Talk:Race traitor

2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Globalize" tag

Is anyone aware of the usage of the term beyond the USA context? If not, the tag is to be removed as useless. - 7-bubёn >t 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the Nazis used the term. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They did, although the term then would be "rassenverrater"--145.97.221.70 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, anyway

I'm no "racially conscious" person or anything, my point is solely that such term is used here in Brazil as an old probable joke that I don't know the origin (não nega a raça, "[he/she] doesn't deny his/her race"; people I know don't use the term so I don't know if it is offensive, but I think not) but with our polemics on affirmative action and the likes it is used against white [and Asian] persons fitting the American stereotype of "liberal" supportive of such policies (they are said to "deny the race").

The other inclusion is indeed stupid and not NPOV, I'm sorry, I just thought of another example. This talk of race has to orbite around racialism, miscegenation and the likes, neither whom you love nor stupid opinions not used as an attack are business of anyone (at least that is the mainstream – I mean politically independent and educated – American mentality AFAIK), this conflicts with the fact that both there is some admixture in pretty much every ~~Caucasian~~ human group, some of them know it (recorded history of admixture after society became conscious of race, people with non-white phenotypes being born to ~5-10% non-white white Argentine and Afrikaner and ~15-20% non-white white Chilean and white Brazilian families) and still the society where they live is pretty much racialized.

According to academics this is the case of the metro city from where I come and where I live, my social class, and my country even if some of us deny and say that it only existed down south, up far north or to the other side of the ocean (a pretty dumb thing, we still have a lot of lexicon used as slang that people know to have originated in slavery and there are about 2 or 3 living people that experienced this, the social result of the lack of compromise of our government didn't help and we have de facto segregation, clap your hands to call someone's attention before you ask a favor like a glass of water and you will most likely hear something that has to do with the memories of this time that are still relatively fresh; one of the best telenovelas we had in the last 5 years, Lado a Lado, tells about the social situation of Afro-Brazilians in the start of the 20th century), so I felt that talking about just miscegenation and opinions of American race supremacists was a bit of alienation for elsewhere in the world. So I tried to use my experience. That's it. :) Lguipontes (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what you wrote in the article wasn't clear. How about this: "As another example, a person who supports affirmative action or other policies that might benefit races other than his own may be characterized as a 'race traitor'." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point and almost perfectly OK but I'd change "benefit races other than his own" to "[supposedly] benefit other races but his own" as it sounds more neutral. I explain, while I don't feel entitled to enter the debate on racial affirmative action (rather than social class affirmative action, which I do support), either favorable or against, what we know is that a point often held by people that are against it is that, being positive for society or not, some kinds of affirmative action are a sort of racial discrimination – in countries that ban this – so to implicitly suggest that such POV is in bad faith in relation to the advancement of other racial groups is not a good idea. By this wording the immediate sense that would come around is that the movement against affirmative action measures that cause reverse discrimination is related in some degree to white nationalism, thus tendentious. Lguipontes (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]