ordered to stop his humanitary actions in NANKING when he patrolled the streets helping the poor chinese who were beaten, raped and killed by the shôwa army of prince Asaka and his fellow Nakajima and showing the japanese soldiers his Nazi regalia. I am sure Sugihara would not have been able to do propaganda against Germany in the universities and ministry of Tokyo...
However, all these arguments about individuals actions such as Rabe or Sugihara are irrelevants, since they were not linked to their governements. The Jewish question is in itself very marginal to Shôwa racism but you just have to read the Wikipedia article about the Shanghai ghetto to see that jewish community of Shanghai, including some of the people saved by Sugihara, were confined to the ghetto in very harsh conditions ordered by the Japanese occupants to please the germans...
-If you do not like references to articles about Japan, we will have to delete also those about Germany. We have to be neutral. --Flying tiger 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Flying Tiger, I have read your argument and felt that we are getting closer to some agreements.
At first, as for the ‘Link between Racism and genocial ideologies’, your argument ‘You can be racist without being genocidal’ I agree with this idea, and I think this is a key point of our argument. In fact, there are various racisms are still going around the world in nowadays, in this modern world. And now they are not overt as 70 years ago. But at the same time, our dissent also belongs to here. My notion about this was repeatedly stated here; ‘It is fact that Empire of Japan was influenced by racism derived from those days' Imperialism all around the world. But it is not fair to consider Japanese government as the same genocidal movements as Nazis, since Nazism’s main purpose was obviously racism’. Genocide is the appearance which racism goes extreme. You may argue that ‘ It is fact that Japanese Government never had genocidal policy. But I know that they were very racistic and comitted terrible things. They shoul be treated equally with Nazis'. This argument seems endless, but I would like to tell you, as I checked the main article today, regarding the current sentence, I don’t have any objection. But I would like to point out a couple of things; why references of ‘Main Articles’ are The Holocaust, Japanese war crimes, Ethnic issues in Japan? Taking one subject of Nazism, and 2 subjects of Japan is not fair; If you refer to Japan, I think 2 Nazis articles and 1 Japan article would be fair. Also, why didn’t you refer to Italy? They were Fascist Government which was allied with Nazis. Is there any reason to ommit them? One more, Title: If you use the term ‘Showa’ , it should be ‘early Showa’. Showa is a long term. After the war, there was long pacific era of almost half a century. If you agree to my suggestions, we will be closer to an agreement.
Regarding the term ‘yellow’, I would like to say that this term is slightly different from ‘White’ or ‘Black’ , has a smack of prejudice. But I would understand and not blame you for just one word. Just like me, you are doing this argument in the short intervals of busy days… The term ‘Dai Tô'A sensô’ is not the meaning you mentioned. Navy simply used the term ‘Pacific War’ because their main battle fields were in the Pacific, and Army used ‘Dai Tô'A sensô’ since their main fields were not in the Pacific, but in East/South East Asian area(Dai Tô'A). And this term used to mean 'war to release the Asian races from the imperialism and conialism of white superpowers', not the war against people in Far East Asia.
Regarding the 'eugenism', I have never heard that Tojo's wife promoted this concept in Japan. Can you specify the source?
I know that you have never referred to Iris Chang, I took her just for a example. What I meant was, the Japanese authors you referred to are all leftists or communists, and some are Marxists. As you may know, Marxism has very specfic point of histrical view, and their histrical ideas are usally not conisdered as neutral in democratic world. Of course, I don’t criticize you for your own belief or ideology, but in Japan, especially in 1960s and 1970s they had lots of disturbances in Japan, and some extremists had gave rise to terrible and bloody incidents in and outside Japan, which dispersed strong Anti-Japanse sentiments all over the world. They were all against the government and democracy, so they did lots of the ‘propagandas’ against their own country, which I think worsened the relationship between Japan and China, which had been just about to be recovered and improved after the war by the efforts of both side.
