Talk:Racism in the United States

Bibliography

A selected annotated bibliography (20 titles or so) would make this article much more usefull. 12/2006

Racism against Muslims?

This article has a section dealing with racism against Muslims. Islam is not a race - it's a religion. I suggest the section be removed, since discrimination on the basis of religion is different to discrimination on the basis of race. (Same applies to discrimination against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Arab, Iranian, Afghan and South Asian immigrants from Muslim nations aren't treated any better if they're Hindu, Sikh or Christian. Racists will simply assume that they're Muslim before even talking to them, and even if they do know the difference, will often be suspicious of them as "potential terrorists" or such. When Virgil Goode said he wanted to stop immigration from the Middle-East, he wasn't limiting himself to Muslims. 147.9.201.163 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That also is true for The UK and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.136.109 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging

I think Racism in the Southern United States should be not be merged with this article. Toothpaste muslims suck4 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)

• I agree, but there isn't very much worthwile there. I say merge whatever's really relevant and accurate (most of it is not really), and make Racism in the Southern United States a redirect.--Pharos 4 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but I think that the article should also be divided into, Western U.S., Northern U.S. and Southern U.S. because the forms on how Racism were conducted were different and each more or less had its own history. Falphin 4 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Also agreed, but i think the article should be divided up into Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western United States. Also I HATE the KKK!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.28.196 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Racial discrimination nowadays

I think the article should contain examples and problems faced by minority groups in the United States and the United Kingdom nowadays, especially those African-American and Chinese American because these two ethnic groups form the majority of ethnic groups in these two countries. For example, the article should discuss racial discrimination in US and UK communities and the lower possibility for them to enter top universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard etc. Besides, can they merge themselves into white communities without being treated unfairly and unequally should be a highlighted issue in the article. I suggest dividing the ariticle "racism" into two seperate ones, one discussing racial discrimination in western history while another one concerning racial discrimation nowadays in Southeast Asian and Western countries like US, UK, Malysia and Indonesia etc. It is better to provide more information about racial discrimination against students who are studing abroad in UK, US and Australia, such as their status in high schools and colleges compares to that of White.

Um, this article is on racism in the United States, not the UK, not Australia, etc. We should stick to teh US here, and link to other country articles when appropriate. Elefuntboy 01:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

stelletje mierenneukers

Looking at the UK article, you'd think there's no racial discrimination. I know better. I lived there for 7 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.136.109 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The problems African Americans faced form the basis of much of the study of US history; no attempt to discuss anti-Black racism in America can succeed because it must include at least two different topics, slavery and Jim Crow, each worthy of at least a monograph. Problems Mexican Americans faced, including involuntary emigration, qualitatively differed from those African Americans faced. Irish Americans had different problems than Italian Americans. Jews faced antipathies as respects race and religion, including numerus clausus regulations and charges that they caused wars, that no other minority faced. Native Americans have a very complex history, which cannot simply be labelled racism: the notion of the noble savage had racist implications that in some ways protected Native Peoples from genocide; expansionism (manifest destiny) with resultant genocide was something no other minority experienced and was also not entirely racist in intent, although it obviously was in result; plagues effected by differing immune systems that largely destroyed many tribes were not racist. These, of course, are just examples, not intended to be a comprehensive list of minorities who faced problems. Instead of attempting to give a broad brush to the problems faced by each group, better would be links to a series of articles, each containing information about prejudice against a specific group, or, better yet, the history of the group within America.

Terminology

"thousands of African slaves served whites, alongside other whites"

The term whites seems rather colloquial, perhaps it could be replaced with something more suitable for a formal encyclopedia. Anser 5 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest that for identifying people who are socially marked as belonging to a specific race group the standard would be to use the race as an adjective, not an adjectative noun. Whites (and more problematically, Blacks) makes a person's racial marking essential to their personhood. Instead, let's use White person, Black mother, Asian construction worker, etc... when describing people with respect to their race and social roles.Billy P 5 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

This is an article about racism in the U.S., and U.S. racism as it pertains to African-Americans and German/Dutch/English/Scots/Irish/Slavic/Semetic/French/Spanish/Portuguese/Belgian/Swiss/Scandanavian/Did-I-miss-anybody-Americans is a history of divisions along White/Black lines. This is how it was played out. In legal documents, "white" was the term. It was pseudo-science. Perhaps an authentic reproduction of the chart on the degrees of White/Blackness that was in official usage during the 1800s, or the 1890 census, would be helpful, with terms like mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon. The institutionalized racism that was enshrined in U.S. law, in terms of the wording of the 3/5ths compromise, the Fugitive Slave Laws and the later Jim Crow Laws, distinguished whites as being the class of privilege.

Institutional racism

"particularly in the case of non-native English speakers or those raised in homes that spoke broken or pidgin English. Several states are attempting to reduce these educational disadvantages by developing a more culturally aware curriculum. For example, the 2005 California 6th grade statewide examination contained the question Patio comes from the Spanish word meaning what?. Including questions such as these provide opportunities for non-native speakers of English to have greater educational access."

