Talk:Racial purity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If people of ethnicity B is forbidden to marry people of ethnicity C and C is forbidden to marry B, how can one tell this is anti-B or anti-C law, since restrictions are placed on both. I do not intend to discuss where there anti-(chose group description) laws in Germany or not, but calling this anti-semitism is inappropriate.

It's the nature of the restrictions, not whom they were placed on. Grace Note 06:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not only was "miscegenation" of Germans with Jews outlawed, but also with Gypsies and Slavs.

A lot of people seem to be unaware of the view of Gypsies and Slavs in Nazi ideology.

Gringo300 06:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentence[edit]

I just removed this sentence: "The successes of United States — the great "melting pot" — may provide a support for this point of view." For one, it seems to be asserting this belief, and nobody is cited who said this. It's also highly speculative, since there are so many factors that affect the success of a nation - natural resources, geo-strategic position, leadership policies, alliances, etc. There are also counter examples, for example, the rather homogeneous contries of Japan and South Korea have been much more successful than the very diverse and mixed Brazil. And even assuming that ethnic diversity has been a major advantage to the United States, there's no evidence that this hasn't been mainly from cultural diversity, rather than genetic diversity. Also, there hadn't been much mixing of the races in the U.S. until the last thirty years or so, which means that the U.S. became successful before the main known benefit of mixing (reducing the chance of pairing potentialy harmful recessive genes) kicked in to any significant extent. At any rate, I think it makes sense to keep that speculation out until someone can find a source to attribute it to. Blackcats 06:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


You're to be congratulated. It was the wildest kind of original research. Grace Note 06:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suicides after Nuremberg Laws[edit]

Were there many suicides after the Nuremberg Laws? It doesn't sound particularly likely to me. Does anyone have a source for that? Grace Note 06:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it appears to me that the people labelled as "untermenschen", was ANYBODY not labelled as "aryan". and obviously many white people are no where NEAR blond haired and blue eyed.

Gringo300 06:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its a fact that all great empires are a result of mixed cultures and peoples,the romans,egyptians,americans,constantonople,its also a fact that those civilizations that attempeted to enact racial purity has eventually failed due to their inability to think diffrently,ie germany,the greeks,the chinese all possesed an inflated egos and resingned themselves to believe that only they possesed the right awnser,its humorous how people who tout the sucesses of certain culutres ignore the fact the only reason for their sucess is their cultural diversity

Jewish taboo against outmarriage[edit]

Why was info on the Jewish taboo against outmarriage deleted? That taboo is simply an attempt to maintain racial purity. I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with that fact, but it is indeed an attempt to avoid miscegenation. It's misleading to make it look in the article like "Aryans" were the only ones who had taboos against outmarriage, when Jews have a taboo just as strong, if not stronger. The removal of the info should be explained.

Jews are not a race, and anyone of any race can become a Jew. There is no taboo in Judaism against "inter-racial marriage". Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Grace Note can explain what this: "Many Jews maintain similar taboos against outmarriage with non-Jews even today. For further information, see Jewish views of intermarriage and Silent Holocaust" has to do with "racial purity." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a repository of my opinions or things that I feel I have to explain, Slim. But what it is is a repository of what others think and how they explain it. I don't think there is any such thing as racial purity, and I don't care who marries whom, but clearly some do, and that includes Jews who do not welcome intermarriage.--GN.
Jews are both a race and a religion. There are many Jews who identify as ethnically Jewish, yet do not subscribe to the Jewish religion. If Jews are not a race, then how can we say that Nazi attempts to avoid intermarriage with Jews were attempts to maintain racial (rather than religious) purity? Geeds 06:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Ethnic groups and races are not the same thing, and the fact that someone can become a Jew belies the claim that they are a race. As for the Nazis, the fact that the Nazis defined Jews as a "race" doesn't mean they actually are one. The Nazi decisions were based on their own ideas about "race". Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
But if Jews aren't a race, how can we say that Nazi attempts to avoid intermarriage with Jews were an attempt to maintain racial purity? How could Jews somehow dilute another group's racial purity if Jews aren't a race to begin with? (which is a questionable notion itself -- How can someone like Karl Marx identify as a "Jew" when by religion he was an atheist?)Geeds 23:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
According to the Nazis they were a race, but Nazi views have little to do with reality. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Nazi views are a more pertinent matter for Wikipedia than yours though, Jay, given that Wikipedia simply reports others' beliefs and does not judge them. The irony that escapes you is that "The Nazi decisions were based on their own ideas about "race"." applies equally to your own ideas! You define race to exclude Jews, and others define it to include them. Personally, I think the word "race" is utterly meaningless, and "racial purity" a ridiculous concept, entirely meaningless for anyone prepared to expend three or four minutes' thought on it.
The point about Karl Marx is interesting though, Jay. Are you suggesting that Jewishness is not an ethnicity at all? Some dictionaries are happy to define "race" (rather broadly) as "grouping of people" (which is how it's often used and definitely applicable here). I understand that Jewishness as a concept is complex, but I think that the common perception of it as something on a par with "blackness" (particularly given that "black" people can be very ethnically and culturally distinct), for instance, is rooted in a reality of identification, both within and outside the grouping itself. Some people call that reality a "race". You don't, I don't, but some do.--Grace Note.
What does this have to do with Jews having views about "racial purity"? According to whom? Do Jews consider themselves to be a "race" which must maintain "racial purity"? Can you cite that original research please? Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hitler Short and Dark-Haired?[edit]

Hitler was not the epitome of the Aryan ideal, but neither were many other Germans. He was 5'10"/5'11", dark brown hair, dark blue eyes. He was also primarily seen as the Leader/Savior of Germany, not as the prototype which Germany was looking to to "racially purify" itself.

