Talk:Racism/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

it is! equal rights be fair

[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)[reply]

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."

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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.

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Half the edits are from your Jerry Jones account, half are from your JJstroker account. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't know about hair color. Skywriter 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "dumb blond" I do. P0M 01:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

It is claimed by some activists[34] that casteism practised in India is a form of racism, but this is debated.[35]

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)[reply]

racism in india should be added--Halaqah 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good article nomination for Racism/Archive 10 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)[reply]

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

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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)[reply]

Yes please, peer review sounds like a marvelous idea. ScWizard 00:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]