Talk:Racism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[If you refer to the actual reference to Ham in the Bible, you will note that the curse of slavery was not pronounced on Ham himself but on Canaan, just one of the many sons of Ham. Some of the other sons of Ham went on to be great kings and founded leading nations such as Egypt. See Genesis chapter 10 for a list of the sons of Ham who founded nations --hardly slaves! The question then remains, who are the descendants of Canaan today? Perhaps nobody. There is every chance that the curse was only meant to last a generation or two.]

Racism is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

To-do list for Racism:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Bring material in the article which is not compliant with Wikipedia's policies of NPOV or verifiability into compliance. Increase the technical stablility of the article. Add more pictures.

Archives
November 2001 – February 2002 February 2002 – September 2002 September 2002 – December 2003 December 2003 December 2003 – April 2004 April 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – May 2006

Contents 1 NPOV, Bias 2 Racist Elements 3 Canada POV 4 Will Beback edit war... 5 Definition 6 Racism in India 7 Good Article nomination has failed 8 Submit for Peer Review? 9 I Did It 10 Too exclusively Foucauldian 11 Article Size 12 Reverse Correctism 13 "The Catholic belief in the 'Deicide People'" 14 Is it always negative? 15 Racialism and intro 16 Wrong categorisation 17 Bad definition 18 Asians 19 commercial[s] 20 Bias 21 BZÖ 22 Crypto-racism 23 Quebec bashing 24 National Vanguard... as source? 25 Allegedly racist groups section 26 Caucasian not technically accurate term for white people 27 Racist quotes section 28 innocent content fork, or back-door POV fork? 29 Re-ordered topics 30 Removed paragraph 31 Is the Falun Gong homophobic

[edit] NPOV, Bias

I noticed a great many instances in this article of blatantly loaded, biased phraseology. Please do not use wikipedia to promote a social or political agenda. If you can't represent both sides of an issue, don't edit wiki. Please.

Fourdee 07:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree... there is the dubious inclusion of the anti-Zionist movements of Hamas and Hezbollah listed as racist groups when there is a clear distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The inflammatory language also needs to edited out - this page has clearly been hijacked by people with an agenda. -Justin

[edit] Racist Elements

I think this article is ridiculously outdated. Racism should be a term interpertated for individuals to obtaining the roots of their limited mentally by analyzing their own eviction of skin pigmentation and need of ancestral roots. I mean I have freckles, does that mean I'm black? Believe it or not, Racists actually wade in groups of this nature. Even whole sale organizations do this from all sides! Like a baby deciphering the alphabet, racists need to decipher the evolution of an individual's skin pigmentation. A female, transgender and other have also been victim to taunts and threats. -From the racist planet and its rapid heat, ---69.255.16.162 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada POV

It seems awfully anti--Canadian, if you ask me.

I nominated it to be checked for its neutrality.--J3wishVulcan 00:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure you can do that, but sorry I had to revert your edit because (intentionally or not) you restored a version whitewashing German antisemtism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be anti-Canadian to me. The Canada section just seems to have more information compared to other countries. ViewFromNowhere 17:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