Are the leading efforts to curb institutional disadvantages really centered in k-12 education? I'm also not sure the example convincingly demonstrates those efforts. lots of issues | leave me a message 8 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)

• The example given isn't very good, but actually many people would argue that one of the main problems minority groups in the U.S. face is poorer access to good public education. It is still true that de facto white children and minority children tend to attend different schools, and the schools that white children attend are usually better.--Pharos 8 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)

• I consider the example to be good, but coming from the mouth (or should I say keyboard) of the writer, that statement may carry less weight. You might consider the use of all English related questions on the language section of a test to be racism. But there should be another example. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} July 8, 2005 04:01 (UTC)

• There are two somewhat distinct issues: the general quality of education and the cultural appropriateness of education. I think the former is probably more generally accepted, and is a little "clearer". On the cultural appropriateness side, we have debates over AAVE, bilingual education and history as "Dead White Males".--Pharos 8 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

Isn't the program designed to address institutional racism most well known and intensely fought in the mainstream arena - affirmative action? Shouldn't that be the subject of discussion instead of educational trends? lots of issues | leave me a message 8 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

• That should also be discussed of course, but not "instead of" what is seen as "institutional racism" in general public education. After all, that is bascially what affirmative action is meant to counter.--Pharos 8 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

• THe educational trend section is quite weak and rather insufficient to address institutional racism as a whole. I edited the section, but left the example as I simply lacked one to replace it with, and wanted to hopefully maintain the original author's intent. Elefuntboy 8 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Race (U.S. Census)

The article should include information on why the USA government classifies its citizens by race.

It also looks quite common for any speaker/writer to say/write African American, Asian American, etc. Why?

Are those expressions of an underlying cultural racism? Or not? - Nabla 2005-07-08 19:32:56 (UTC)

I'd argue that the terms African-American, Asian-American, et al are the most inclusive terminologies that people outside of those cultural-ethnic groups can use; I don't think it is an underlying cultura racism so much as an understanding of different heritages. Elefuntboy 8 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

It is not my intention to argue about it here. I'm simply pointing that as a reader I would expect those subjects to be included in this article. Nabla 21:00:15, 2005-07-09 (UTC)

I agree with Nabla. There should be some explanation.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a note on these terms. I'm not sure if the same goes for other X-American groups, but I know that inside the community there is a difference between saying "African-American" and "Black." Go to any neighborhood of Haitian immigrants in Boston or New York and you will quickly find this out. The terms should be used carefully and precisely. It's more important to be worried about historical accuracy than political correctness, and often the term "Black" is more favorable when you're talking about northern industrial racism. Conversely, in the US South in the 1920s Black Americans who spoke Spanish would sometimes pass themselves off as Cubans to gain equal treatment on rail transportation, etc... and once again the distinction between racism against Blacks and racism against African-Americans becomes very important. All African-Americans are Black, not all Black people are African-Americans.Billy P 14:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Old hippie here: Black is beautiful. I like the capitalization, it re-asserts the regal nature of this beautiful color. Everybody's afraid of the dark when it means "absence of light." But pigmentation is a different thing altogether. In terms of light, white is all-inclusive, but in terms of pigmentation, black is all-inclusive. They're different things.

History of Discrimination

Should the page include more details about the Civil Rights movement, or should it just include a link to it? --Titoxd 8 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

• It could include more however the article needs a lot more on Western and especially Northern racist tendencies. Falphin 9 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)

Organizing all racism in the US articles

...into a table. Anyone experienced with creating tables?

This is a massive topic - perhaps several COTW tasks merged into one article. The best we can do is better organize the overall theme.

lots of issues | leave me a message 9 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

what are you picturing for this table? Elefuntboy 08:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

nvm, I don't think we have enough related major articles to form a "series" table. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I really think we could do a series, either on Racism, or American Racism.Billy P 14:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Debate in the Watermelon article

Watermelons were strongly associated with racism, as the text in watermelon mentions, for many decades in America. But should the watermelon article include a representative caricature of a black person eating a watermelon, that some find offensive? There's a strawpoll going on at Talk:Watermelon#Straw poll on watermelon caricature image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 11:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

citations, anyone?

Most of the information here is probably true, but there's a real lack of citations. This passage, for instance:

So from that time on, the wealthy landowners determined that only Africans would be used as slaves - and white colonists were promised whatever benefits would have gone to Africans had they continued to be indentured servants

Were these promises in writing somewhere, or is this just the analysis of historians later? With no citation whatsoever this should be removed. Just on the face of it these "promises " don't address the cause of Bacon's rebellion. The typical reward for indentured servitude was payment for your passage and not a whole lot more anyway.

--155.91.19.73 22:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No comments so I'm removing the Bacon information. There's a lot more in here that should be removed if citations don't show up. --155.91.19.73 00:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

anti-semitism

This should link to [[1]]

About image

The image of the white kid punching a "minority asian" clearly looks staged and/or photoshopped. Even if it's not, it doesn't really fit with the article. I'm going to remove it if there are no objections. --BWD ^(talk) 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mexican versus Latino/Latin?

I have a few problems with the changing of Mexican-American to Latin-American in the Zoot Suit Riots; the riots were direct against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, not at a generalized Latin-American target. Elefuntboy 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but racism in the US is as often directed towards people who look like Mexicans, so Latino (or hispanic) is more appropriate.Emmett5 02:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; it's not still a pan-Latino discrimination per se, so much as a discrimination against those people particularly because of a pserveived Mexican identity. Elefuntboy 23:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But the way the article is written currently i think is adequate in its treatment of Mexican-Americans as the target and Latin Americans as the actual recipient, so I guess that's okay, eh? Elefuntboy 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

my reverted edits in Hate Groups

Thats a really fair NPOV. Its nice to see how i tried to show how there are other hate groups in the US and my edits were reverted to only show white hate groups in the US. Sure whites are the only people who hate others. 71.131.245.179 00:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a small cite to reflect the SPLC research. The issue, 71.131.245.179, is that most of your edits on this and the many other pages you have edited in the last two days are uncited POV that dismisses white supremacy and antisemitism. Very unencyclopedic. This is not a blog. Please read the Wiki help pages on how to write for an encyclopedia. --Cberlet 14:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No I didnt. Black Panthers are listed as hate groups on other pages. Secondly what gives the SPLC authority to declare what groups are hate groups? The last two days I tried to establish equilibruim because most pages only say that whites are hate groups when this is clearly not the case. I am just trying to make the article more balanced. Secondly I put the world "alleged" hate groups because these groups claim that they do not hate anyone based on their race but beleive in racial identity. That is like saying Islam is a hate religion because a small percentage of extremists make it look like a hate religion. That is unfair and unencyclopedic to make a statement as a fact like that. What group would be given authority to declare to the world that Islam is a hate religion? Personally I question Islam and have my own opinions but the reader needs to make up their own minds. Wiki is supposed to present both sides and all information and that is it. Wikipedia should stop shoving opinions down peoples throat. We have to conform to NPOV policy by not picking a side.

