Jump to content

Talk:Racism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160C

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JiangLyn (article contribs).

It states racism is a modern concept arising from the European colonial era

[edit]

This is a wrong statement as racism has existed in various forms throughout millenias like the discrimination towards dravidians in India or the racism between tribes in Africa, this should be changed in the article 2403:A080:803:FA5D:EDC1:797A:5BD0:FBDB (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it says "Racism is frequently described...." which is sourced. Now is this description correct? I don't know. Much of discrimination towards Dravidians and among African tribes appears to be, at least partially, due to European colonialism. Colonialism brought the concept to the wider world. If sources can be found to predate this period; that might be useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the simple sociological perspective, racism is just a specific form of xenophobia, and this has been common to all humans everywhere since out species evolved, and has only been slowly receding due to moral progress... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. Racism is about "race" - ostensibly immutable and inheritable phenotypes, a belief that different races exist, and have different characteristics. It is a rather recent invention, a largely European 19th C. invention (although copied by others since). "Xenophobia" is about animosity towards foreigners - be they one town over or one country over, and has been around for eons. A foreign nationality is not a "race". It is extremely common to resent foreigners of the same race, and even of the same ethnicity. Walrasiad (talk)
No. Please re-read what xenophobia is about. It is not only phobia of foreigners, but of strangers (aliens, "the other", etc.). As such, racism is just one of the forms of xenophobia (fear/dislike/etc. of those who have a different 'race'). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...except that that's not a sufficient definition of racism. As our article says: Garner (2009: p. 11) summarizes different existing definitions of racism and identifies three common elements contained in those definitions of racism. First, a historical, hierarchical power relationship between groups; second, a set of ideas (an ideology) about racial differences; and, third, discriminatory actions (practices). It's not just "people dislikng people of other 'races'". This is why we get endless complaints over at the talk page for reverse racism; seeing "racism" as just "disliking people of other races" opens the door to the possibility of "reverse racism", or anti-white racism, which completely ignores the systemic hierarchies and power imbalances in our system that allow racism to exist, and which only go in one direction. Writ Keeper  19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"ostensibly immutable and inheritable phenotypes" How can phenotypes be immutable if mutations in genes are relatively common? Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you can found a black brazilian and a black american, but they in nationality wise are different, by the way, search for "Xenophobia" on dictionary and you'll see is not talking about race in any moment.
I'll reformulate it to make it more harmonious:
Xenophobia is an hatred, fear, or hostility towards foreigners, including Xenophobia is the combination of two words in Greek "Xenos" (Foreigner) and "Phobos" (Fear). Ex.:Talossophobia, aracnophobia, etc.
While racism is a prejudice or a race-based hatred, like saying "White people are superior to black people!", Both are a form of prejudice, the difference is that one is based on nationality and the other on race, it's simple. 177.105.90.116 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"and"

[edit]

The first sentence definition could be substantially improved by replacing "and" with "or". It is possible to have discrimination without prejudice or prejudice without at least overt discrimination, both would constitue racism, eg an employer who will readily employ a employee of an ethnic minority while openly treating them fairly yet privately disliking them on the basis of their race, or conversely, a discriminatory judgement based on fact, such as a racist landlord that refuses to allow tenants of certain countries to rent as they are more likely to cook food that creates semi permanent odours which discourage future tenants of majority ethnicity. 37.152.237.108 (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, that the example you gave fits more into xenophobia than racism, thanks for your attention! 177.105.90.116 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

[edit]

The racism is a prejudice against colour


}} 111.92.13.201 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic definitions of "racism"

[edit]

As with so many terms, academics have created their own definition of the word "racism". That's fine in academic circles, but on Wikipedia it repeatedly leads to arguments about whether the definition applies to specific situations. Editors from the academic world can even talk about "proto-racism". But editors from the majority of society will apply the word "racism" more broadly. Academics may self-righteously point to published citations and definitions, claiming that their definition is correct. This happens on a number of articles. Not sure how to improve both the quality of the articles but also respectful interaction between editors. At least, "Assume good faith." Pete unseth (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"from the majority of society" You do know that Wikipedia is not practicing argumentum ad populum, right? We are not citing the widely held beliefs of a specific culture, we are citing reliable sources. If you want changes, find sources that support them. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to all respect, but this kind of contradictory, you said to assume "good faith", but accused academics of being r4c1st, which is not good faith at all (since you said as all are like this), and is not even much good faith accuse a whole enterprise of "argumentum ad populum", in your logic, use a real thing is a "argumentum ad populum", by this logic, I must accuse you of "argumentum ad populum", for think all academics are self-righteous and r4c1st, and so on.
It's ironic you talk about respecful and laterly disrespect a enterprise, your argument only makes sense when you prove it is true, without evidence, without credibility, and consequently a unreliable source, if it is, evidence generates credibility and it consenquently a reliable source (despite I know there's another things how to-do a reliable-sourced article, as neutrality, etc.). 177.105.90.89 (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]