Reagarding the Shanghai ghetto, I would like to tell you that in the latter half of the war, even almost all Japanese, including women and children in main land, were enforced to work for the industries of the military without sufficient food and clothings, and millions were burned by the bombings of Allies. The plight of the Jews in Shanghai ghetto was not ascribed to the racism, and of course, not to please Germany!! ...From Zakisan5
Hi,
-Ok, I will add articles about Germany (4 Nazi, 3 Shôwa in all), however, I do not know those about Facism.
-The text already refer to "Japan's first part of the Shôwa period".
-I know the Dai Tô'A sensô was officially against Occident but in fact it is the local people from far east who suffered from the invasion despite all the propaganda about releasing them from "evil occidental imperialism".
-Katsuko Tôjô's implication in eugenism and birth policies is covered on Wikipedia in Eugenics in Imperial Japan. I also read references about her propaganda role in Women and war in Japan 1937-45 by Thomas Havens.
-Without proof of direct political activities, I consider that when you accuse Himeta, Yoshimi, Fujiwara, Kubo and Tsuda Michio of being "leftists, communists or marxists" you use the traditionnal argument of right-wing ideologists who attack the messenger when he support views that are not what they like to read. All these historians have discovered concrete proofs written in primary sources such as the "Sugiyama memo" or others to support their claims. This is sadly not the case of their detractors. Being published by Aoki Shoten or Shin-Nihon Shuppansha does not mean you are automatically a "communist" for the same reason that being member of the LDP does not mean you are a fan of Nobosuke Kishi...
I will make some changes in the links, just write me what you think. --Flying tiger 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I checked the article and think it’s reasonable.
Our debate has been fruitful, now I know that you are not the person who dislike and attack some specific race emotionally, and I hope now you know I am not the person who do the vandalism with Right-Wing Propaganda.
I think our debate above should stay here for long, as a proof that the debate can surely take us to somewhere better, as long as both are rational (not nationalists, ha ha).
Thank you for your comitiment, and when we meet again somewhere in ‘Wikipedia’ and if there is dissent again, let’s debate fairy like this time.
From Zakisan5--Takayuki 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The debate prove you are a rational person and not a nationalist fanatic. It is a classic example of the utility of the discussion page. --Flying tiger 16:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Institutional racism and affirmative action
This is further to the content added by Coolguy81 and removed by me, concerrning job reservations, the Mandal commission, et.c. I agree that the content is well-cited and attributed. However, it is inappropriate her, since Affirmative action has its own article, and I suggest that the content be placed there. It is also contestable since it assumes that caste discrimination is racism, something that is not universally accepted.
This raises the question of just what institutional racism is. I consider that the common usage is for the situation where systems systematically discriminate against a community, in contradiction to institutional or government policies.
By this definition, of course, apartheid and the White Australia policy do not constitute institutional racism. State racism would be a better place to include these.
Imc 10:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your views.Affirmative actions are meant for educationally or economically weaker section to come forward. In India especially in states like Tamilnadu given citations proves that people who are getting benefitted are over represented and educationally and economically better of or equal to people who are getting discriminated(so called Upper castes).Many more additional citations can be given to justify these claims. Article 2.2 of International convention on elimination of racial discrimination [48] clearly states that affirmative action policies has to be stopped once objectives are met and should not cause reverse discrimination of other ethnic groups.(India is also a signatory to that convention). Certain Indian states like Delhi,Haryana follow reservation percentage which is more than the population of so called lower castes.
- Refer your views on whether caste can be considered as race. External links given in this article states that race is not biological concept and human perception about perceived ethnic groups. First paragraph also says that race is sometimes used to refer certain ethnic groups.For example, Jews were considered as race by Hitler whereas Jews are followers of Judaism religion and could have come from multiple ethnicities. Malaysia considers Chinese,Indians & Malays as separate races in its census, but Indians could have come from Aryan ethnicity or Dravidian ethnicity.So discrimination based on caste can be considered as Racism since there is no standard definition for Race. (Caste is also decided based on birth).
