Talk:Racism

Wanting to preserve race is NOT racism.

See the following article on racism in America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tanbo

The racists are removing comments they don't like from the article. How can they say this is as accurate as Britannica? It probably is as that's likely to be written by racists too.

I have extensively rewritten this section as, far from being NPOV, it seems to crib liberally from Kent Hovind's creationist tracts. The quote used from 'Descent of Man' is genuine, but taken out of context. I have added another quote from the same work to try and rectify it.

The article also gives the impression that the concept of evolution was immediately accepted by the general public. The fact that over 50% of Americans still do not accept evolution seems to undermine this.

Nasir Al-Sady

I was suprised to see only so little about Racial Discrimination Nowadays is mentioned in the article. Besides, I hope more about modern racial discrimination in US or UK communities can be added. For example, whether students studying abroad in US or UK would be discriminated because of their races and heritage.

One clear unaduterated example of racism, modern, aversive is very much demonstrated in how whites decide and dictate what Blacks will be called and known as in America, be it African-American, Black, Colored(still used in the South) or Negro, and as an inner circle game for themselves, but insulting to the race, they alternate between said terms, and change it every 15 to 20 years, while the term "AFRIMERICAN", created by, used by, and most accurate for the race is ignored, not only by White America and the corporate, political, and media status qou system members, but whites of like mind, conditoning, and racism world wide.

Afrimericans are not given an outlet, or acknowledgement until said whites approve, and while one can argue Afrimericans have mediums of exposure for matters of importance to them, they don't have the combined wealth, political, media connections to compete or effectively oppose the white dominated systems of same, and while Afrimericans and Blacks worldwide have issues unique to the country they live in, with little means or influence with issues affecting Negroid people worldwide, the institutions of white supremist, aversive, negative racism is shared and fueled, and insulated by whites worldwide to keep the system as is, and sadly, and sorry to say wikipedia, and it's multi-nationed administrators, by demonstration of exclusions, are part of the describe system of racism they speak and promote they are against, and I see it, as do others, as is evidenced by the fact it is the sights that deal with Afrimericans, i.e. African-Americas, and/or Black Americans, that get deleted, or edited and/or rewritten the most, and any article that disputes what the status mongers favor or desire in those areas of thought, like the Afrimerican article, is deleted no matter how many times written, or how objectiovely written.

Modern aversive, exclusionary racism is alive and well in/on the pages of wikipedia, by wikipedia.

I see what you mean. On a similar note, perhaps we should include the contemporary trend of highlighting racism towards white people. There is a growing concern (who knows how this made it to the top of america's priority list) for showing that white people can also be victims of racism. For instance, we have the view of affirmative action as "reverse-racism." Although it is true that racism can be directed towards whites, the extensive emphasis on (and fascination with) this idea in films (die hard with a vengeance, white men cant jump, etc) and popular culture and politics is extremely irresponsible in my humble opinion. It is irresponsible because it gives people the idea that racism is somehow taking as much of a toll on white people as it is on black people. The notion that racism is racism no matter who its directed towards is simply a lofty and idealist way of looking at things. For all practical purposes, white people aren't exactly set back very much because of any supposed "racism" towards them. Anyways, thats enough of my ranting, I may edit something into the page along these lines (with a bit more NPOV of course, haha), what do yall think?

Good recent edit, Bcorr. Sam [Spade] 21:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sam -- I appreciate it. BCorr|Брайен 21:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a growing, but controversial, tendency to state that racism differs from racial discrimination in that racism is racial discrimination combined with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against.

Um - I still think this is the wrong way round: racism is the attitude, racial discrimination is the action. It's the discrimination that has the negative impact. Evercat 21:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Evercat. Here's the basic issue we've been going 'round and 'round about, which is largely above on this page. Some people (myself included, I should disclose) feel that "racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race, combined with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against." This viewpoint can be seen in many of the discussions linked above as well. The other major viewpoint is basically that racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another.

For a good example of this debate from the "real world," see this exchange in the Calvin College official newspaper Chimes:

1. MSAB sets campus-wide anti-racism as long-term goal, May 4, 2001
2. 'Power + prejudice = racism' equals an inadequate definition, October 26, 2001
3. Dissent: Understanding the definition of racism, November 11, 2001

As I've tried to say elsewhere, the first view would say that racial discrimination is about specific acts, whereas racism is about a system of oppression, and prejudice is about beliefs that may include racism. The second view is that racism is simply prejudice based on race. The major difference in these two ideas comes down to the following. Can anybody be racist, or only those who have structural power from a societal point of view. Then what tends to happen as well is that people arguing against the first view will say, "Well, can't Colin Powell be a racist? He has lots of power and can use it to discriminate against whites?" Then someone might argue that according to the first point of view he can't be, but that's not really what the definition means. It conflates "racism" with "a racist" -- when really it's about systems of oppression, so that you cna hypothetically argue that a certain subset of society can have what is commonly called reverse racism, but it's not valid to equate the power of Colin Powell to the larger systems that (many would argue) structurally perpetuate white privilege in the U.S.