If my edits are to stay people are still going to think the KKK is a hate group but the only difference is the reader will come to the conclusion on their own without wikipedia telling them what to think. Also I made a few changes to make the article balanced and fair but I urge you to reconsider by labeling the hate group section as "Alleged Hate Groups" and then include in the body of the article that they are hate groups according to the SPLC, ADL, etc. --Jerry Jones 19:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not rewrite history and current reality to claim that white supremacy is not the major form taken by race hate groups in the U.S. Wiki has a focus on what the majority of scholars say about a topic--not marginal complaints and views.--Cberlet 20:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says "Today" hate groups are white supremacy. Even wikipedia states that these groups have pretty much died. They have the same amount of membership as other groups such as Black Supremacists. Heck there are more hispanic pride groups then white pride groups. I am not trying to rewrite history especially considering white supremacy groups were dominant in the past but we are only focusing on white supremacy groups today and to state they are the only people who practice racial supremacy is inaccurate. Jerry Jones 20:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry buddy but you are wrong on a number of issues, full marks for hyperbole though. Where do you get the idea that there more hispanic pride groups than white pride groups? or that most white supremacy groups are dead today? I would love to see what kinda source you would cite for these claims. By the way you shoulkd never cite another wikipedia article as proof for your claims- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

I understand that Islam is a religion, but Islamophobia is often based on race--just as Jews are not a race, but antisemitism is often based on (a false notion of) race.--Cberlet 01:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gringo as Racist Attack?

The wording here seems very off. An attack? Not so much as a descriptor term, which i don't think is as loaded as other terms. Thoughts? Elefuntboy 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on the context. Just about every racial slur started out as an innocent "descriptor term." But the way in which they were used made them slurs. Likewise, gringo is frequently and increasingly derogatory.--Bibliophylax 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Organization

I don't know if this article has always been this way, but it's terribly organized. I'm tagging it for attention because it needs it. I don't see why there should be a geography category (especially if there's only one article, which is also in the wrong place); if so, then respective articles on the north and the south (possibly southwest, too) should accompany the "west coast" category. Racism against specific minorities should be grouped together under one heading. A section on American Indians should be put in, and discrimination against (east) Asian-Americans should be dissociated from the West Coast section and possibly separated further into Japanese/Chinese/Korean sections. Perhaps an article on more recent developments of putatively racist origin (e.g. the Minuteman Project, new immigrant groups like Somalis, Chai Vang, etc) could also be put in, maybe in a chronological structure.

Here's a possibile restructure:

• First Section: Racism by race
  • Maybe a subsection for inter-race relationships, describing particular animosities between races (as opposed to the predominant trend of white v. minority other) that are commonly assumed / described, e.g. African-Americans and Koreans, Hispanic Americans and African Americans, others people care to add
• Second Section: Racism by region (?)
• Third Section: "Kinds" of racism (better term for "Kinds" needed)
  • this may encompass institutional racism and racist laws
  • profiling both for police and terrorism,
  • concepts such as white privilege, affirmative action, maybe educational racism as well
  • housing (white flight and gentrification)
  • immigration (Minutemen, others?)
• Fourth Section: Anti-racism--divvy up into smaller bits than just a broad "Anti-racism," poss. retitle to "Counter-racism" or create a diff. section?
  • Organizations
    • "Mainstream" (ACLU, ADL, SPLC, others)
    • "Grassroots" (ARA is all i can think of right now)
    • "Fringe" (Black Panthers, the Aztlan movement, others)
  • Policy
    • historic (14th amendment, Brown v. Topeka, etc)
    • current (anti-bias curricula, anti-racist mathematics, maybe affirmative action
• Fifth Section: Modern Hate Groups

plus any others people can think of.

alternately,

• First section: Historical racism in US
  • by race
  • by policy
• Second section: Modern racism in US
  • by race
  • by policy
• Third section: Anti-racism (see above)
• Fourth section: Modern hate groups

or some combination of.

Please post suggestions / comments! I am willing to help rewrite parts, if wanted. SReynhout 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this. This is well done. Elefuntboy 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Native Americans

I posted a very rough beginning to encourage more work on this. Have at it. --Carwil 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! I just glanced through it, but I will try to work on it. I just started an anthropology class last week focusing on Native North Americans, so I can probably help out there. I have a bad tendency of getting lazy and/or forgetting things though, so it may take a post on my talk page to remind/motivate me. (Favorite quote from the teacher--"This should really be Anthro 334: Guess Who Got Screwed? Or as I like to call it, Anthro 334: Don't Bend Over"). Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Weirdness

In 2005, as 4,000 people in Detroit paid their final respects to civil rights hero Rosa Parks during the four hours of her funeral ceremony on November 2, FoxNews devoted 23 minutes of air time to live coverage, there was 108 minutes of coverage on CNN and 100 on MSNBC.