I am reinserting those well cited paragraphs remaining in this article for long time.I suggest that modification, addition or removal of contents can be done after some consensus is reached. in this talk pages. --Coolguy81 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Providing references is only part of the criteria for including any facts. More important is that they be relevant. Relevance decreases as more specific articles are written. Either or both of Affirmative action and State racism would be more appropriate, depending on which of your arguments you are pursue. However, the purpose of Institutional Racism is stated in the leading paragraph "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin". It does not include deliberate and clearly stated government policies. The claim that affirmative action benefits its recipient more than is fair is made in every instance where it is practised. I've no intention of getting embroiled in an edit war, but it is a pity I can't help make this page more coherent. Imc 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Followers of racism will always try to project it as affirmative action. Worldover affirmative action policies are introduced with proper data.For example United states has proper data about the status of Blacks vis a vis Whites. In India, Government does not have any census based data and all government surveys point out that status of backward classes and upper castes are more or less same.(This section does not talk about reservations to scheduled castes.It only talks about reservations to backward classes).Indian government is introducing reservations only to satisfy whims and fancies of certain groups. How can you justify such action as Affirmative action?--Coolguy81 14:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm saying that there are specific headings under which your content would be better placed. You argument that it is racism itself makes the same point; if it is racism, then it is racism by the state, so include that content under the appropriate heading. It just clutters up the landscape here, in this overarching and introductory article. Institutional racism has a precise definition, a dedicated article, as well as a heading here, so the content should be in that article if it can be justified, and just a pointer here. You have failed so far to justify it as institutional racism. Imc 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Followers of racism will always try to project it as affirmative action. Worldover affirmative action policies are introduced with proper data.For example United states has proper data about the status of Blacks vis a vis Whites. In India, Government does not have any census based data and all government surveys point out that status of backward classes and upper castes are more or less same.(This section does not talk about reservations to scheduled castes.It only talks about reservations to backward classes).Indian government is introducing reservations only to satisfy whims and fancies of certain groups. How can you justify such action as Affirmative action?--Coolguy81 14:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that Institutional Racism is not more appropriate title for the contents being discussed by us. It was appearing under "Racism as official government policy". till few days ago.Subsequently changed to "State sponsored racism" based on lengthy discussions between various regular contributors of this article[49].Subsequently Institutional racism/State Racism contents combined under Institutional racism. I don't have any problem if you move contents under different title.--Coolguy81 12:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Russia
Russia faces a severe racism problem, it should not be neglected on this page.
Whacko first sentence
Why is the first sentence (definition of racism) totally out of whack with what you will find in any dictionary? (Please get out your dictionary and see what the Oxford scholars or Webster think the word means, based on extensive study of historical word usage) It asserts the existence of "human races" which is certainly controversial among scientists.
My point is, if someone won't rent to Jews or hire black people , they are racists according to Oxford but not according to WP, unless they also believe in "inherent biological differences ...". So people who advocate discrimination based on race/ethnicity but don't like to be labelled "racist" will be very happy with WP's extremely narrow definition.
Why does this little known and obsolete notion get to be the definition in the first sentence, while the modern usage of the term is relegated to the second sentence, qualified by "Some writers have used the term". Should be the other way around.
Racism existed before the doctrines about "inherent biological differences ..." were invented, and continues to be widespread today when hardly anyone is advocating such doctrines. 24.64.165.176 05:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
the human race
There is only one race, and that is the human race, which we all belong to regardless of skin color, nationality & religion. This idea that there are different "races" within the species homo sapiens is not true. Race is a political concept and in a scientific sense we all belong to the human race; this has been proven by genetics. If a human dislikes another human based on nationality, is this racism? No. It is not based on race, it is based on nationality. If a human dislikes another human based on religion, is this racism? No. It is not based on race, it is based on religion. If a human dislikes another human based on color, is this racism? No. It is not based on race, it is based on skin color. As for human skin color, it ranges from a pale pink to dark brown so nobody actually has white or black skin which is why those two terms are incorrect. It is silly to say a human is "white" when their skin is pink or red. Just like if a human has brown skin it is silly to say they are "black". Dividing humans in this way only serves to cause trouble and is rubbish. Humans are not simply "white" or "black". There is a huge variance in color, tone and shading.
Where can this go?