Clearly, there is not consensus on this, and I've been thinking about adding a section about the very debate we've been having to the article.... BCorr|Брайен 21:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I wasn't meaning to take a stand on any of this when I made my comment (indeed I hadn't seen evercats comment/edit), and was rather praising the general compromise of how the concept was presented (as opposed to what the concept is). Since I don't have anything useful to ad as far as that goes, I'll butt out now, thanx :) Sam [Spade] 21:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My problem with the sentence is simply that it seems to imply that racial discrimination does not have a negative impact on anyone, in which case "racial discrimination" means something radically different from what I thought it did... Evercat 21:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Evercat -- I've added "on a societal level" to that sentence to try and address that.... Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, to be honest, I strongly dislike the sentence "There is a growing, but controversial, tendency to state that racism differs from racial discrimination in that racism is racial discrimination combined with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against on a societal level."

The reason is very simple: discrimination can only be carried out by a group that has the power to do so, and for a group to descriminate against itself and in favour of another group is extremely unsual and unnatural.

I get the feeling that the turn this is taking is relevant for the US only. What this really appears to be about is affirmative action and the silly debate about affirmative action being racist. Affirmative action is an aberration, relevant for the US only. I think it is actually racist at the individual level (at least in some sense), although its effect at the societal level is (supposedly) anti-racist. Affirmative action is the kind of idiocy wishy-washy liberals will get you to agree to: a lame compromise where the majority group agrees to descriminate against itself in order to avoid taking real measures against racism (like reparations, funding decent schools and public institutions in poor areas etc.). I was just chatting to a (black) friend about this and she said it's one of the many ways black people are told that they are incapable. In that sense, one can make a strong argument that affirmative action not only discriminates in a racist way against whites at the individual level, but also that it is racist against minority groups at the societal level. While doing research for this article I came across a survey done in the UK, and the result is that 3/4 of all people are opposed to positive racial discrimination. Interedstingly there was no difference between ethnic minority groups and the majority group. So I really think that this a special US thing, viewed differently in most other countries.

I suggest that we don't talk about discrimination at all, but use a word which BCorr mentioned above, which expresses the same idea and which goes to the heart of the matter: system of oppression. The discrimination thing could be dealt with in more detail in the article. - pir 23:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I hadn't realised "racial discrimination" could mean "positive discrimination"... Evercat 23:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing positive about positive discrimination, it’s the same old racists (in the USA the democratic party) attempting to enforce a racial hierarchy. The only difference is this time, they've taken pity on the "minorities" (whomever they deem inferior), and decided to give them a "helping hand" (a swift kick in their respective prides and self respect, if you ask me), ignoring completely the socio-economic nature of poverty in favor of race based ignorance (one drop rule, anyone?) in a bid for a cleansing of racial-gult.. and the minority vote. What could be less meritocratic? What could be surer to enrage working class non-"minorities" against their "minority" fellows? I have personally heard quite a bit of racism based solely on negative experiences w positive discrimination. I personally am outraged when an employer decides to check the "white" box on the racial form for me, against my wishes. I've never checked the "white" box on anything, precisely because I know full well how it will be used against me. In summary, "positive discrimination" is state sponsored racism at it's most obvious. Sam [Spade] 21:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article deals only with negative aspects of racism... liberals have brainwashed people into thinking racism is wrong but really it's just a good techique to ensure the survival of one's own race.

Sam, I don't think you realize that "positive" has several meanings. You assume it means "good," which it does but not in all contexts (hey, there is nothing morally superior about the positive side of a battery!). When people talk about racism and discrimination, they distinguish between positive or prescriptive acts, and negative or proscriptive acts. It just doesn't mean what you think. By the way, I am glad you never checked the White box, but really, this is not a chat page -- the issue is an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein

I don't see your comments as insightful or constructive. Of course I know what positive discrimination means, just as I know what affirmative action means, just as I know what State sponsored racism means, insinuating otherwise is a feeble ad hominem. Citing examples of my personal life on a talk page, which happen to relate directly to article related discussions, is nothing to be ashamed of, it simply brings matters home. Sam [Spade] 16:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You wrote that there is nothing positive about positive discrimination. Yet clearly there is something positive about it. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. If you write "there is nothing positive about positive discrimination" you are proposing either to eliminate any discussion of positive discrimination from the article, or to include it but call it something else. I am against either of these changes to the article. However, if you want to make your case, please specify which proposal you intended to make, Slrubenstein

No. I propose none of those things. All of the above is wrong. There is nothing positive about positive discrimination, but I don't propose for the article to state that, nor do I propose to eliminate mention of it, or whatever other ridiculous ideas you might have in mind for me to propose. What I intend is for other editors to be aware that affirmative action / positive discrimination is seen to be Reverse racism by many. I have no intent to reduce the articles focus on such acts of state sponsored racism. Quite to the contrary, my goal is that those editing have some awareness of what they are discussing. All of this is in response to:

Oh, I see! I hadn't realised "racial discrimination" could mean "positive discrimination"... Evercat

I want him to be aware that yes, indeed it can, and is. What is a more obvious example of discriminating based on race than "positive discrimination"? Sam [Spade] 10:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you know what the difference is betweem positive and negative discrimination, and then insist that there is nothing positive about positive discrimination. It is a useful distinction and stays in the article. Slrubenstein

Who are you talking to? Have I ever said I was going to remove mention of positive discrimination from the article? Have I removed it? I'm sorry, but I'm not finding this a useful dialogue. Sam [Spade] 17:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In its modern form, racism evolved in tandem with European exploration, conquest, and colonization of much of the rest of the world, and especially after Christopher Columbus reached the Americas. As new peoples were encountered, fought, and ultimately subdued, theories about "race" began to develop, and these helped many to justify the differences in position and treatment of people whom they categorized as belonging to different races (see Eric Wolf's Europe and the People Without History). Some people like Juan Gines de Sepulveda even argued that the Native Americans were natural slaves.

there is nothing new or modern about this. Have a look at roman, egyptian, jewish, babylonian, etc... history. How about how the aztec's interacted w other tribes. Sam [Spade] 15:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Such forms of racism have in these enlightened times been defined out of existence. VeryVerily 00:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this just your personal opinion, Sam? If so, put it on your user page. The passage you quote actually provides a scholarly reference. Virtually all historians I have read argue that race and racism, as understood today, are modern -- and that ancient Roman, Egyptian, Hebrew, and Babylonian societies either had no corresponding notion of race, or had a notion of "race" (the word comes from Latin) but one that is fundamentally different from what this article talks about. Slrubenstein

Two words: Caste system. Sam [Spade] 17:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another great example of a system that operates differently from race and racism and has been analyzed specifically in contrast to race by many scholars. Certainly merits its own article. Once again, though, I do not see how your comments are meant to improve this article. One word: research. Slrubenstein

Thats ironic, your suggesting I perhaps am doing something other than research by volunteering on an encyclopedia? I suggest you take personal comments / venom to User talk / email. Sam [Spade] 20:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is frequently claimed that the ancients did not have "racism," and despite being a classicist I'm never sure what that is supposed to mean. Obviously most ancient peoples did believe they were superior to others they encountered (honestly so do most modern peoples). I think what the real point of the no-ancient-racism claim is that the Ancients didn't have an idea of a unified "white race" in opposition to a "black race." The Romans didn't, for instance, have any especial hatred for the Ethiopians on the basis of their skin color, but that isn't to say that they didn't hate them at all. --Iustinus 01:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be substantiated, significantly revised, or removed. The main problems I see are as follows:

1) Although Israeli law treats all citizens equally, it does discriminate between Jewish and non-Jewish non-citizens. This needs to be backed up with, at the very least, an external link or two. More detail on this point would also be helpful.

2) The Israeli constitution grants Jews the right to immigrate, while denying the right to return to the former inhabitants of its area, the Palestinian refugees. To my knowledge, Israel does not have a written constitution. The right of Jews to immigrate is codified in the Law of Return. Also, the part about "denial of the right of return" is terribly oversimplified; Arabs who remained in Israel after the 1948 War were given full citizenship. It remains an ongoing issue in the Israel-Palestinian conflict whether or not a Palestinian right of return does, in fact, exist - making this possibly a NPOV issue.

3) One fringe Jewish extremist group, Kach, does preach racism towards Arabs. The first three sentences of this section all insinuate racism in the Israeli government. Could it at least be mentioned, for the sake of fairness, that Kach was outlawed by that same government for acting upon its racist views?

Because of the sensitivity of the issue I will wait for any comments before making changes to the article. -Joshuapaquin 21:06, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

1) Israel does not practice this discrimination on explicit racial lines (as the Republic of South Africa did) — both Jews from a European and African, etc. racial complexions can and do qualify in the Law of Return policy.

2) Israel does not have a written constituion. Denial of Palestinian Right of Return is not based on an explicit racial policy as was the case in South Africa, Rhodesia, etc.

3) Not condoned by any political party with elected representatives that I know of, and indeed, outlawed.

Hopelessly POV and innacurate, needs to be rewritten from scratch or deleted.

El_C

It's been a week with no proposals for improvement save deletion. I'm deleting the section. -Joshuapaquin 00:29, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, no reason to delete--KEEP IT!! But It does need to be mentioned that there have been some disciminatory actions taken (in violation of the Law of Return) against many Jews who have converted to Messianic Judaism (a form of Christianity). Sweetfreek 04:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since Israel is a country founded on a country for a category of people defined as 'Jews' (racially), does that not make it inherently, institutionally racist? And are all citizens treated equally under the law if they are differentiated according to race/religion? That doesn't seem to follow in my eyes.

What happened to the entire section on rascism in Israel and Palestinian Territories? The truth of the matter is that Israel like all other countries has some very racist hidden ideologies.