Alright, uh...how is this relevant to the article, the news coverage of various networks? Why is it neccesary to say FoxNews had only '23 minutes of air time'? Also, isn't 'hero' a non-neutral term? Who is a hero or not is relative, and not a set fact. Should anyone be refered to as a 'hero' on Wikipedia? Shouldn't it say, "Rosa Parks, who is considered to be a hero in the civil rights movement by many..." or something similar?

Canada???

I don't think the section on Canada should be included. If anything, that's religious persecution, and Candaians are not a racial group. If no one has any effective complaints, I'm removing it. Elefuntboy 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's full of misspellings and is poorly sourced. 207.178.224.50 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

West Coast

West coast section needs to be updated. Recently I've being hearing alot of racial tension between Hispanics and Blacks in Los Angeles.

Racism Today

Racism has certainly changed from what it once into now present day. In America it has become less racism but a extreme nationalist pride. There is less racism towards African-Americans in the south, replaced with a hatred of hispanics and other immigrant groups being protrayed shockingly by both black and white people. In fact everywhere you go you hear about racism suffered by blacks in the past but you see a hate towards those viewed as non-Americans in the prominent cities. Just the other day on a flight from Atlanta to Chicago a man refused to sit next a person of either pakistani or Indian descent and chose to sit next to a black woman. Overheard discusions of racial stereotypes where heard the whole flight. This is outrageous, its almost like Americans are joining together in their bashing of europeans, hispanics, muslims,east asians, and Africans. This is also as prevelant in children someone being foreign is labeled as being funny, weird, or socially unacceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.142.106 (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Racism in the US and racism against Americans

Just some thought:

I think there is a wrong picture of racism in America. Many people in the world think that Americans are very racist and this probably helps create racism against Americans in turn.

Who are to blame:

1. The American media

2. Hollywood.

1. The American media are making a issue of race all the time. Anyone who sees this will be compelled to thinking: well that must be an incredible racist country.

2. Hollywood movies have a long tradition of bashing non-Americans: from Germans, to Russians, to Chinese, to Mexicans, to Arabs or whatever. At the end of the day, Americans are not liked very much by all those peoples, which ends up being almost the entire world.

Yet, I think there is a huge difference between reality and perception here. I am from Spain and have not seen a single case of obvious racism in the United States in a 8 year stay (I cannot say that of my own country and I could venture to say that Spain is one of the least racist countries in Europe). In the US I have seen many cases on TV, yet not a single one in person.

In short, although racism exists in the US, my personal experience tells me that most Americans are much less racist than most people think. In fact racism is usually restricted to some small circles of radicals. It is not representative of most Americans. Unfortunately for Americans, their media and Hollywood do not give a good and realistic image of what Americans really are. On the other hand, that odd and ugly custom of classifying people in "races" in official documents as if people were cattle does not help either. 72.144.166.196 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what part of America you visited. Places where racial tensions are high, such as the South or California...--Kirby♥time 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Will James

"The circus-style lynching of Will James, Cairo, Illinois, 1909."

This caption from a picture on this article is vague to say the least. This mysterious "Will James" has no link on Wikipedia, and therefore should have his own Wikipedia page if he is this important. I'm not the most experienced of users, so I'll leave this up to another member.

Thanks.

Were missing one thing

We need a section with racism aganist whites, just so everyone is included. 151.202.78.70 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Asians are included either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links for citations.

The stuff's out there, I just don't have time to go through the tutorial on how to insert citations right now.

On the peaking of lynchings in the "nadir":

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/aap/timelin2.html

On the foundation of the NAACP: (I mean, come on guys, it's on the NAACP website under "How the NAACP Began"):

http://www.naacp.org/about/history/howbegan/

On Jim Crow:

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/

On lynchings and lynching photography:

http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/

Als, H., Lewis, J., Litwack, L. F. (Authors), Allen, J. (Ed.): Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America. (2000) Twin Palms Publishers, Santa Fe.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics2/carnival/

The "Crime against whites" section is misleading.

Those numbers are presented in a misleading way. Black Americans make up roughly 12.8% of the population, while "white" Americans account for about 80.2%. Census data: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html Those numbers alone greatly increase the chances of crime victims being white. This really borders on sophistry.

I imagine white Americans buy 80% more bread, buy 80% more pornography, and breathe 80% more air, too. (I bet they account for an even higher rate of taxi rides.)

Furthermore the final two paragraphs of this section don't seem to have anything to do with racism at all and I reccomend they be removed. So-called "interracial crime," a term of questionable significance, is not racism, nor is it on par with hate-crime, community lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow, redlining, etc etc etc.

Germanic

I haven't made any changes to the article; I like to talk about things first. I have problems with the phrase "(though predominately Germanic and Christian Protestant)" in the introduction.

Germanic is a very broad term best left to the field of linguistics. It encompasses at least nine different ethnic groups, who historically did not perceive themselves as having anything in common with one another. For example, Ben Franklin was afraid the Germans would assimilate the English in America. Also, if you add up all those ethnic groups you get only 90 million of the 193 million non-hispanic whites. (Remember the Irish, Scotch-Irish, Scottish and Welsh are Celtic.) At best you have a plurality, which is itself very ethnically and religiously diverse.

Protestants are a majority in the United States; however, non-hispanic whites are far less likely to be Protestant than African-Americans. In many states, Protestants are a minority among the white population. Also, Protestant is a very broad term encompassing groups who fought and persecuted one another (at least in Europe) nearly as much as they did Catholics and Jews.

I could be wrong, but I think the 'Germanic/Protestant' phrase muddies the water and should be omitted. 209.178.210.100 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no one objected to my comments, I'm going to remove the phrase from the introduction. 209.178.210.100 18:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased?