Kentucky's highest court in the case of Clifford v. Commonwealth held that a white police officer, who had not seen the black defendant allegedly involved in a drug transaction, could, nevertheless, identify him as a participant by saying that a voice on an audiotape "sounded black." The police officer based this "identification" on the fact that the defendant was the only African American man in the room at the time of the transaction and that an audio-tape-- contained the voice of a man the officer said “sounded black” selling crack cocaine to a white informant planted by the police.[8]
Also history needs to be at the top--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is a primary soure, I do not see how we can use it without violating NOR. besides, there must be tons of secondary sources on police profiling and racism in the US we can use. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Racism against Jews
Why is this topic so long in here when it has many other pages repeating this information? Should it not like other topics say see: blah blah, why have 5 or so paragraphs repeating information? it makes the article long and gives undue weight to one group of people, and to have Jews and Middle Easterners what about other races of people? In the name of balance it must be subed under another heading and reduced.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Antisemitism has been called "the longest hatred" and resulted in the Holocaust. Surely it deserves 5 short paragraphs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
i am sure it does but dont you think wiki is full of information on this topic? lets just give others a space to discuss there racism. Racism is a global problem. I am African and if i had it my way this topic would focus on my poeple. When i think of Racism the world see's Africans hanging from trees in the Delta, so the debate of long hatred and poster boy of racism must go to the African. seeMaafa and Colonialism and Arab slave trade but that is my POV--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Halaqah, your unhealthy preoccupation with the Jews is disturbing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me tell you something, be careful with your accusation as they sound like a personal attack. You chose to see the world through your eyes, i have exaplained my actions and no logic person could disagree. What would throw your argument is if you realized the ENTIRE reason why Jews are mentioned in EThiopia is because i put them there. So i would like to tell you to resist your anti-semitic statements for those that are anti-semitic. It was also me that took out the Jewish involvement in the slave trade due to lack of reasearch. I am exhausted with these kind of editors, they have agendas and make these statements without any bases. Because they can, you dont realize you weaken your own case. Why dont u just say i am anti-European, wouldnt that be more valid? I have justified cutting the content discuss here and dont revert my work as my case is clear, how many more pages need to be a copy of the same content, 1 rule for you another rule for the rest of the world--madness!--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
will someone with an open mind look at Antisemitism and tell me does it look lacking? is it not clear? then why copy so much content from it here. What about giving space to everyone. Two races are in this section, exapand it to include others. selfishness--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is about arguments and contents. Don't try to make this personal: I don't care about your personality, hoever you are. It is what you do here. Further, I reject your attempts to turn this into a victimhood contest. Racism against Jews lasted long enough and was devastating enough to warrant a few paragraphs. Surely limpieza de sangre (cleanliness of blood) and 19th century European racist pseudo-science are completely relevant here. See also WP:NOT#PAPER. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make accusations about me as an editor. I have made it clear to summerize the section into a smaller size which takes the most relevant bits and is compact. It is clear that i said this as the records say this when i made the change. This site is free for all to edit, there is no content which is exclusive to you (do you know my religion? and what difference does it make?), I can comment on any topic without fear of being called your unhealthy preoccupation with the Jews is disturbing This is a terrible sign of your mindset. Which is suggestive of ownership of any Jewish topic, as if you are lord of Judah and no one can comment on Jewish issues--there is a name for this thinking. Who are you to suggest what i can be preoccupied with, is it illegal? No one else would say this madness, imagine saying that to a white editor on African slavery? have what ever content you want, but sumerize it, no reason to repeat the same content which is at antisemitic just like all the other content. bring balance, only two ethnic groups have been listed, where are the others! Notice i have added nothing about African people so i dont think there is anygrounds for your victimhood claim. I didnt chop your content and added 1000 words on Africans.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
this all just goes to prove that rascism exists. if you guys really were not racsist, it wouldn't matter how many paragraphs people are wiriting or not writing about this or that race. its the seperation that between races that causes rasism. were all fucking humans. being jewish or black or white or gay or what the fuck ever, it doesnt matter. so let the jew have their 5 paragraphs, let the black have them also, and just stop fucking fighting.