From the above, it appears someone removed it as they thought it was biassed/inaccurate. If you can reply to this criticism, and the best way is to improve the article so that it is NPOV, then do so and reinstate it. There is plenty of documented evidence in Israel of racism, just as there is in all other countries of the world. Wallie 20:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The beginning of this article uses the expression: "negatively discriminate against". The person who wrote this sentence may know what s/he meant by it, but I believe that the average well-informed reader will not. If one discriminates between two groups of organisms, "the orange ones" and "the purple ones" for instance, that may be a value free categorization by color. However, in the way I learned to speak English, if one discriminates against the purples then at the very least one's personal evaluation of and/or attitude toward the purples is less favorable than that toward the oranges. The word "negatively" is an adverb and in the phrase under consideration it modifies the word "discriminate." To "negatively evaluate someone" is to evaluate that person and do so in a way that decreases the "value" of the person from some reference level, just as to "negatively rotate a screw" means to rotate it in a "negative" direction. "Discriminate" literally means nothing more than to be able to distinguish something from its background. To "negatively discriminate" something would then mean what? To pick something out from among others and to do so in some "negative" direction perhaps? Would that not probably mean to most people to pick something out from among others and to give it a negative value? And that suggests to me, and I think to "the average well-informed reader", that one could "positively discriminate against" somebody.

The problem for me is that as a reader I regard all of the above as guesswork applied to try to make comprehensible something that should have been said more clearly. My impulse as an editor would be to delete "negatively" as redundant.

If an article begins with a problematical formulation, then the remainder of the article may show all sorts of fracture lines. P0M 06:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Racism#United_States_of_America has no information after the American Revolution. I checked the archive and can't find anything more ever having being there. While the ancient history of American racism is interesting, there should be at least a quick overview of the ebb and flow of racism in the last hundred years. There's a list of articles at the end, under "See also", like Jim Crow laws and lynching, that would merit being mentioned in this section and given some context. US history shouldn't be belabored in this general article, but the current paragraphs are so distantly historical as to be a distraction, in my opinion.

I removed to passages. One was an "original definition of racism" which didn't seem to me to be much different from the opeinign definition of the article. So why is it here? It seems extraneous. Also, I don't understand the use of the word "original." I assume this means it is from the first dictionary (Johnson's? Whose) but there was no source or citation. If we are gooing to review the various definitions of "racism" from the first published to the last, then I think this deserves its own section and each definition needs a concrete date (1600s? when, exactly?) and source. Slrubenstein

Another well-referenced source of racism is a mis-interpretation of Charles Darwin's theories of evolution. Some take Darwin's theories to imply that some races are more civilized, and that there must be a biological basis for the difference. People in this category often appeal to biological theories of moral and intellectual traits to justify racial oppression. This viewpoint had long been widespread in Europe and America at the time Darwin first developed his theories, and his theories played an important role in changing attitudes.(From Origins of Racism, in the artical)

I don't think it's true to say that Darwin's ideas were a source of racism. Sure, they were widely misinterpreted and formed the foundation of Social Darwinism, but this was only ever an excuse for, and not a source of, racism and discrimination. Hierarchies on the basis of colour were already fully formed by 1859 - colonisation, slavery and social engineering in Australia and Africa are but two examples of this.

Also, Social Darwinism, to which I am sure the above paragraph refers, doesn't really exist to offer biological explanations of 'civilisation' (Hmmm, well, it kind of does, I suppose, but this is purely incidental), rather, it suggests that 'all is fair in love and war', and that on judgement day it is natural selection, and not God, that will pass sentence.

Basically, I'm saying that I don't think that Darwin's ideas played an important role in changing racial attitudes, they merely provided excuses for their continuation. Of course, The Origin of Species then provided Francis Galton with the framework for the Eugenics movement, but this, again, reflected a change in policy and morality, rather than attitudes and hierarchies.

I read, somewhere, that the idea of 'racism' was first concieved as a system of 'divide and rule' by early Virginian land owners. I have not as yet conducted much research into this idea, and have no idea as to its validity.

See Before Color Prejudice, by Frank Snowden, for a study of Pre-Christian attitudes to race.

In that case, you are saying you agree with the paragraph from the article you just quoted? Slrubenstein

It seems to me that there is confusion in the different ways this word is used. At least in the USA, racism implies negative discrimination *WITHIN* the social group. I think this is different from feelings of superiority between groups or nations. Often remedies to the first kind of racism are generalized to the whole planet, which is a very different social environment.

Why is Sendhil Mullainathan "the Great"? The link is to a stub, describing Sendhil Mullainathan "the Lesser"... -Joshuapaquin 21:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sendhil himself encouraged such labelling earlier today, but you're right that it doesn't belong (at least yet!) and I removed the references. Tobacman 23:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was reading the paragraph on slavery and racism in America, and the paragraph states that slavery officially ended in the US with the Emancipation Proclamation. This is flat out wrong. Slavery officially ended in the US with the 13th Amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation had no legal bearing over the territories in rebellion, and did not free slaves in 48 counties (now West Virginia), several parishes in Louisiana, and the entire state of Tennessee.