I am curious as to why it would seem that the U.S was singled out for a complete page on national racism? - I have yet to find a page dedicated to racism in other countries such as Africa, Britain, Mexico, Brazil, Iran, etc etc.

Why is it that a whole page is dedicated to racism in the U.S as if it is/was the only country to marginalize persons by race?

I believe that this page should be merged into a general page of world racism, or just be deleted altogether, it's a little more than "biased" in my opinion. Orasis 03:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See Racism by country. We deal with the "bias" of missing articles on Wikipedia by writing new articles. See WP:CSB if you want to help provide a more global view. By the way, people who say Africa is a country might raise a few hackles among other editors writing about racism.--Carwil 15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And for that matter, when the hell has Africa been a country? Sheesh. Elefuntboy (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The situation in the United States is unique in terms of its special brand of racism, the completeness of the...the campaign against Native Americans, the special circumstances surrounding the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the particularities of this version of slavery, the premises and outcome of the Civil War, and especially the complex time period following emancipation. This period is fairly unique in many ways, including but not limited to the fact that a bifurcated society developed with the former slave class developing in parallel alongside the former slave-owning class with visible distinctions in terms of melanin and linguistic distinctions resulting from the circumstances of the previous centuries, the long process of segregation, Jim Crow, the rise of African-American influence on mainstream American culture, KKK, White Citizens Councils and lynchings, and the long drive for the abolition of Jim Crow and the securing of the right to vote not only on paper but in practice, and the fact that many of the goals have been achieved, though how thorough this achievement has been is still a topic of debate. Most historical precedents result in one race wiping out the other, either by killing or displacement. To merge this article would be like merging an article on the Second world War into a general article on War, or merging the article on Homo Sapiens into an article on mammals. It makes no sense. The truth hurts, but it's still the truth. This is a website for facts.

I see where you hesitated with the ellipsis. The American campaign against the Natives involved such things as biological warfare, enslavement, mass rape, forced migration, and ordinary massacres. It was nothing less then genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.84.67 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Honestly, even Fredrickson (Racism, A Short History ISBN 0691116520) called the United States is called the "most racist country on earth." The United States definitely has more to do with racism than, say, India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blootix (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

POV statements

This version.

• "For example, the 2005 California 6th grade statewide examination contained the question Patio comes from the Spanish word meaning what?. Including questions such as these provide opportunities for non-native speakers of English to have greater educational access."

This example only benefits Spanish speakers, and at a cost to other students. The second statement acts as if this was a fair and overall beneficial situation, and so all such situations are always for the best.

• Affirmative action: "This policy has frequently been critisized because it keeps the racial divide as opposed to uniting citizens."

This is saying, "Because affirmative action divides citizens racially, people criticize it." The problem here is obvious. This statement gives a POV opinion of affirmative action, and thus there is undue weight on that side of the debate. In fact, the whole affirmative action section should be reviewed. --68.161.152.145 05:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Another reason why the "Affirmative Action" part needs to be rewritten: "Affirmative action is a set of policies, practiced by many employers and most universities, which explicitly attempt to maximize the admissions of racial, ethnic, or religious groups considered to be non-dominant, at the expense of groups considered dominant. These policies range from outreach efforts that target minority communities, to overt preference for applicants from a particular background over equally-qualified (or more-qualified) counterparts from other backgrounds." Some affirmative action policies are meant to prevent white people from getting hired over, say, equally-qualified black people. This does happen, and here are links about one of those sets of studies: [2][3]. You can also search for the names of the researchers and see the report for yourself. So not every person who loses a job to an affirmative action policy is more qualified than a person who gains a job through the same policy. --68.161.152.145 06:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it since it wasn't improved. --149.4.211.159 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be appropriate to have a section, or at least a link, to the Duke "rape" incident in this article about racism in the U.S., as it seems this was a rather racially-charged/motivated event in recent history, which would have been wholly unremarkable if not for the race issues involved?Jeffhall318 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond... The Duke incident (2006 Duke University lacrosse case) quite appropriately includes an in-text link to race relations. No reason a differently written article couldn´t link to here. However, it isn't a notable part of Racism in the United States, and is certainly less so than many other such incidents of similar scale (like the Emmitt Till case, or even Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings). Racism in the United States is wholly remarkable (and a better article) without including a link to everything that it makes important.--Carwil (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See also section

Per Guide to layout see also, I have tried to trim it down a bit. Ideally, there wouldn't even be that section. Thanks, --Tom 19:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination against Latin Americans

This section is not very detailed, especially in relation to the subject matter.

What about Jewish Task Force?

I think Jewish Task Force should be listed among Current Hate Groups. Tip: look at the past versions of that page, or look at the official homepage itself:[[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fracastorius (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody argued, I have included it today in the list.--Fracastorius (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how is the Jewish Task Force a hate group? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Task Force issues a lot of articles spreading racism against arabs and african-americans.--Fracastorius (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Example? Arabs I have no problem believing, but African-Americans? Oh and, please don't confuse criticism of Islam with racism. There's no racial or biological connotation with criticism of Islam. It is however, very true that Jews are indeed, behind a lot of anti-Islam movements (such as, Jihad Watch, of which David Horowitz has an involvement). But that's not the same as "racism" or "hate". I would like to see some examples to which you are pointing to. Otherwise, it might be WP:OR. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing criticism of Islam with racism. You wanted examples? Here they go. See these: http://jtf.org/israel/israel.arab.moderates.part.one.htm http://www.jtf.org/ ("the nightmare of a black Muslim President") http://www.jtf.org/america/america.when.whites.fight.for.blacks.htm http://www.jtf.org/america/america.whites.go.to.black.school.htm (For example: "What will happen to America when whites are no longer the majority in this country?/How can we prevent this catastrophe?")