"Racial purification" ultimately boiled down to cultural purification. If one looks back into Richard Wagner's writing on "What is German?", it would be seen that the anti-assimilation/internationalistic tendencies of the "Other" or "Foreign element" is what was seen as problematic. Hitler translated Wagner into Politics. Simplifying the Nazi movement into a base race-based movement really misses the point. More research should be done and something should be posted by an actual professional, able to compare and contrast accurately.

Also, there's no "pure" race. The Jewish tendency to marry Jewish is more of a cultural ideal to preserve a solid identity. Ethnically, European Jews are more European than Jewish, for instance. But they identify themselves as Jews, which is what makes the difference. Although racially multi-ethnic, religious and/or cultural self-identification is what makes the difference.

S7Seven 18:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with miscegenation[edit]

Wouldn't it be more coherent to have a single entry about miscegenation and "racial purity" in order to discuss the concepts? Lapaz 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • That makes sense, but I also propose a section on that article be made about racial preservation and preservation of current biological diversity. Epf 07:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with the merge because the articles are about the same thing. Racial purity is just a colloquial (and racially loaded) term for anti-miscegenation. Besides, the Racial purity article is chock full of uncited claims. There is not a single reference.Spylab 01:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Genetic Diversity"[edit]

I disagree with this term and that miscegenation is in favour of "Genetic Diversity". Miscegenation actually would in fact decrease such diversity, especially in the European populations (and more specifically, those of Nordic/Northern European types) considering: a large proportion of the genetic distinctiveness of these people (eg. lighter phenotypes) is recessive; the northern European peoples especially are vastly outnumbered by most other racial/ethnic groups, including the "non-Nordic" peoples of Southern, Central and Eastern Europe; and the worlds nations which receive the largest numbers of immigrants and refugees from around the world are European nations or those nations with large European populations (Australia, USA). When you take this all into account, miscegenation would make the outlook for the biological distinctiveness of European peoples quite bleak indeed. So called "Genetic Diversity" should be changed simply to miscegenation unless the discourse/POV I am discussing (which sources are available) can be posted in the article. Epf 07:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing stopping you including this point of view, though frankly it sounds like nothing more than traditional racialism to me. The "biological distinctiveness" of Nordics is no more worthy of preservation than anyone else's, unless of course you agree with Madison Grant and Alfred Rosenberg that they are an endangered master-race. Paul B 17:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe in preserving the disinct physical traits of all current ethnic groups and populations, but it happens to be that right now, Northern European peoples are at a great risk of losing their distinctiveness due to the reasons stated above. People have to get through their poltically sensitive fears and realize that there is obviously a difference between "ethnic preservation" and racism (i.e. hate, discrimination, prejudice, etc.). It seems that the term racist is too easily applied nowadays, especially when the people pushing to maintain their diversity happen to be Caucasian/European. Similar ethnic preservation ideologies have been present in other groups around the world for a long time, especially in very homogenous peoples such as Koreans and Japanese, but you rarely see them being accused of being "racist". The preservation of cultural and biological diversity is according to some people (e.g. User: Lapaz) automatically connected to massive exclusion/discrimination of peoples outside of the particular group in qestion and a reductoin in their liberties. Very racist movements have enacted such policies in the past (i.e. Nazism) and also in the modern world in some places but the idea of ethnic diversity and preservation obviously does not have to be itself related to such policies. The multicultural policies in nations such as Canada and Australia are examples of how diversity and ethnic preservation are carried out in a positive, non-discriminatory manner and helps protect peoples from assmilation and culturally destructive policies seen in nations such as France and China. This is a cause that needs to be realized if we wish to avoid both ethnic destruction and an increase in right-wing racist extremist movements. Epf 08:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

racial purity? isn't everyone pure in god's way? so what are they saying? that some races are better than others? (han)

Racial Purity is NOT Racism[edit]

What's with the insane redirecting to "Racism"? Racial purity is not racism. If someone does not want to miscegenate, then they are no more a racist than someone who doesn't want to date people of the same sex is a homophobe or sexist. The vast majority of people do not engage in romantic relationships with people outside of their racial group either, I suppose they are all "racists"?! Christopedia (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Also I love how if you type in racialpurity.com in your browser it redirects to Wikipedia's "Racism" article. Someone sure hates the idea of people sticking to their own kind...Christopedia (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)