Would everyone agree with this?

--Mr. Brown 20:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I see Canada had a pretty racist history in the 1700s. That's amazing since Canada has only been a country since July 1, 1867. I sure hope Wikipedia doesn't convict me for crimes I commited 200 years before I was born. Nice site though. Good luck all.

I don't really see the need of that point: if you refer to the geographical location, Canada has been since pretty much the dawn of the earth, like every other geographical location on Earth. People existed in Canada since at least 10000 BC.

BTW, it seems that racism started at the very beginnings of the European colonization of Canada: Jacques Cartier "kidnapped" two amerindians on his very first trip, to bring back to the king of France; moreover, Amerindian nations were fighting each other, and there is no doubt to my mind that they were racist against each other; the English imprisoned, tortured, killed, deported, and enslaved many French Canadians and/or First Nations people (Quebecois, Acadiens, etc.); the French canadians were doing that when they were in power, too; the black people were also victims of racism, to probably the exact same extent as everywhere else they've been enslaved. So better paint a real portrait than the point of view of a single citizen.

Before acquiring enough wisdom, probably every single human being on Earth has had at least one racist thought, belief, or action; if this article is aimed at describing the history of racism, good for that, but there is far more to it than blatant description in an encyclopedia. I think as racism is a topic which can lead to lots of trouble via hurt feelings, relating the historical records of racism can easily lower the reputation of a country vs. another, on the simple basis of the quality of the historical record (among many, many other things). Therefore, shouldn't people focus on explaining how history made it how it is today?

Finally, I reworded the section comparing Canada vs. US, as I am more than tired of seeing that everywhere even though Canadians don't really like that "What are Canadians? Well, not Americans" relationship as they often believe that defining themselves too much in opposition to the US doesn't really show the world who they are, and I perceive that is not really far from racism (countryism?); it's a waste of words, really, to explain something that can be explained under "Canada-US relationships". And as I am French canadian, I also reworded a couple sentences about how Canadians believe are their society, because I really don't believe they are better or worse than ANY other nation. NPOV, it's as simple as that! >>Frankidou, 21:01, 22-04-2005

I´ve deleted the section on the underground railroad because it doesn´t have anything specific to do with racism in Canada. Homagetocatalonia, 8:07, 11-08-2005

if Al-Qaeda should be included or not is open for discussion, butif they are included I see no reason to reduce the number of informative wls related to them, which is what recent edits on the subject have done, afaik. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda's fight is purely based on religion not racial bias. There is no reason to mention it in this article.

-- Egg 11:39, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Well an argument can be made that they are racist in their anti-semitism, and in their persecution of westerners. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This, perhaps, isn't the best area to leave this comment, but I believe that radical Muslim beliefs should be included, as much of their tenets draw from the religion strong elitist belief, discerning what is true Muslim and the place of the Arabic world in it. In some ways, the article seems too Western focused.

Someone changed "African-American" to "black man" because (so the edit summary says) not all blacks are from Africa. I reverted for two reasons: first, not all "blacks" are black -- labels such as these are almost never meant to be taken literally. Moreover, African-Americans don't "come from" Africa. They are born in the US and as American as anyone else. (If they had just come from Africa they would more likely be called "Nigerian-American" or "Liberian-American.") They are called "African American" because at the same time that the ancestors of Whites were coming from Europe, their ancesters were coming (or forcibly removed from) Africa. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your missing out on the amerocentrisn in saying "african american". Black man may not be perfect, but african american needs to be replaced w something not focused on america. Aboriginies in australia are black, but didn't come from africa at all. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I agree that when talking about "people of color" most generally, we shouldn't just use "African-American." But the passage I reverted was specifically and explicitly concerning African Americans. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, nevermind then. I find the phrase "people of color" disturbingly divisive, btw, but I guess theres not much point in discussing that. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

People of colour? As opposed to people of America? Or transparent people?

I am a Swiss citizen and I just read the article about racism in Switzerland. It says that Black people "experience frequent public humiliation" but I have never witnessed such an event. I do not either feel that it is accurate to say that "Racism based on skin colour today is a widely accepted norm" in Switzerland, notably given that there are explicit laws against racism. Furthermore the reference to a "recent study" is incomplete. I could not find the referenced publication since the link points only to the general website of the Federal Commision against Racism. -cedric

Cedric. I have been an auslander living in Switzerland. As mentioned below, I have modified the article. The bit about hate stares towards black people gave me a laugh. I find that most Swiss kids think they are cool. As for people not sitting on the train beside black people... This doesn't happen on my train, the S5. Any free seat is like gold, and would be grabbed immediately. Wallie 20:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

If the Swiss would start paying off the life insurance policies on the Jews that were murdered in the 1940s, then I might give your arguments some creedence. 3 Mar 05