Did you read them? Sorry, but this is not WP:OR. These are the bare facts.--Fracastorius (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is WP:SYNTH. I checked the original SPLC source, and they do not mention the website, so I am removing it. Yahel Guhan 03:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Sorry, but unless you explain that more clearly, I'm afraid I will have to keep the article without removals. Good luck!--Fracastorius (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Minority Racism - Weasel Words

The section on "Minority Racism" is tagged as offending for "weasel words" because it uses the phrase "some", such as some consider the idea of "minority racism" as controversial. I think in this case that the use of some is not weaselly but accurate. Does the editor who tagged this have an alternative for portraying an idea which some do consider as controversial without using the word? If the section is deleted then a very very important segment of this discussion would be unfairly censored, and if it is portrayed as definitively controversial without noting that only some so think then the entry would be inaccurate. LAWinans (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Racism against white Americans" weak sources, doesnt demonstrate what it claims

This section is poorly sourced and does not demonstrate what the section title indicates, "Racism against white Americans":

• In the United States, there have been crimes committed against whites on the basis of their ethnicity. These crimes are often localized and occur in areas where whites are a racial minority. They do not receive the same media attention as other racially motivated crimes.

This is sourced to a "Loompanics" website, a defunct fringe survivalist site.

• The Nation of Islam, a religious and social/political organization with the self-proclaimed goal of improving the condition of the Black people in America, has been described as espousing antiwhite and antisemitic views. and anti-white.

This is sourced to weak refs that do not demonstrate "Racism against white Americans", which is the name of this section.

• Some Black nationalists propagate pseudohistory to emphasize alleged Black superiority over whites.

There is no indication has this demonstrates "Racism against white Americans". Absent sources that demonstrate what the section purports to present, it is being removed. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that editors check out the references for themselves. I find it interesting that you call Loompanics a "fringe survivalist" site, especially when their article as referenced in the above text is the most highly footnoted article on the list. Personally, I think you don't believe there is such a thing and racism against white Americans, as your edits in various Wikipedia articles show. Hopefully other editors will chime in with their thoughts here. Uncle Milty (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The internet is laden with fringe websites that contain heavily footnoted articles. That counts for zero with regards to reliable sources on Wikipedia. You might want to spend some time getting as familiar with that policy as you appear to spend analyzing what my "edits in various Wikipedia articles show." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that source doesn't look reliable at all — regardless of how heavily footnoted it may be. This section appears to take one unreliable source which makes a statement, and them synthesize some other examples. --Haemo (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Loompanics for not being a WP:RS last week. Nice bookseller in my experience, but not a WP:RS. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What about other ethnicities

The Italians and the Irish suffered plenty of racism and I saw no mention of it. I think that they deserve a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.99.109 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Italians or Irish people are considered a different race from other white people. Discrimination against Italians or Irish people may be ethnic discrimination, but it's not racism. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then by that rationale, why is a Jewish section included ? 71.184.57.91 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You dont think Italians and Irish people are a diffrent race? They have the same color skin, but thats where the similarities end. White in general is not a race. "White" is comprised of many different races. Irish, Italian, Greek, German, Jewish, Swedish, and many others. They are all races. Not ethnic groups. So it is racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew R. Smith (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish and Italians are of course the same race: they are both white Europeans. They also obviously have some genetic differences. Not only that, within Italy itself there are differences. Italians from the north are taller, and are more likely to have blue eyes or blonde hair. These Italians are close to the Alps are usually "Alpine" European. "Alpine" Europeans have rounder faces than Nordics, and lighter skin than Mediterraneans. The Italians from the south are mostly Mediterraneans. They are shorter and have darker skin, hair and eyes. In Europe there are generally three racial sub categories for ethnic differences: Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean. Nonetheless, of all races, white Europeans have the littlest genetic variation. Much of the Irish population is descendants from Normans or Vikings. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that there was "racism" in America against the Irish. The Irish and Germans were some of the first settlers of America, right along side with the British. At one time a lot of Irish people were poor or even starving from the Great Famine, and other white Americans thought that they were lazy and shouldn't be coming to the U.S. A similar case is for the Germans. Benjamin Franklin was afraid that they were overrunning America, because they where strongly holding on to their language. There was never any racism against Irish or Germans, because they are both not only white, but also generally Nordic. Whether or not there was racism against Italians is trickier. I would say that circumstances such as religion and language was the largest factor in their discrimination, although their Mediterranean ethnicity may have also played a role. --77.185.238.100 (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, "race" is an elastic term. Irish, Jews, and many others, were once considered "races." People threw the term around pretty freely. Whether it makes sense to consider that obsolete usage in this article is another question. IronDuke 03:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reopen the article for new editing

Can someone with access to unlock articles please do so to this one? Someone locked this article from any future edits like an anonymous IP editor wrecked it or something else I don't know. I appreciate if anyone went ahead to take care of my request. Thank you + 71.102.53.48 ([[User talk:71.102.53.48|talk]]) 06:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

ACLU?

in the articale under the lists of anti-racism groups it says puts the ACLU this is not really true while they dont support racism there have been several times they have defended the KKK and various Neo-nazi groups in court

Agreed. The ACLU is pro-civil liberties, regardless of the racist nature of said activities. http://www.channel3000.com/news/381962/detail.html should make that pretty clear... 74.211.44.245 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Asians and African Americans

The entire section involving racism between asian and african americans is incomplete, biased, and completely out of place. It's simply a collection of large quotes from unknown/irreputable people. Quotes are fine, but they ought to be used in conjuction with factual statements. An entire section cannot be one huge quote. Also, the quotes unintentionally lead readers to believe that the racism between blacks and asians goes one way: the blacks harass the asians. In every example of racism, both sides are always to blame, and that should be represented throughout this section. For these reasons, I am completely removing the section relating to black-asian racism, and hope that someone will eventually re-write it in a more in-depth, and balanced way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenosagian (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hispanophobia and the use of language

Caesar was a great conqueror, so was Alexander the Great, but the Spanish Conquistadores just thugs and on top of that they murdered and destroyed those Amerindians. The funniest part is that to see Amerindians or Mestizos being a majority in an American country you have to go south of the Border: Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia, etc. How come? Most of those people living in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America are fully or partly Amerindians? And where are they in North America? There must be some mistake here. Well, I know, they are not Amerindians, because they were killed by the Spanish, so they must be Spanish.

