Talk:Racism

I would like to see a "cultural" racism section, and also a "individual" racism section

I recently attended a Anti Racism training, and these are the terms they used. They call it the "racism iceberg" - the type of racism that we see in everyday life but this is caused at the root by instutional racism. Institutional racism leads to a culture that contains racist concepts, which leads to individual acts of racism as racism becomes acceptable. SkymanUU

Apologetic section removed

I have removed the following sentences [1] on the grounds that they are nothing more than pro-Islamic apologetic SYNTH, added by Jagged 85 a well-known agenda-based editor that was the subject of a recent RfC. The purpose of the history section of this article is to illustrate the evolution of racism by pointing to specific instances in early cultures, NOT to defend early cultures using SYNTH and weasel-wording. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I somewhat endorse the change. --mboverload@ 02:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's funny. I remember you removing the material I added on Greek proto-racism, and yet you are more than willing to keep the material I added on Arab racism! Do you seriously expect me to believe you don't have any agenda yourself? Sure, whatever. Jagged 85 (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What's funny is you accusing other editors of agenda-based editing. I mean, of all people. I'm not the one who added megabytes of apologetic text about the ancient Greeks, nor did I make sure to say that racism originated with the Muslims (as you did with the Greeks, if only by implication). Real interesting that this article and Slavery are perhaps the only ones where you make sure to give the ancient Greeks plenty of "credit", while bending over backwards to do the exact opposite everywhere else. Not that there is any point engaging you, but this is just too rich. Athenean (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of anything, but was just pointing out the fact that there's an obvious double-standard in your accusation directed exclusively towards me, when that same criticism applies to yourself as well. That's what I'd call "too rich". I certainly never claimed racism originated from the Greeks, but added the Babylonian Talmud as the earliest example, before I even mentioned anything about the Greeks. As for Greek slavery, I certainly don't remember "crediting" the Greeks for slavery, though if I did write anything on it, it must have been very insignificant compared to all the "credit" I gave to the Arabs for slavery. The same goes for this article, where I gave the Arabs far more "credit" for racism than I did for the Greeks, which was basically just one or two sentences for the latter. I haven't given the Greeks anymore "credit" here than I did in any of the other articles I contributed to. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are in specific interest groups and should just take a break from editing the article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made a small edit to reflect historical variation in the definition of the term racism.

While the notion that race (as it applies to human taxonomy) is an invalid or vague concept is reflected in the article's body, I feel it should be mentioned in the first section. Modern use of the term reflects widespread acceptance of a concept, human race, that is not widely accepted scientifically, and I think this discrepancy should be mentioned right away. Also, sorry for the anonymous edit, my password is not saved on this computer.

UPDATE: User "Orangemike" objects to my use of the word "many," as in "many scientists," in the third paragraph of the opening. User initially said "modern scientists," implying total unanimity in the scientific community - dubious, since there is no consensus about what the term means for humans. After objections and undoes (clearly explained in my edits' comments), user changed to term "most scientists, " implying he'd done some kind of poll. User then used Edit Warning/Content Dispute to prevent further disagreement. My edits, and the reason they were anonymous (I was not on my home computer) are all clearly explained here or on edit comments. As is the edit where I initially ADDED THE PARAGRAPH IN THE FIRST PLACE (see above paragraph). For unknown personal reason user Orangemike has decided to make his stand and use edit comments to fling epithets around. These are not "weasel words" meant to subtly advocate a position I do not take. It is simply MORE ACCURATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theotocopolis (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it best to avoid using either most or many (for now). Who are these scientists?  Davtra  ^(talk) 07:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Davtra; see WP:WEASEL. "Most" and "many" are in fact specific examples given of weasel words to avoid. Modern science does in fact reject the idea of race in the sense of an actual meaningful entity the way 19th and early 20th century people thought of it, and the way a few untrained thinkers still discuss it; so "modern scientists" seems to me to be the most accurate language. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

see reference 3 for why the above, correct, objections do not change the fact that many scientists continue to use the term, though they often have caveats for what they mean by it. as for what "modern science" in general rejects, i'll leave that to you. i've never met the guy.Theotocopolis (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