Ordinarily, I don't like to start things like this (and my complaint is with the Swiss Banks and Government, not people) but if the banks/government had routed and punished the offending persons concerning the stolen WW2-era accounts rather than simply rectifying a few files, then they might not be in the situation they are in today. This link has a reasonably good summary of it. Sweetfreek 04:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. That section is about racism, not about cynicism or greed. My point is that this section is highly subjective, misleading and of poor quality. Now you are welcome to add a section about the problem of the Jews' gold. -cedric, Apr 12 2005

Incessant politically correct gibberish by the holier than thou left. Such inaccurate tripe about Switzerland.! Kj

Kj, please note our policy on no personal attacks and refrain from attacking people in this manner in future. Please also remember to sign your posts in the agreed format. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I find it odd that there is no mention of Spain on this entire page. Not only is modern racism and white supremacy rooted in the concept of "limpieza de sangre", but Spain today is one of the most racist societies in the Western world. CPS 08:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please, be bold and add the appropriate material. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Could you include some references that evidence that Spain is "one of the most racist sociesties in the Western world"? Because I live in Spain and, I think it´s as racist as most western societies come. You could say that, for example, France is a bit more racist than Spain is (after all the National Front there is an important political force, advocating covert racism). In Spain as I see it, racism is not towards black or asian people for example. Its geared more towards Roma people ("Gitanos") and Muslim people ("Moros"). Also I don´t believe modern racism and white supremacy are based on the "limpieza de sangre". As I see it, the "limpieza de sangre" was more related to religious issues, considering anything which was not catholic christian to be strange to the spanish people. I don´t understand why do you consider it the basis of white supremacy (given that most spanish people don´t really look THAT white in comparation with anglo-saxons, for example). I would definitively see it as the basis for modern christian fundamentalism, more than white supremacy. Violenciafriki 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The article hasn't been disputed for a while, and the tag was added by User:Panterka, who has made no related edits (contribs) BCorr|Брайен 20:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Darwin section is wholly incorrect and has nothing redeemable. If made correct, it would not be relevant to this page. Line by line...

Charles Darwin's most famous work on evolution is titled in full The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This has long been misunderstood to include human races. Although Darwin was racist by modern standards (in that he believed that the white man was in general superior to all other types) he did not see other races as subhuman.

No, the use of "favoured races" in the title did not refer to human races. This is quite clear if one has done any work on Victorian naturalism. In Darwin's day, "race" meant the same thing as "variety", which was generally taken as being the taxonomic level below "species". Origin did not talk about human evolution at all except for the famous last line ("shed light upon the origins"), so it is absolutely ridiculous to assert that the title of the book had anything to do with human evolution. This is the sort of misinterpretation that reflects a purposeful ignorance both to the ideas of Darwin but also the history of racism and racial theory. As for Darwin's own racism -- he did not generalize for the "white man"; he, like many Victorians of his political stripes, thought instead of the "civilized races" vs the "savage races". He often doubted whether "savage races" could become properly civilized. But it wasn't a black/white distinction. It is true he did not see other races as subhuman but that doesn't explain his position at all: Darwin was a monogenist (he believed all races were of the same species) in an era where anthropologists were usually polygenist (believed to be separate species). The large part of Descent was responding to this debate, as Darwin and the other Darwinians of the Ethnological Society saw this as essential for their theory of human origins (against the polygenist Anthropological Society). Anyway, long story short: if this paragraph were made correct, it would become irrelevant -- Darwin's view of races was not widespread nor did it lend itself easily to the sorts of typologies which would come later (black/white etc.)

It is interesting to compare these two extracts from The Descent of Man:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [...] will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [2] (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-06.html)

Yes, "it is interesting" to take quotes out of contact. Darwin's concern with the "extermination" has nothing to do with racism or eugenics, it has to do with humanitarianism. The Ethnological Society grew out of the Society for the Preservation of Aborigines (or something like that, I don't seem to have my George Stocking directly at hand), and it was common for those of the Prichardian ethnological persuasion (which Darwin clearly was) to believe that English colonialism was forcing many of the great "savage races" into extinction or absorbing them into larger civilized societies. Darwin was responding to the fact that the Aborigines in Australia, the Native Americans in the USA, and many other populations which "mysteriously" dying off when in contact with "civilized races of man" -- disease, genocide, whatever. Darwin's "hierarchy" of races existed in a sense but was far more limited that the quote implies: all in the species evolved to homo sapiens from a single origin, long diverging from the other anthropomorphous apes. The biggest end of his gap comes from the extinction of the apes -- if all that was left was the baboon, in his view, that would be quite an evolutionary jump indeed. So: if we correctly add context to this passage, what do we get? A long, long explanation which has no bearing on the history of racism. This sort of thing will be covered in depth at the entry on Descent of Man, where it belongs.

The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate. [3] (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-07.html)

This is a fairly transparent statement: Darwin was struck that all three dissimilar peoples, from widely different places on the globe, were of the same species. How is it relevant to this page? The "full-blooded negro" was a man who lived down the street from him, a freed slave, who taught him taxidermy as a child.