PS. How the Amerindians became Spanish to suit the Black Legend and Anglo Propaganda, a short story.

What I propose is a debate that should end up in a contribution to the article following these lines:

Hispanic means Spanish in the same way as Anglo means English. Why is Hispanic all inclusive of people who come from former Spanish colonies while Anglo refers only to white people? Why do Pakistanis or Jamaicans or US citizens whose first language is English but who ar not white are not Anglos?. Is this not a clear example of the unprecedented racism existing in the US (probably with the exceptions of South Africa and Nazi Germany). Is it not overtly racist these differences in usage in these two cases. Maybe there is a relationship to the Black Legend, much more popular in the US than in Europe? Language is the main builder of the perception of reality. So, why not analyse these obvious issues. Or are these differences in usage just a coincidence? Are they naive? Or they hide something much more important? I think this issue should be discussed to enrich the article. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.45.50 (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

False Information About Indian Slavery in California

"Following the 1848 American invasion, Native Californians were enslaved in the new state from statehood in 1850 to 1867.[3]"

Intriqued, I followed the link given in reference citation #3, only to discover the folowing:

http://www.ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html

"Despite entering the union as a free state in 1850, the California legislature rapidly enacted a series of laws legalizing Indian slavery. One of the laws sanctioned an indenture system similar to Mexican peonage in widespread practice throughout California prior to 1850. All levels of state, county and local governments participated in this ugly practice that evolved into a heartless policy of killing Indian parents and kidnapping and indenturing the victims children. Indian youth could be enslaved by the cruel act to the age of 30 for males and 25 for females. This barbarous law was finally repealed four years after President Lincoln's emancipation proclamation in 1863."

Clearly, the information above does not conform to the statement which claims to rely upon it for its veracity. In addition to the simple error of getting the year wrong (the practice ended in 1863, not 1867), the Wikipedia article clearly sets out to lead the reader to conclude that Indian slavery was a result of California's annexation in the the United States, rather than an old Mexican practice that was discontinued thirteen years after California was admitted to the Union. The article attempts to portray America as an initiator of California Indian slavery, rather than the force behind the abolition of California Indian slavery. Assuming the author has ordinary, adult-level reading comprehension skills, I am forced to conclude this is a deliberate attempt at deception, in order to bend this article in the direction of anti-White, racist propaganda. Needless to say, that doesn't conform to Wikipedia's standards of quality, and so I shall make the necessary adjustments. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're sure about the link about a historical issue you provided was entirely made-up and has a political agenda against white people in California? It is common knowledge here in the state that Spanish and Anglo-American settlers alike have captured (with help by US army scouts or forest rangers), placed in captivity and abused indigenous persons on their homes, farms and ranches in the 1850's when a few white settlers erroneously thought Indians "aren't human" and the state laws prohibited African slavery didn't apply to Indians. + Mike D 26 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Iranians?

The subsection regarding racism against Iranians does not appear to be focus on racism at all since Iranian is not a "race". Whoever created that section appears to have confused the concept of racism with xenophobia. The subsection should be removed or moved to a page that deals with that topic.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Racism is not specifically defined as hate on a race, if by "race" the true definition of race is implied; rather, it id often practiced against ethnic groups, such as Latin Americans. --Pgecaj (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed

"Racist attitudes, or prejudice, are still held by significant portions of the U.S population." - Is there any proof/source for this assertion? If not, the statement should be removed.

Agreed. If you follow the two sources following that statement, both refer to surveys of only minority populations, not surveys of the American population as a whole. New citation is needed, or the sentence must be reworded, or it must be removed. 74.211.44.245 (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What this article lacks

What this article lacks is an empirical description of contemporary American racism. I think this is a flaw of the contemporary American left - to focus on the cultural discourses of racism or (even more) its history rather than the material realities. The important questions are... How is racism practiced, and what are its effects? For example, how does housing discrimination contribute to racial segregation? How does racism affect employment and (thus) class? This means especially racism against African Americans, but here there is only a link to African American history in general, which does not have virtually any information on the nature of the racism they face. --Agh.niyya (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems racist what you just said. It makes it sound like African Americans are the only race that is discriminated against. We need less if that type stuff in the article. It seems like most of the article is about African-Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.82.89 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported statement

In the opening it is said

Racist attitudes, or prejudice, are still held by significant portions of the U.S. population.

There is no studies that support this statement. 1 and 2 are about minorities mistrust of each other. Regardless, what is a significant portions of US population? There is no proof that supports this statement and is just someone opinions.