How much time
PLease take out any unrefernced stuff, no time was given for any other country, see above debate, this Mayalsia thing has been in here for a very long time and is
- A minor issue compared with the other countries listed here (why not add Trinidad? or Burma they have racism)
- No information regarding its sources--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Honesty is needed
When i add content against Israel, i get called blah blah see above, i have just witnessed all the content of israel being stubbed, i have seen someone just chop the entire Israel section on racism by country. Now i dont see this system being applied to any other country. we have more content on mayalsia (of all places) what is the bases for having this section? i am ashamed of others who edit here that do not seem to have the sprit to resist this group which disallows any form of content which is critical of Israel, the same camp which is extensive in adding as much content as possible about crimes against Jewish people. so this section expands to be the largest, while critic becomes 1 line. I will state again the worst most vile thing on this planet is imbalance. No one wins. One way morality, one sidded truth is against humanity and against balance and this editor is here to make sure balance is on this page.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
And the more editors show terrible bias the more this editor will have to balance the scale. so all attempts to throw this article to one pov one groups experience will be balanced back. if you want 10 lines for you then allow 10 lines for African Americans, 10 lines for Arabs. It is about balance. dont add content for your cause and delete content VALID Content against your cause--what is that?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Halaqah, you misunderstand what balance means. See WP:OWN. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- You cleary are shooting in the dark with the above claim, you have a history of making any claim which is closet to your right hand. ask yourself how does that apply? it actually reflects again poorly on you and what you represent. Please feel free however to reply to what balance means. R u running out of excuses?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- When logic and balance fail now comes lets pray to God the other editor is a novice and will be halted by stating some abstract wiki policy, is it related? No it doesnt have to be even remotly related. A vulgar attempt to justify what is beyond justice. If one calls to truth, calls to balance, fair play, one set of rules. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Halaqah, but Humus sapiens is correct. If you are going to edit Wikipedia, you are going to have to "play by the rules." If you don't like the rules, then either don't play or, if you seriously feel that the Wikipedia rules are unjust, then lobby to change the rules. I can assure you that you will not get very far if you choose to go down that path though since these rules are generally agreed upon to be as fair as possible. --GHcool 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Listen another voice from the same choir backing up your pal is not valid, what rules are these. What wiki rules have i violated. please stick to wiki rules, stick to discussions which improve this article and avoid empty rhetoric. speak in clear specific terms. Do not out weight this article by reducing content which is valid and sourced while expanding content which suits your POV, discuss that and leave the rabbling and aimless statements to forums. Please list the wiki rules, because you certainly are not following them in your attempts to whitewash racism in Israel. or is there no racism in Israel as your friend above said? (see previous debate "clearly there is no racism in Isreal" lol)--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is clearly racism in Israel, after all, racism is an evil that exists all over the world, and this article should discuss the phenomenon of racism all over the world. Thus, Israeli racism should and must be addressed as well. However, Israeli racism should and must also be addressed in proportion to the level of racism that exists elsewhere in the world. Feel free to add well cited, NPOV information about Israeli racism, but keep in mind that in the history of the world, racism committed by Israelis is miniscule in comparison to racism committed by the Americans, the Europeans, the Japanese, etc. --GHcool 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry admins do not allow any content which is against the state of Israel. There is no source which is good enought, even the same sources they use to prove their points. Yet they source all kinds of extream sites. WP:POINT, strange that on Racism by Countries only one country is being deleted from that list, none of the other countries even have sources.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Its been a while since I've done one of these, but, unfortunately, the opportunity has once again presented itself:
- The Accusation: "[A]dmins do not allow any content which is against the state of Israel [sic]. There is no source which is good enought, even the same sources they use to prove their points." - HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ). Talk:Racism#Honesty_is_needed. 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
- The Reality: This claim is easily and embarrassingly falsifiable. I direct HalaTruth and anyone else who falsely claims that criticism of Israel is "not allowed" on Wikipedia to the articles about the Israel lobby in the United States, the targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, or Zionism and racism allegations. --GHcool 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Racism is just a bunch of poopy junk
It's crap. There is more genetical difference of the wildebeests just in kenya than in the entire human
species. If you only have one life, other people should be nice to you. (golden rule) duh! DUH!
