Talk:Master race

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article holds that the Mater Race is something that already exists, whereas normally I have heard it used in the context of something that will be achieved through eugenics. User:H7asan

I've removed this sentence, since it seems very obscure, and ios also rather distracting and confusing ['[it] was first used by the British colonial power to denote the original inhabitants of the areas (colonies) that they had conquered and ruled.]. Why would the people being ruled over be the 'master race'? Clearly this usage is wholly different from the standard one, and appears to be no more than a coincidence of phrasing. It should not be main definition of the term. Paul B

Paul, yes, it is somewhat unusual but correct, I think. I copied it from the German version, which I did not write. I am quite sure that Hitler openly admitted that the British colonial policy inspired him to do the same for his colonization of eastern europe. Andries 19:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Concept of Master Race is not something that purely applies to the German usage of the concept. It is a common recurring theme throughout many mythologies and stories of a people of unblemished spiritual descent, similar to the concept of demigods. The word "Aryan" in the Central Asian cultures implies people who are "great ones", or "heavenly/divine ones" in translation, and the concept of Aryan and Master Race were used in some ways by Nietzsche in his supraman ideology before the Fascists adopted the idea into their own twisted version of it.

People of "unblemished spiritual descent" do no belong in this article, which is about theories of racial difference. Nietzsche was not concerned with race. Paul B 10:01, 31 July, 2005 (UTC)

May I just say that Nietzsche's own ideas were almost (but not quite) fascist, so although they modified his ideas they did not 'twist' them. I know it i sfashionable to talk as if Nietzsche was a decent man and a good man...etc...however it doesn't cut any ice when you look at his works. You can see by reading them, who the Nazi's modified them (easily) to fit with thheir own agenda.

P.S. And why would Hitler take British Colonial Policy (which has many differences to Nazi Colonial Policy), becase the British used the term 'Master Race' in reference to the indigenious inhabitants of a regions. It shows whoever wrote that in the (German) article's lack of knowledge if A) He thinks the two 'nations' had the same or similar colonial policies or that the idea of 'Master Race' stems for that (completely unreleated) term. - Lucius Anonimus

Blond/Blue Italians

"Italians, under the rule of Benito Mussolini, are not known for having blond hair and blue eyes, yet they fought alongside the Germans as Aryans."

First, there is a disconnect between perception and reality here; being "known for" a characteristic really has nothing to do with anything Italians themselves can do or control. (e.g. the world was once known for being flat, yet the explorers never fell off)

Also, though the experience is anecdotal, Italy seems to be chock-full of blond haired, blue-eyed citizens. Perhaps this isn't the case on The Sopranos and other television and movie portrayals, but in reality... <((Insert Anti-Human propaganda here))>

Colonial US

In the US a similar concept exsisted. Benjamin Franklin clearly proposed a division between Anglo-Saxons & Saxons and the rest of Europeans whom he considered to be "Swathy Whites." This ideology which was somewhat popular in the US during the late 18^th and early 19^th century created a defacto, Anglo-Saxon/Saxon master race. The concept is initially the same; thus I beleive the exsistance of a master race concept in the colonial United States ought to be mentioned here. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Franklin's views are not really very clearly thought-through, as expressed in his article, which you can see here.[1] He is rather vague about why these Anglo-Saxons are more "lovely", and which races should be included in loveliness (he refers to the white and also the "red" - presumably meaning natives) and he also says that maybe this is just his own preference. There's no clearly articulated theory behind it at this stage. Paul B 08:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV.

There isn't one single indication or comment about the fact that the theories about matser races (whether nazi or japanese or anything else) have been widely discredited. That's not very NPOV. ;) --Regebro 18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the article: "Most modern geneticists no longer give credence to the hierarchical model of race on which the policies of eugenics and racial hygiene are built. The concepts involved in this theory of Germanic superiority is also strongly contested. Most modern scholars see no connection between Indo-European population movements and alleged "Nordic" racial characteristics." Paul B 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, that's under Aryanism. Are we to conclude that Nordicism IS given credence? :-) But fine, there is some text I can use, I'll move it. --Regebro 21:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in that category because it comes after the Nordic category, and the statement links the two. Paul B 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was in the category after the Nordic category, ie, the Arian category. Anyway, I have fixed it now. :) --Regebro 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was put there to link the two sections on both Nordic and Aryan concepts - at the end of the discussion of the factual aspects of the issue as a summing up. Paul B 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it was put there, just how it ended up, and it ended up looking like it was ONLY referencing Aryanism, and it looked hidden away as a small aside. I moved it to the top of the page where it clearly is about both, and where it is NOT hidden away, thereby making the article less POV. I honestly have no idea why you are even discussing this. --Regebro 11:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can it "only" reference Aryanism when it in fact explicitly refers to the Nordic concept??? If people read the article - which is quite short - it isn't "hidden" at all. I don't mind the section being at the top, but I was explaining that there was also a sensible reason why it was where it was. Paul B 12:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to correct this but Paul Barlow keeps on reverting my corrections --- Skapur 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you you deleted the discussion, apparently to misrepresent my position - which is a serious no-no. Paul B 23:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intentionally delete it. I did not see it. Was it an edit save conflict? --- Skapur 00:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An edit conflict from several hours ago? I don't think so. Here's the evidence. [2] Paul B 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. I did not do it intentionally. --- Skapur 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Never mind, fixed now. Paul B 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unique to Europe?