This should be deleted.24.101.172.61 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Without proof the word SIGNIFICANT should be deleted. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Signifacant means nearly all but a portion so small that doesn't influence the overall number. One out of four is not Signifacant. Dtmckay (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines significant as "important, notable, consequential". I would say 25% is significant. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Read what stastical significant means for yourself. Even so you say say 25% of one small group of people contacted for a poll is a significant is your opinion. You are using the language to paint america as a land of racists and many polls will disagree with that assement. Why should this page hold on to such a word without proof. 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtmckay (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to get into a debate with you over the sampling methodology used for virtually every opinion poll in the United States. 25% is a statistically significant number. Anyway, the source doesn't say "a limited portion", so find a source that does. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The word substanial is no better WEBSTER refers to it as

1 a : consisting of or relating to substance b : not imaginary or illusory : real, true c : important, essential 2 : ample to satisfy and nourish : full <a substantial meal> 3 a : possessed of means : well-to-do b : considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage> 4 : firmly constructed : sturdy <a substantial house> 5 : being largely but not wholly that which is specified <a substantial lie>

3. uses signifant and 5. says most. 25% is not most. Although I will admit 25% is to much for a civilized country. I have looked for a poll about racism in general and cannot find one that is clear. Many polls ask people how many racists are in our country but not if they themselfs are racist.

Example I think some may be a racist but just because I think so doesn't make it so. I believe the word used should be SOME or at least a quarter Dtmckay (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you would not wish to get into a debate over the sampling methodology used for opinion polls because it undermines the pollsters agenda. Dtmckay (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Kill Haole Day

This is a myth, it somehow has its own page and also is referenced mid-way through this one. I think all reference to it should be removed because it is not notable, and the cite referenced is a small newspaper article from a small newspaper a decade ago. Not only is it too distant and too insignificant to be noteworthy, it isn't even real.Shamhat456 (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Racism against Arabs

Please. Can we have one article without egregious Bush bashing? "Various critics have suggested that racism along with strategic and financial interests motivated the Bush Administration to attack Iraq even though the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction nor had any ties to Al Qaida. This has nothing to do with racism. It also happens to be untrue. While no WMD was found after Iraq was liberated, Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction twice and provided training for al-qaida, as official investigations have found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloydb39 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I Knew He was a Racist 'Cause He Didn't Vote Obama

Has the above subject been discussed in Public Image of Barack Obama? It may be labeled under hypersensitivity to honest criticisms of policies of the Obama administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.204.3 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

i am not sure whether or not

to get involved in this article, I have opinions on the subject and a wide variety of references to play with, but I thought that I'd test the waters by pointing out that the opening sentence, "Racism in the United States has been a major issue since the colonial era" seems a bit odd to me since there was no "United States" in the colonial era. Sure a bit nit-pickey, but is that not what we do here at wikipedia? Get things not just to the, "you know what we mean" stage, but past it? The standard wikipedia reply is 'Well if you don't like it, fix it,dude." and perhaps I will but first I want to check in with the folks who have been working here for years and see what they think. Life is supposed to be interesting. Eomar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As the existence of Colonial history of the United States, Colonial American military history, and Slavery in the colonial United States suggest, there isn't much confusion that the expression "colonial United States" refers to the colonial era in the present-day United States. If you think it's necessary to clarify the lede to say that, go ahead. Frankly, I think it's a non-issue. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-issue is good enough for me. Carptrash (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction cites affirmative action as a form of racism. This is something that is still under debate and therefore does not provide neutrality. Also it says a substantial portion of the US population still has prejudices. This is vague wording, and the sources to back up these facts, if you read them, do not show this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.130.1 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-American Hatemongers

Do you f ucking wiki idiots realize there is racism in every country? You demonizing anti-American pricks, you're just like the Nazis were towards Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.198.163 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Many of the editors here are Americans and as far as I can tell none of us, Americans or Other are suggesting that anyone be marched off to the gas chanbers. Or did I miss something? Any way, the way to effect wikichange is to point and rebuff specific points in the article rather than tossing out blanket statements such as yours. So, let's begin with . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... what claim in this article that is untrue or misleading? Carptrash (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've discovered a series of pictures

in various wikipedia articles that I believe to be racist in conception and execution. These include, but are not limited to,

• 
• 
• 
• 

These images were created during the mid to latter part of the 19th century when the United States and various other elements was trying to justify its treatment of the Indians by portraying them as, among things, blood thirsty savages. However if I just remove these images I will be accused of pandering to the dreaded political correctness, etc, so am looking for someone who might be able to provide a reference and/or citation documenting that these images are racist. I am inclined to put little versions of them in this article in any case, but want to give concerned editors a say first. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed edits

I am the anon IP whose edits which is more on the lines of original research and a need for citations was added and removed from the article. I thought of sharing them about the phenomena of ethnic jokes ties in with American racism and prejudice felt in their society, to tell an ethnic joke makes one look racist and the nature of ethnic jokes or depicted images of minorities sometimes can be hurtful and damaging. I apologize and admitted to done those edits, and the administrators are free to make that decision. Thank you. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Racial discrimination in the USA also includes Ethnic jokes directed against racial minority groups, media-displayed portrayals or exaggerated cultural traits known as stereotypes and hate crimes or hate speech against persons of identified minorities.

Ethnic jokes remain a part of the American culture, although seen as impolite and unacceptable verbal conduct except in the realm of stand-up comedy. It includes jokes, epithets and comments about European ethnic groups like Irish, Italian, Pole (see also "Polish joke") and Jew jokes.

Certain negative depictions of white Southerners, Mormons (see also Mormonism the religion) and French Canadians are said to be present, but not as politically charged than racism or cultural intolerance directed at Blacks, Muslims and Latinos.''

Neutrality

Held by a substantial amount of people? I believe this article needs evidence of some of the claims; otherwise, it seems to be slanted anti-majority American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.172.120 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverse Racism

I think more attention should be paid to reverse racism...because that is way more prevalent than "traditional" racism. (to me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanForrest101 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

big mistake

not to mention that the plight of the nigger has led to everything that's bad with this world. Hopefully AIDS will take care of them