kkk=stoopid
racism even lives on the racism page. take a look at the side bar. WHERe is Africa? the one country which across the world receives racism isnt even on the list, we have Against cultures:
Arabs Armenians Canadians Catholics Chinese Europeans French Germans Greeks Gypsies Hindus Indians Iranians Italians Jews Mormons Muslims Polish Russians Turks
Where is the African? is that balance? Again and again we see editors removing content on Israel, the same Israel that is forver in the news. Racism by country is proof of the horrid imbalance on wikipedia, where a 500 word collection of junk on chile is allowed without zero sources, yet a few lines on Israel sourced to the teeth is deleted illegal, but editos say nothing about this behaviour.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree with you about one point. Racism against Africans is at least as significant in world history and sociology as anti-Semitism, and I would argue that it is much more significant a subtopic of racism than Francophobia, anti-Hellenism, or anti-Canadianism (I never even heard of those three)! I suggest creating an article about racism against Africans in the mold of those articles and then adding that article to the discrimination series banner. I think the time and energy spent creating such an article would be well spent since it would help increase awareness of the evil of racism against Africans worldwide. On the other hand, if that same time and energy were focused on prooving that Israel is a racist state with reliable sources would be spent poorly since such efforts will be an uphill battle, inconclusive at best, and increase almost zero awareness to of the evil of racism against Africans worldwide. The choice is yours, HalaTruth, but if you are good at cost-benefit analysis, I have no doubt that you will make the right decision. --GHcool 06:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Will someone read what has just been added to the Israel section?
These editors have just added that content, read it and give honest feedback, it will be deleted as it is a whitewash, but i will leave it in as evidence of what continues to go on. The discussion is about racism yet there is 2 lines for the Arab issue and about 10 lines explaining the Arabs are the issue. very balanced.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- i don't see the problem, there is a mention by pro-palestinian group making an accusaion, a response by a group on the other side of the fence, a serious discussion by a well regarded proffesor who admits to a certain degree of inequality and exlains it's origins. and then there's extra information on the druze community and the arab israeli-citizens representatives in israeli high positions. i must also add i was personally offended by your implication that struggles in africa resemble the slaughter of jews by the nazis.. apparently you don't know much about "nazi eugenics" and the position of jews in germen society.. for example, einstein considered his scientific discoveries as germen... then again.. at 1933 they passed a law that jews can no longer be lecturers at universities.... to the topic, if israel is mentioned under the "racism claims" subcategory than a balanced representation is in order and i think the current information represents balanced perceptions that are based on facts and not anti-zionist or anti-palestinian propaganda. Jaakobou 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The section is an blatant piece of Israeli propoganda. The section basically says (1) Arabs in Israel are treated great. (2) They deserve what they get. (3) anyone who dares accuse Israel of racism is no different to Bin Laden. Does no-one else find this section totally out of order? Abu ali 22:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- no, the section says this (1) israel is attacked for being racist, (2) pro-israelis attack these attackers, (3) serious article on nationality admits anti-arab israeli bias while stating the sources of this bias is in part due to palestinian arab interaction with the state (i havn't seen better treatment of either jews or palestinians in arab countries). (4) druze arabs are mentioned as a group which chooses to share obligations with the jews, a mention made to prevent discrimination between arab-palestinians with israeli IDs and other non-jewish israelis (5) there's a fair mention on arab representation in roles of power.
- honestly, why do you insist on disrupting/disputing israeli related materials when you've repeatedly stated (not explicitly but in context) that you're too emotionally attached to your anti-zionist ideaology [50][51][52] to make for an objective presentation?