per the above, i note that "science says" is one of the examples cited in WP:WEASEL. in this case, references support both assertions: that race does not exist/is not a valid classification, and that scientists, however informally, continue to use the term. a more precise exploration already exists in the article's body, and i think it's important not to use generalizations that would leave people scratching their heads, or questioning this article's validity, because they heard a biologist talk about race. for that matter, a reader might wonder why Wikpedia's own article Race (classification of humans) contains the assertion "The notion of race is widely used by forensic anthropologists, who analyse skeletal remains, and those involved in biomedical research and race-based medicine."Theotocopolis (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 84.215.58.72, 31 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I think the section on arab/moslim racism (under the heading: "Middle Ages and Renaissance") is biased. It starts with "Though the Qur'an expresses no racial prejudice,..." - but this seems to ignore the racist depictions of jews in both the quaran and even more so in the hadits of the moslem tradition. Moreover, this section gives the impression that arab/moslem racism has nothing to do with the arabs, it is simply due to influence from jews and christians (and from Aristotle!). But why should arab racism be explained away as the result of judeo-chirstian influence, which sort of amounts to blaming it on the jews (and christians), whereas all instances of white (European) racism is attributed solely to whites themselves? Are arabs not capable of thinking for themselves? In accordance with my first point, I propose to change the first part of the first sentence: "Though the Qur'an expresses no racial prejudice against blacks, such prejudices developed among Arabs due to several reasons..." As for my second point, I have no specific proposal for an edit here, since I do not have expert knowledge within this field; however, as a lay reader of these paragraphs I do get the impression that this historical account is biased and therefore not entirely trustworthy.

Moreover, I find this quote to be quite ridiculous: "According to Arnold J. Toynbee: "The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue."[71]" This is pure political propaganda and should be striken. Toynbee was a well-known opponent of the state of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee) and certainly not a neutral expert in this context. I therefore strongly suggest to remove this quote. Especially in light of today's spreading antisemitism in Europe, which is typically associated with muslims and neo-nazis. (See http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/study-anti-semitism-in-europe-hit-new-high-in-2009-1.284032)

And finally, under the heading "20th century", why is not the relationship between Hitler and the Mufti, Haj Amin Hussein, mentioned at all? This was blatant racism and a very significant fact in context of the current situation in the Middle East and Europe. I hope it is not omitted because it is not "politically correct"? References: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

I hope you agree with me that these edits would make the article on racism more balanced and more informative.

84.215.58.72 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Not done.  Chzz  ►  02:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Having a discussion with a friend

Hello, I thought you could maybe help me.

A man is getting sued for saying this: "Muslims rape their daughters" to a newspaper.

Some people call it racism, however I argued that since Islam is not a race and have people of all colors it should not be considered as racism. Which of us is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobtrll (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Many issues. Defining race is difficult. If you look it up in Wikipedia you will find many definitions. Obviously Islam is a religion, not a race, but many non-Muslims associate it with people from the middle east. Then it becomes what many would call a racist issue. As for the the statement "Muslims rape their daughters", I would just call it ignorant bigotry. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition is incorrect and biased

The definition: "Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." is incorrect and misleading.

Please explain how thinking that genetics play a role in our mental and physical capacities is racist?

If I believe that two people of the same race have different intelligence or physical ability due to genetics, does this make me a racist? Or if I don't believe that genetics plays a role, but that racial differences produce superiorities of particular races, then I'm NOT a racist.

Please explain how this definition is even remotely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.220.93 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sharpnova (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Sharpnova

The definition sounds like some Eugenics-based argument. I've lived in the south and I highly doubt the racists there have genetics on their mind. I think the definition should be altered to explain the more commonly held belief of inferiority based on skin color. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the question. Firstly, the definition is only talking about differences related to race, so it is irrelevant to your first question about two people of the same race. Your second question seems to suggest that you think that racial differences are not genetic. That bit I just don't get. While it's difficult to define race, what most people call racial differences, skin colour, etc, simply ARE genetic. Can you explain your question further? HiLo48 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based upon reliable published sources. 173 countries are contracting state parties to the ICERD. Article 1 contains an internationally agreed-upon definition, i.e.