However, this work did later seem to give scientific legitimacy to the notion of the inherent inferiority of nonwhite races.

Darwin's Descent was neither popular nor influential. Its primary goal was to introduce the notion of sexual selection, which it was not terribly successful at (many of the Darwinians thought sexual selection unnecessary). Darwin's work was one which attempted to disprove the already existing scientific trends arguing for a much "harder" racism, one along purely biological lines (the work of Knox, Gliddon, Morton, Nott, Agassiz, etc.). When racists wanted scientific proof for their beliefs they did not cite Darwin directly -- there were so many other scientific racists to cite. Now, there is another phenomena in this, though: the tying of many beliefs to "Darwinism" because it was seen as being chic and scientific in its day, even if they had little to do with Darwin's actual theories. Herbert Spencer is quite notorious for this: Spencer's version of what is now known as "Social Darwinism" is built on a purely Lamarckian conception of evolution. The point of me saying this is not to exonerate Darwin, but to point out that one can indeed find many people appealing to Darwinism at a later point, even if it is not in the original text. You can similarly find many racists at an earlier point appealing to the Bible as a justification for their views. Does this mean that the Bible logically provoked racist thought? Or that it was used as a justification? If anything were to be mentioned along either lines, a careful distinguishing in agency would need to take place.

Darwin openly supported eugenics, and his most outspoken proponent in Germany at the time was Ernst Haeckel, the ideological father of Nazi notion of an Aryan "master race." Further, the notion that blacks are more like gorillas than human beings remains a prevailing theme in white supremacist thought and rhetoric to the present day.

Darwin was indeed somewhat favorable to his cousin Francis Galton's early ideas towards the selective breeding of humans. He has a long section in Descent though where he goes back and forth over it: if we give out charity, does it encourage less 'fit' people to reproduce? But if we don't give out charity, aren't we giving up one of the best evolved traits we have, our moral nature? He leaves it ambiguous. In the conclusion of the book, he has a more forceful statement which looks like it was taken right from Galton. In any event, at this point Galton had only written Hereditary Genius, which argued not for the social programs or government intervention which made 20th century eugenics so infamous, but for changing "social mores" to be more conducive to "good breeding". Neither Galton nor Darwin's political inclinations would have ever led them in the direction of asking for the sort of "negative" eugenics characteristic of the Nazis (both were 19th century political liberals who believed in a non-interventionary government). The statement would be more accurate if it said, "Darwin ambiguously agreed with the early forms of what would after his death be called 'eugenics', which had little resemblance to the programs of the 20th century." That is, it would be long and uninteresting and not relevant to this article. Darwin's advocacy or disavocacy of eugenics had nothing to do with the future of eugenics.

Haeckel was indeed an early proponent of Darwin in Germany, and was indeed quite problematic in his racial views (though the "master race" ideology is usually traced to Gobineau, not Haeckel, but no matter). However the causality of that has little to do with Darwin.

As for gorillas, return to what I said before about Darwin's hierarchy. He did have one but it was far more vertically limited than any of the other "scientific" hierarchies of the day. The gorilla/"Negro" association was made long before Darwin and long after. He was not influential along these lines except in the general sense that people would use evolutionary notions towards this interpretation. The work of non-Darwinians like Nott and Knox was far more influential along these lines.

There is a great deal of controversy about race and intelligence, in part because the concepts of both race and IQ are themselves difficult to define.

I have no idea what this has to do with Darwin. The notion of IQ came long after his time.

In short, these passages look like they were written by someone either innocently ignorant of the arguments about Victorian racial theory, or someone who is ideologically trying to link Darwin and racism (a common Creationist tactic). While I am not opposed to explaining Darwin's views on race (and sex), they were not influential in a larger sense. One could, however, talk about the ways in which Darwinism was taken up as a way to justify racism (certainly true) in the way that many belief systems were at various times called into action for that purpose. However that would be quite a different section than this one, a much shorter one at that. To correct the current section would be to render it irrelevant to the current article, so I have deleted it for now. --Fastfission 15:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

wvh

I removed this link that was added after the PBS link:

And from American Renaissance, a "pro-white" publication, Race Denial: The Power of a Delusion, a detailed critique seeking to refute the film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- stephenf please dont append idiotic thoughts to this post.

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

-arnen

It is clear that there will be a lot of so called "white" countries included in this section. That is because the authors of the Wikipedia and the English section are mainly from these countries and are more familiar with these issues. I did try to redress this by putting various countries names, plus the comment "No racism in Country X" in order to get a discussion going. This was considered by some "trolling", but it was more aptly described laziness on my part. It was interesting to see that these countries soon had good useful text in them.