- as for your claims on racism, there are certainly some issues but i don't see your claims as justified. perhaps these samples will convince you (1) video of israeli apartheid against an arab on israeli TV channel 10 .. the guy is muzzled and chained and they don't let him speak!!! skip to minute 2:26 .. ok.. so actually they treat him very nicely and they interviewed him quite nicely before that part. (2) here's another sample right here where they dare make newspaper articles about arab girls in yafo who play soccer!!! (father is prominent arab-israeli who held municipal positions): [53] .. ok.. maybe there's not much much racism behind an encouraging article promoting the girls' aspirations to make the first female arab soccer team in israel... perhaps the entire globe (i'm not that learned on the issue of soccer so i could be wrong here). Jaakobou 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Lets agree on sources
If a website has only one view point on a very controversial topic then it shouldnt be used. If a website only reports one side of a story with extream bias on a disputed topic it is an extream source. if the content is antisemitic, anti_African, anti-america, anti anything then it must be treated with care, esp when citing info that is disputed. A site which is dedicated to demonizing one group without any balance shouldnt be used to bring balance. use the guardian or NY York, economist, Times, which are less obvious with their racism.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
you cite The guardian as a balanced source??? how about we add the independant also while you're at it...here's a sample "subtle" anti-israeli article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1833884,00.html - anti-israel... 500 words.. israeli statements/opinions/info... paragraph and a half... final death toll i believe was set at 28 not 60. Jaakobou 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I never said it was balanced i said it was a blatent unbalanced source, i also stated the racism in these papers is less obvious. compare that to some of the sources used here. A site dedicated to demonizing Muslims in all areas of the world from Darfur to Detroit. The entire website is this slant. This is the info which needs to be avoided. and again when dealing with hot topics. if they say "the sky is blue" then its cool.And anti-Israel anti-War, anti-South Africa isnt a crime or illegal or a sign of imbalance. to be anti-Jewish or anti-African, anti-Muslim is another issue. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to make accusations here but last i checked you wrote this down: use the guardian or NY York, economist, Times, which are less obvious with their racism, i couldn't care about going into your claims about certain sources, that is not the issue i replied you for... i only replied as to your claims that the guardian is balanced... btw, you should inspect the charecteristics of anti-israeli promoters... you might find that it's the new anti-semitism.. here's a sample documentry for you: blaming the jews. Jaakobou 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sources used must be reliable and must directly refer to RACISM
That should be simple enough, shouldn't it? I'll repeat it: Sources used must be reliable and must directly refer to RACISM. Please abide by Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
So does that rule apply to the entire article? Just let me have the answer and i will start cutting stuff. Like the last chapter in Racism Against Jews and the new anti thingie. cuz i dont see anything saying racism there. You r trapping yourself with your words,. apply that to this whole topic.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this refer to racism?
In a recent incarnation, extremist groups, such as Neo-Nazi parties and Islamist groups, claim that the aim of Zionism is global domination; they call this the Zionist conspiracy and use it to support antisemitism. This position is associated with fascism and Nazism, though it is becoming a tendency within parts of the Left as well, and termed New antisemitism.[38][39]
So when i deleted it was it added back? ohh i see anti-zionism is racism.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Isnt it funny the Israel section whitewashes racism
No one denies racism in USA, i dont think they will try and blame the African-Americas for that. Or the Arabs or the chinese. yet one read of the israel section does more to vindicate accusations of racim than to discuss racim. this article is not about middle eastern politics, it is about racism that has occured is occuring. Very simple. Trust me if that poll was taken in Britian i dont think British people who deny it and whitewash it. That is the difference.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
tutu
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Walter Ruby, "Tutu says Israel's policy in terrorities remind him of SA", Jerusalem Post, 1 February 1989, O1.
- ^ http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/ethno.htm Jewish Ethnocentrism, racism and resistance to assimilation]
- ^ Israeli MP: Arabs are worms
- ^ ADL Dismayed At Offensive Remarks Made By Member of Israeli Knesset
- ^ Boim: Is Palestinian terror caused by a genetic defect?
- ^ [54]
- ^ ""Race, Racism and the Law"". "Courtroom: Court sanctioned Racial Stereotyping, 18 Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal 185-210, 185-188 (Spring, 2002)(179 Footnotes)
".
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
(help); line feed character in|publisher=
at position 132 (help)