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[2]

Even if you decide to include other published criteria, the article lede should probably reflect the legal definition too. Racism certainly does include descent, but can be based upon other factors. harlan (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition is confusing, as it is comprised of two distinct claims, which don't necessarily have anything to do with one another: 1) The genetic differences which constitute race are the primary determinants of human character traits. 2) One/some racial group(s) is inherently superior. It's possible to believe 1) without believing 2), and to believe 2) without believing 1). Those who believe in 1) might be termed "genetic determinists", and those who believe 2) might be considered "racial supremacists". Indeed, there are many self-described "racists" who reject the ideas of evolution, natural selection, and genetics. While there may be some overlap between the two groups, I agree with the previous comment that the ICERD definition is more authoritative than Merriam-Webster's dictionary. 97.81.102.44 (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition is misleading

Your definition of racism is misleading. You should say that racism is the rejection of racial diversity. To make a more complete definition,you could say that racism is a rejection of racial diversity in political,economic,or cultural affairs. An example of racism is the Million Man March that was held in Washington,D.C. in 1995. The March was organized by Louis Farrakhan and Farrakhan wanted the March to be for black men only. He made it clear that white people would not be permitted to attend the March. Farrakhan hired security guards,and stationed them all around the perimeter of the March area. The security guards kept whites out. The Million Man March was also an example of state-sponsored racism,because a government official named Dennis Archer attended the March,and he was permitted to make a speech at the March. At the time,Dennis Archer was the Mayor of Detroit,Michigan. It gave the impression that Detroit's government was in favor of preventing whites from attending the March,or was in favor of terrorizing whites,generally. The fact that the federal government in Washington D.C. tolerated the blacks-only March was evidence that the federal government supported large-scale discrimination against whites,at least in principle. If you want to see an example of racially biased journalism,read Wikipedia's article about the Million Man March. I read it about a year ago,and I noticed that Wikipedia's article does not mention the fact that whites were not allowed to attend the March. I also read it about an hour ago,and I saw that it hasn't been corrected. The 'white' point of view was completely missing from Wikipedia's article,which shows Wikipedia's hostile attitude towards whites. Incidentally,Wikipedia's article about the Million Man March does not mention the fact that Dennis Archer gave a speech at the Million Man March. I was in Detroit in 1995,and I watched the Million Man March on Channel Four,a local Detroit TV station. Channel Four sent a black reporter named Emery King to Washington to report on the March,and Channel Four's broadcast noted that Dennis Archer spoke at the March. Dennis Archer was the mayor of Detroit at the time,and his plane tickets and other expenses were paid for out of the City of Detroit's municipal budget. It was a classic example of state-sponsored racism,the city government paid for the black mayor of Detroit to attend a March that was for blacks only. The Million Man March was comparable to a Nazi German rally. Suppose Hitler organized a political rally,and he said,the rally is for Germans only,Jews are not allowed to attend...that's the same spirit of bloodthirsty hatred that inspired the Million Man March,because Farrakhan said the March is for blacks only,whites are not allowed to attend! Signed,Anthony Ratkov. August 12,2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.79.238 (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As with all of Wikipedia, if you have reliable sources that support your observations above, you, like anybody else, can update both this article and the Million Man March article with that information. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

according to the above Argument holding an Islamic meeting would be racist, Having a meeting of Jewish businessmen would be racist. racism is at roots race supremacy, --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Afrophobia

I was redirected to this article after trying to access Afrophobia from the page Talk:Afrophobia, but as far as I can see, there is no info about that subject. Is afrophobia synonymous to racism? --81.229.50.107 (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Afrophobia is a neologism coined by Wikipedia users in substitution to the lengthy "racism against black African peoples". It means exactly that. Not a real word. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The talk page was a relic of the old neologism article; it's been converted to a proper redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

/* As state-sponsored activity */

The article plays a heavy handed biased and often unquoted "facts" (including inexistent links) about a so-called stated sponsored racism in the Dominican Republic. The quotes should the marked for deletion until quoted material can be sourced from verifiable and reputable sources. Also, I recommend that this section be marked for protection (editing) from anonimous and new contributors.

