Talk:White supremacy

white supremacy today

This article is well written and very complete, it focus a lot on a literal deffinition of what why suppremacy is. It will make the article more complete if it includes more information about the effects of white supremacy today.Yivi29 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Yivi29

Good idea, but I'd also urge caution. Such additions need to keep in mind that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and other Wiki rules and norms. -Pengortm (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Identitarian movement

Mostly poor sources, a subset of white supremacy. Most of the article should be scrapped. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Oppose, sources are available and not clear that it is only subset of white supremacy. Sources[1][2][3][4].--Jahaza (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, it is certainly not a subset of white supremacy. First of all, it is a mainly European movement; it started in France and then spread to other European countries. There sure is an intersection with white nationalism -- but white nationalism is more like the ideological umbrella and not an organization -- and many different organizations can very roughly be considered to be close to that ideology.
  It is a registered association in Germany. And in France the organization has -- according to political scientist Stéphane François -- between 1.500 and 2.000 members. 93.224.110.163 (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC) PS The statement about the allegedly "poor sources" is in no way substantiated. PPS Identitäre Bewegung Österreichs could be merged with Identitarian movement.

• Strongly oppose Identitarianism, while it certainly has an overlap with white supremacy, is more of a white nationalist movement. (White supremacy & white nationalism being ideologies). It has enough coverage as its own movement to justify an article. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- both stand on their own. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - not even subtle, try harder. 86.146.205.94 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose — Not a synonym. Looks independently notable.--Carwil (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - not even subtle, try harder. Leutha (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No matter how you slice that one the (European) identitarian movement requires an article on its as the scope is big enough. Aside from I agree with the assessment that it may overlap with white supremacy but it isn't identical.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Nationalism =/= Eugenics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.132.235.222 (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose If nationalism were a form of racism (racial supremacy) then every country in Latin America, Africa and Asia would be racist. Of course, some nationalists might be racist but that may apply to any nation. Not just White Western nations. So, no. 201.214.97.159 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

History in the US

This book] has some interesting comments not included in any way in the article:

"In the two decades after the Civil War, notions of white supremacy began to coalesce, based initially on British-Israelism. Although British-lsraelism peaked in England in the 1920s with only 5,000 members (Barkun 1997:13), figures such as C. A. I.. Totten found a much wider audience in the United States. Though not a promoter of British-lsraelism as such, Totten used it as the basis of his own version of white supremacy. This belief had great impact on a young evangelist, Charles Fox Parham, who on January 1, 1901, would claim that people in his congregation began speaking in tongues at several revivals, and this was a direct communication from God. He shortly thereafter founded the Pentecostal movement (Barkun 1997:20). Pentecostalism grew rapidly in the South and the Midwest, and gained another influential supporter in the form of J. H. Allen, who transferred the key belief of white supremacy into Midwestern Methodism (Barkun 1997:21). At this point, however, white supremacy was primarily a belief that Anglo-American whites would fulfill crucial sections of biblical prophesy. It had not yet acquired the persecutionary virulence of later versions, especially in the 1920s when the Klan reached the height of its national prominence, and again in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Nevertheless, the fact that white supremacy became a central organizing theme in the early days of two major evangelical groups is important. The issue of segregation after the Civil War, and slavery before the war, created divisions among evangelicals, and eventually disempowered evangelicalism during the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and only recently are evangelicals in general drawing together against racist beliefs. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention, the single largest evangelical organization, did not renounce slavery or segregation until 1995 (Newman 2001). Prior to the 1990s, evangelicals would often travel in other, less tolerant directions. With the appearance of Reuben F. Sawyer in 1921, American evangelicalism in the South and the Southwest moved closer to the Ku Klux Klan. Klan rhetoric at this time emphasized both hatred of blacks, the focus of the first wave of Klan activity immediately after the Civil War, which Sawyer and others now joined with strong anti-Semitism and the need to preserve white culture in addition to what they saw as the genetic purity of the white race." Doug Weller talk 11:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

British Israelism was absolutely an early form of racial supremacism. While you say it was small, it included numerous high level politicians. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Actually I didn't say that, it's a quote, although you may be right. Who were you thinking of? Doug Weller talk 06:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