I don't believe this article is targeting certain countries. People are sometimes reluctant to highlight racism in their own communities, as it others can get a negative view of their country that they love. This is very understandable. I would really hope this whole article explains racism everywhere in the past and now. In particular success stories should be included as to how countries overcame it, or at least some of it, ie the way forward. Wallie 08:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Edededed 02:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

Kj

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

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

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

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

Also I get the sense some of those changes were made by someone ticked off at New Zealand as they stated "New Zealand and South Africa have long been considered the most racist nations." I've rarely if ever heard New Zealand equated with South Africa on racism issues. I've rarely even it heard it equated with Australia.--T. Anthony 00:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am guilty about puting in the comment about there not being racism in Frnace. I did it about some other countries too, as there were no remarks. This implied that readers would think that there was only racism in the countries mentioned. Someone said that was trolling, but laziness is probably more accurate, as I wanted people to add something about other countries, which I suspect may have racism too, and was too lazy to do the work myself. I do note that this did have the desired effect though.

As I have also mentioned before, I would not take this approach now, as I know a little more about Wikipedia. Wallie 19:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

P0M 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have modified the article on Switzerland to remove the false bits and some of the emotive language, eg, POV. The other pieces about the SVP trying to review the immigration policy are largely true, so they can remain. Even offical reports are not good reference material, as these are often political in nature. The report is also in French, which is unusual. Does this only apply to the French part of Switzerland? Wallie 20:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, it is available in German and Italian as well; there are links to pick the language at the top right of each page. Thanks for the changes - hopefully they will discourage the repeated vandalism of this section. Coming back to the report, as an official document, it can probably not be ignored, even if it may be political. After a quick search, I found some news articles about the report itself (e.g. http://www.swissinfo.org/sfr/swissinfo.html?siteSect=106&sid=5494774, in French), but nothing criticising it so far. Schutz 07:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I hope that the section on Switzerland is now reasonably fair. Wallie 15:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Past History" is a redundant name, and starting "Recent Events" with the 1960s seems extremely arbitrary to me. I didn't see a great reason for the division, to be honest -- the whole thing is currently an extended history because there is nothing on the last 20 years or so. Obviously I'm not asking for the entire article to be about the U.S. -- I'm talking specifically about the sub-section, with the recognition that it should be very brief (there is a larger article for more expansion), but needs to cover the basics. "Bad news" and "success stories" are not the issue here; there are simply more or less neutral ways of writing things. --Fastfission 15:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I believe we are talking from the same script. I was just trying to speak plainly, when mentioning "bad news" and "success stories". All I am trying to avoid is the whole article dwelling on the negative aspects. The reason for the division was to split the big sections. Most traditional encyclopedias seem to emphasis the present day events when the encyclopidia was written. Of course the historical part leads up to the present. Anyway from the tone of what you are writing and your modifications, you would have few disagreements from me. Keep up the good work! Wallie 17:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

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

My contribution: Canada is a working example of multiculturalism, but it obviously isn't perfect: while I met many immigrant taxi drivers with Ph.D.s, I also see a great deal of people from different ethnic backgrounds being introduced to "higher", more publicly visible positions (university professors, physicians, MPs, GGs, etc. the list is ever-growing). Progress is happening, but mentalities at the whole population scale can't evolve that fast. I'd also be willing to know more about how people in other countries are open to those perceptions; not saying that we do it better, but I happen to believe that issues of ethnic minorities, sexism, etc., within Canada, benefit from lots of public interest and attention in the medias and else. That doesn't make anybody less racist, but the talk is there, and the will for peaceful neighbourhood is there too. Does an often difficult context of integration deserves to be branded institutionalised racism? I don't think so. As an immigrant, one needs to integrate to a certain extent to the ways of other countries. If local knowledge (Canada is huge, and very different from coast to coast) and linguistic capabilities are factored in job interviews and employees' appraisals, it is obvious that some sort of institutionalised segregation will make the integration of people from other countries difficult. The inverse, a utopia, would be to create a world society, with perfect blending; but utopia = out of reach. I believe the above paragraph should reflect that it's probably more a factor of local knowledge and experience of the country than any specific ethnic origin if immigrants have trouble integrating: so I don't perceive that as racism. I also believe that ruling bodies should promote better, clearer systems of recognition and comparison of foreign degrees and experience. But this goes over the aim of this article. Frankidou, 21-11-2005, 18:14.

Great. I know exactly what you are saying. This is clear favoritism (a nice word for racism), and goes on in (most?) other countries too. It is definitely there in most of the countries I have worked in anyway. I should have read it more carefully, as the word perceived is in there, and it is clear that it is not law per se. Thanks for the update. Wallie 13:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following link shows the various definitions of racism. [1] All of these definitions have the same theme. For example, one definition mentions: "The inherent belief in the superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance.".

So, to cover your points:

• Racism is a belief

Correct

• and not a "system of oppression".

Nope. It is a system of oppression. This is what the definitions say.

• This article abuses the English language,

It may do. You can always correct it.

• and is designed in such a way as to make it impossible to accuse minorities of racism.

You are absolutely correct to say that minorities can practice racism. You are quite welcome to quote instances of this in this article.

• This is blantantly unfair, and is "racially prejudiced" itself.

Again. you can always change it.

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