The most slanderous, exagerated and preposterous claim is the 'epilogue' that ties that supposed "state campaign" with no less that Nazi racial politics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flurry (talk • contribs) 21:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty International is a reliable source. As for the dead link, the Wayback Machine has that covered: http://web.archive.org/web/20080327000254/http://www.primicias.com.do/articulo,5408,html -- -- Irn (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove Antiquity Section

The first paragraph relates a recent belief as if it happened in antiquity. Whether or not 20th early 20th century philosophers thought the Aryans did this or that has no bearing on antiquity. It assumes that the events they speak about actually transpired. This article serves to relate what racism is, not to perpetrate or encourage us.

I also removed some vandalism from that section, which concludes the Bible taught violence against white people because Abraham's father-in-law's name (Laban) means "white". The section could certainly use sources so this sort of thing doesn't happen. Also, I would prefer the article quote directly from Aristotle instead of relating what the article writer thinks are his views, and then calling them 'racist'.

Also, it is quite dubious to name any kind of prejudice "racism". There is no indication that "Barbarians" are people of a different race. To Greeks, Barbarians were Romans, Jews, Libyans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cecilians, Syrians, Persians, Dacians, etc, etc, etc. This is not racism. Many of these people were also of their race. Cultural prejudice is not racism. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In History NPOV tag

Section tries to promote the idea that Racism has existed as an ideology before it, apparently, historically existed. NPOV cleanup. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar Tag

I've found far too many grammatical errors in the article. I'm putting up a tag so people can search them out. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In the Age of Enlightenment

Added tags because there is one source. For this reason, I have also added a 'slanted opinion' tag. The article talks heavily about issues relating to the civil war; kind of offtopic. The coming to being of abolitionism is a bit removed from an article about racism. Also, it states that biology "didn't exist" in the time period. Quite wrong in different ways. While American 'evangelicals' certainly played a part in shaping American racism, it didn't do very much to effect the world' view. A tag about American-centric material should be added as well.

The article in the whole gives a feeling of a building or development in a 'theory of racism'. Because of this, I think it could be misconstrued that creationist reactionaries were largely to blame for the rise of world-related racial issues that came after this period, like Eugenics.

Also, the Age of Enlightenment took place in the 17-18th centuries. If anything, the section considers very specific events that took place at what might be considered the very end of that period. The section is chronologically out of order with the other sections. I would say that the title itself sounds sarcastic or that it was meant to be ironic. Its an interesting opinion on early American slavery politics, I would consider deleting this whole section if this wasn't the pivotal key to some of the racism found in America. But it needs more sources, and it needs to state that these political implications were localized, if they truly were. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Reason for the tags unclear

Why are three fat tags on this article? they should be address discussed and then removed. or placed on specific sections where applicable. i find it hard to believe the ENTIRE article could violate NPOV.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the article certainly does violate NPOV, at least in the history section. You could look in the discussions I have started above to find out why. Two of the tags at the top were here when I got here, though. If you look over the article, its obvious that it is in quite bad shape. It doesn't even really stick to a central theme, but the idea of racism jumps from one thing to the next. And I think, in the whole, the article is either leaning in favor of racism, or sharply in the other direction, going against academic criticism. In my opinion it, at times, unnecessarily favors interest groups. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is I dont see a specific issue being raised to justify tags on the entire project. I can see then you put a tag on the sections in question. But racism is a pretty complex thing and i dont see how the article could lean in favor of racism, where does it do that? And what should the central theme be?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It needs some sort of direct, besides being the utter mess that it is at present. The whole article needs to be reviewed, at least. I've been mostly digging in the history section, but the who article, from what I have seen, looks like a collection of essays. Upon entering this article, readers should get the impression that this is not a article that receives much attention, to be cautious. Its common for interest groups coming on this article to tell about how their country isn't and has never been racist. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