They're in this article, also more links to US: British-Israel-World Federation. I get the feeling this might belong in Christian Identity 64.223.126.42|64.223.126.42]] (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee

The BIWF article is pretty bad. I added the KKK thing only a few weeks ago. Two of the editors editing are the BIWF President and the membership secretary of a local branch in Australia. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts

Not a forum: any further discussion should restart with specific, well sourced, proposals for article improvement. . . Edaham (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Although grammatically correct, the first sentence emphasizes the superiority aspect, to such an extent that it could be mistaken as the definition. It's not white superiority, it's white supremacy. The statement, "centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief", is the main culprit which makes the first part of the sentence outweigh the second part, which is the more important part. It seems that some people want to overemphasize this. This page doesn't have enough about the origin of this term, which was a term for the Nazi racial program, in turn a type of populism. Otherwise, racist ideologies were a response to rapid urbanization and migrations of the 20th century (like the 20th century KKK, for example). Trying to push it back much before this, you will have to prove ideologies existed, and racist science was created with a racist intent. The last thing I propose is to change the "Southern Africa" section to "Zimbabwe" and "South Africa". The reason is because Rhodesia is possibly the best example of white nationalism. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee Is the first part of your post an edit request? If so can you restate it in a "change x to y format"? Also please provide a source for the second part of your request. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC) Also you are right that this section requires a citation.Edaham (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC) I edited my comment. You mean Rhodesia? I'll work on expanding it a bit and putting it in it's own category. It definitely deserves it's own category. I'm unable to work with words AT ALL right now, but I will say that it's unneccesary to say that an ideology is based on the promotion of a belief. In case you all think I'm fighting something imaginary, here is Brittanica's definition, completely incorrect: White supremacy, beliefs and ideas purporting natural superiority of the lighter-skinned, or “white,” human races over other racial groups. I still cannot understand from your post what part of the article should be changed to what material, and on what source material that change should be based. It might be beneficial for you to register an account and make the changes after having met the requirements for editing this page. If you do not register an account, consider placing the text you which to insert "into quotes" or a box on this talk page. Also please sign your posts with four tildes to help archiving and maintenance of this page. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC) I also propose the deletion of the alternative title: "white supremacism". Supremacism isn't technically a word. White supremacism is even more fringe. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee Not done: This appears to be a widely used term in current usage in most forms of news media. i.e. [this Washington post article] among numerous others. Edaham (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Supremacism is not in any dictionary. It has a place, I'll give it that, but it shouldn't go around replacing real words when they do quite fine. A google search for white supremacism brings up 60,000 results. The same search before 2015 brings up 4,000 results. Supremacism has 228,000 results. That is a paltry amount of uses. It was created and remains used only by the far left. White supremacy itself brings up only 3,800,000. Therefore use ratio is 1,000 to 1. It was created by, and is only used by fringe activists. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee FWIW I checked out of curiosity, and it's in literally every dictionary I just checked, either with its own entry or an alternative form of "supremacist". OED: "Advocacy of, or belief in, the supremacy of a particular group, esp. one defined by race, religion, or sex; conduct which is motivated by, or is intended to enforce in practice, this belief." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't use figures from search engine results as sources for definitions of words. I'm not changing the article as you suggested as you have not provided sources to support your suggestions and you haven't made it particularly clear what x you would like to change to what y. This is not a forum and since your requests have been responded to, further discussion of the article's subject seems unnecessary as per this talk page's guidelines on forums. Edaham (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Talk:White supremacy/hat

Lead incorrect - you don't have to want to rule non-whites to be a white supremacist

We keep getting people saying X can't be a white supremacist because they don't want to rule over non-whites. Which is nonsense. The ADL paper o white supremacism[5] says " However, generally speaking, white supremacists of whatever sort adhere to at least one of the following beliefs: 1) whites should be dominant over people of other backgrounds; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own “culture” that is superior to other cultures; and 4) white people are genetically superior to other people. Anti-Semitism is also important for the majority of white supremacists, most of whom actually believe that Jews constitute a race of their own—a race with parasitic and evil roots." Doug Weller talk 10:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)