Is the master race concept really unique to Europe? What about Japan in the early 20th century? I have the impression that this was an ideoalogy of racial superioroty as well? Is that a misunderstanding? --Regebro 11:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to say. What's distinct about Europe is the way it claimed to be based on scientific taxonomies of race and had acres academic-sounding literature to back it up. I don't think there was anything comparable in Japan, but it would be interesting to know. Numerous cultures throughout history have believed that their people were superior to others for various reasons, which often mixed cultural, environmentalist and other arguments. These certainly often included the vaguely "racialist" concept of "superior breeding" and "purity". They also sometimes articulated features such as skin colour (as in the ancient Egyptian racial/ethnic taxonomy). But the specific concept of a "master race" as such - defined by anthropometrics - is very distinctive to European theories of racial taxonomy which didn't really exist before the 19th century. If someone knows more about Japanese thinking at this time it would be useful to discuss. We could also explore the history of the idea of ethnic superiority. Paul B 12:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese i've met have a valid claim to being a local Master-Race, i'm afraid to admit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.189.239 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

I removed the section on Tolkien as the central premise (along with most of the details) was inaccurate. The idea that Tolkien portrayed the Numenoreans as 'morally superior' runs into trouble when considering that they slipped into 'devil worship' and human sacrifice... he also specifically wrote that intermarrying with other men was NOT the cause of their decay... indeed, that was the claim advanced by the evil Castamir the Usurper against the rightful (mixed blood) king Eldacar of Gondor. Et cetera. The presentation of Tolkien's work in the article just was not accurate. --CBD 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nordic race.jpg

Image:Nordic race.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses

Muslims referring to non-Muslims as "infidels" and giving them effectively sub-human "rights" in Islamic countries?
Jews, especially Zionists, referring to "Goi", and dehumanising Palestinians?
Romans and Greeks referring to pretty much all others as "barbarians"?
Khoisan using the same word they use for "wild animals" to describe Caucasoid and Negroid peoples?
Indians using various racist terms for both south Indians, and Europeans?

etc

But the "Master Race" theory is uniquely Germanic in character and design. That's nice to know. Only Nordics can be racist. It is physically impossible for ANY other human group to be racist. Alternatively, this article could be cleaned up......

None of this is about race specifically, but about cultural or religious identity (and 'goy', btw, just means 'people'). In none of these cases is there a concept that a particular race has physically innate qualities of leadership, which is essentially what the adea of a master race is about. Paul B (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to people racially unlike you is about race specifically(Khoisan). Likewise there are countless writings by Greeks and Romans mocking the "darker" and "lighter" races.

"Goyim" means "cattle". There are various references to "God's chosen People", and how non-Jews are beneath the "Chosen Ones". Whether that means race specifically today, what with some degree of interbreeding is a matter of discussion, but saying that "Master Race Theory" is uniquely Germanic is just plain wrong. In fact, the original "Nordic supremacists" were French. Likewise the movement took roots in Russia, where a remnant survives today. There are various "master race" ideaologies in the world today. For example the Bantu peoples of Central Africa regard themselves as naturally "superior" to their Bambutid neighbours. Or the lighter-skinned Israelis regard themselves as somehow "superior" both to dark-erskinned Palestinians and darker-skinned Orientalid ans Sephardic Jews. There is likewise "master race" bias in India today. Or how about Afrocentrism ? And the list goes on and on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goyim does not mean and never has meant cattle. That's pure myth. Look up the word. No one disputes that people in group A have considered themselves to be superior to people group B in numerous cultures througout history, but that's not how the tem "master race" is used. Yes the ideas of Boulainvilliers lay behind those of Gobineau, and the concept evolved in Nordicism, but the specific concept of a master race as such only became clearly defined in Nazi ideology. Paul B (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider to be 'clearly defined'? Surely that is entirely subjective. Is it also pure myth that the Talmud refers to certain laws that place Jews above non-Jews, or that many prominent Israelis have referred to non-Jews as "beasts that walk on two legs"? The problem here is that this article attempts to display that only the Germanic peoples(who do not really exist as such, if you consider the meaning), are the only "Master Race" promoters in history, when clearly "master race" theories abound today. The Germans may or may not have been the only people to use the specific term "master race", but so what? ANY claims of superioirty of other peoples is a "Master Race" ideaology. So why make this German-specific? Surely that in itself is racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article ever says what you are implying, which is that only Germanic peoples claimed to be of a superior race. You're trying to equate a term with a historical and cultural context with a more generalized notion of racial inequality, that is you're pretending to ignore the history behind the term. "Master race" is well understood as specifically Nazi terminology. As you even state yourself, other races have used different terminology to assert their superiority, for example Jews calling non-Jews "beasts".66.188.125.219 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21st century neo-liberal interpretation

Hybrid Vigour. the 'master race' would acheive supremacy in any culture, in any geographical location. (nietzche's idea of the Overman.. assimilating ALL local adaptations? - as a descendant of polish noblemen i think he would not aprove of the Nazi's Eugenic's programme - alliance with Stalin in exterminating his parents' cultures' superior members.)

Hybrid Vigour would achieve the 'master race'. although continual DARWINIAN SELECTION is a pre-requisite. —Preceding the 'overman' would have no need for a 'parent master race'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.189.239 (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

hence i justify...

"Materialism Is The Most Humane Form Of Darwinian Selection"

unsigned comment added by 81.153.189.239 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the ruling class has lighter skin

Is because they sit indoors all day and never go out in the sun. That's not science, it's common sense. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any Proof?

I hereby challenge the claim that the term master race or German: Herrenrasse was a concept in Nazi ideology. I claim it was not but rather a propaganda term used by the Allies.

Please give proof (original sources) that this term was used in speeches or publications by/of any Nazi leaders between 1933 and 1945. 62.226.30.93 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]