20th century section - Imperial Japan

The first few sentences of the section makes out as if Imperial Japan was opposed to racism. That an assembly of Japanese satellites states declaring the "abolition of racism" makes it so. This goes contrary to many of the things Imperial Japan did during World War II, and such claims could be seen as malicious or otherwise generate offense. If no one can rationalise these sentences, I I suggest they be removed. The section seems to insinuate that the release of German Jews by individuals makes Imperial Japan non-racist. I have tagged these as dubious as well. This article is about racism, not excusing why countries in certain periods were not racist. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So-called satellites states were US or UK colonies, the suzerains opposed racial equelity and their veto made lacked of the racial equality clause in the Covenant of the League of Nations. Under the Japanese influnece their colonial people could declare racial equelity. individuals? They were government officials. And their official act were under the national policy. On December 6, 1938, Japanese government made a decision of prohibiting the expulsion of the Jews in Asia in accordance with the racial equality. Read the book page.111 And Foreign minister told Jews they insured Jew safety. I am the man responsible for the alliance with Hitler, but nowhere have I promised that we would carry out his antisemitic policies in Japan. This is not simply my personal opinion, it is the position of Japan, and I have no compunction about announcing it to the world. Read the book page. 112--Bukubku (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. But such paragraphs which appear to excuse a country's actions in a time period do not belong in this article: This article is about racism, not specific examples of countries or peoples who were not racist in specific situations. I will remove the paragraphs. If you feel other action is in order, please continue the discussion here.

Also, I note that you say they were not satelites. But the meeting took place after Burma, Siam, etc, were already occupied by the Japanese Imperial army. Also, neither Chiang Kai-shek and leaders of the CPC did not seem to be present at this meeting, and yet the leader of the Manchuria puppet state was there. In actuality, the governments present were colonies of the countries you stated, but under the occupation of Imperial Japan.

Here are some statements from other articles about these you say were not leaders of satelites:

"May 1942, Imperial Japanese Army quickly overran Burma, and after the capture of Rangoon, freed Baw Maw from prison. During the Japanese occupation of Burma, Ba Maw was asked by the Japanese to head a provisional civilian administration to manage day-to-day administrative activities subordinate to the Japanese military administration. This Burmese Executive Administration was established on August 1, 1942."

"Zhang Jinghui...is noted for his role in the establishment the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo and served as its second and last Prime Minister."

"Japanese invasion had given him the opportunity [Wang Jiangwei] had long sought to establish a new government outside of Chiang Kai-shek’s control.On March 30, 1940, he became the head of state of what came to be known as the Wang Jingwei regime based in Nanjing"

"José Paciano Laurel y García was the president of the Japanese-sponsored Second Philippine Republic"

"At the outset of the war, [Subhas Chandra Bose] left India, travelling to the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, seeking an alliance with each of them to attack the British government in India."

So, yes, they were all satellites. The last person I did not mention was a mere diplomat in Japanese occupied Thailand. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

? I didn't raise satellites or not. It's no relevance. Besides, Thailand was independent states. Japan didn't set up a military regime in Thailand.--Bukubku (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You said they weren't satellites. Thailand was was occupied by Japanese forces at the time. At least, it was subjugated by the Imperial Japanese on their way to Burma. Why do you continue to add material about how Japan was not racist at any particular time? They are irrelevant. This article is not about who was not racist, it is about racism and who was racist. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Thailand was not occupied, they allied. Japan supported Thiland when Thiland concluded a treaty of peace of Franco-Thai War with French, then Thiland recovered their rightful territory. So Japan and Thiland are good relation until now. Their royal families are very very good relations. They actually declared racial equality. Agian satellies or not is not important. See from the PROK side, Japan is US sattelite state. Do not forget Halaqah's advice. Do not delete contents without consensus.--Bukubku (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add to See also

I see that the article is currently protected. Surely, Social interpretations of race might fit into the see also section, no? --79.193.29.76 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. You seem like a person able to contribute to Wikipedia - How about making an account? There's something fishy in that article, but I don't have time to scrutinize it. Still, I'll link it through the 'see also' section.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)