From reading the article, one would be lead to believe that Canada have fooled the rest of the world into thinking they are progressive, and have been hiding secrets about their racist behaviour from the public. Just check out the first sentence.--J3wishVulcan 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read it that way. Many Canadians consider Canada to be tolerant and multicultural, so it is surprising for the average Canadian that Canada has a history of racism. It's not that Canadians are hiding racist behaviour. It's that most Canadians don't even know. ... I can see how it would look to non-Canadians though. But Canada has a history of racism just like every other country, despite it priding itself as tolerant and multicultural. ViewFromNowhere 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, every country has a history of racism. And Canada's is FAR less extensive than most other mulitcultural countries. Black slaves ESCAPED slavery in Canada, after all. Racism is also far less prevalent today than in other countries. One would not get that impression from the article. Isn't the object of Wikipedia to relay FACTS, not the opinions of an Editor. I would agree to remove the POV tag just with a little editing to how it is written.--J3wishVulcan 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it just looks that way because there isn't much information on the history of racism in other countries. Perhaps Canadians, being anti-racism, are more likely to learn about their own history of racism? Canada had black slaves as well, but most people (including Canadians) don't know about it. This is relevant information about racism in Canada, yet it is not included in the article. If the article was Canada-bashing, it would include this. ViewFromNowhere 16:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO It's Canada-bashing, and it doesn't help the definition of Racism, or history, which is why I put the NPOV tag back on the 13th of may --24.200.225.24 04:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. Clearly, Canadians are too hyper-sensitive and hung up and this tolerant, multi-cultural society idea, which is absolute BS, and I'm a Canadian myself. Ask the average Canadian in the street and they will tell you that they wish most of the immigrants would pack their bags and go home; and there is little more tolerance for the aspirations of the aboriginals. Canadians are no less racist than Americans, Britons, or Australians; they just keep it hidden slightly better...not because they are more tolerant, but because Canadian society is so politically correct....but go to the bar and have a few beers and then start talking about the subject! As to what is written about the history of racism in Canada, everything mentioned is true. If some people take offence because they perceive it as anti-Canadian, tough. The truth must always be told no matter whose delicate constitutions it might disturb. --207.161.3.162 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For all the Canadians' talk about being tolerant and multicultural, I think they're just as racist as other western countries. Just recently, there was this case about a 7-year old Filipino boy living in Canada, who was punished for eating in school with a spoon and fork, the usual way of eating here, rather than with knife and fork, as in the West. The next part of the story differs from version to version, but one version says that when the boy's family went to the school principal to complain, he told them that "This is Canada, and in this school we have to eat like humans, not like animals." (Gee, I had no idea that animals ate with a spoon and fork in Canada.) Anyway, this issue aroused widespread anger in the Filipino community in Canada, and even in the Philippines. If racism was that bad in Canada, just imagine what it's like in other Western countries. P.S. Despite all the articles on this topic about racism in non-Western countries, I think that if racism could be quantified, the First World (the term itself is racist), Western nations are, were, and, unless something changes, will continue to be the most racist places on Earth. Frankly, I think whites are still the most racist people on Earth. It's true that racism exists in people of other races, but there's no comparison at all with the amount of racism in whites, so this should not be used as a justification by whites for their own racism. However, I'm not racist. I don't dislike whites in general, though I dislike the racists, and I'm not saying they're all racists, I'm saying there are more racist whites than from other races. They were the colonialists, after all. Concerned Filipino 202.73.162.190 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Frankly, I think whites are still the most racist people on Earth." Your quote seems rather hypocritical. I'd encourage you to look more closely at the case which you sited. It's become clear that the facts of the case had been misrepresented in the media immediately following the incident. The punishment was for the child's behaviour and had very little to do with the utensils he was using and the aligations are against a man without any record or racism behind him. Perhaps he mishanded the situation, but to make the claim of racism is rediculous. The public outrage over percieved racism, though, shows that Canadian culture will not tolerate it. Of couse, you're unlikely to change your mind. You seem to be a victim of your own accusations.--130.15.129.18 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the statement that most (white) Canadians hold the belief that racism does not exist in Canada. There is plenty of historical evidence which suggests otherwise in addition to multiple stories from other (non-white) Canadians. However, these experiences are often trivialised on the basis that Canada regards itself as an accepting society on paper. If the dominant discourse of the country teaches people that they are accepting then people begin to believe this. The reason I say that non-white Canadians are more aware of racism in Canada is due to personal experience. The word multicultural is used as a mask for denial of racism.

[edit] Will Beback edit war...

• The above text relating to Germany does not, in any way, imply that all racism leads to the experience of the Holocaust. And in your edit, you did not just try to "correct" such an impression, you removed mention of the Holocaust entirely, as well as any mention of the Nuremberg laws (which were explicitly racist), all of which in my mind borders on denial. But I'll try to be open-minded and assume good faith for the moment, though frankly I don't see very many reasons to so far. A number of other edits are thoroughly misrepresented there -- you did not just "black Supremacy and Hispanic Supremacy" (which are ridiculous in that context -- the paragraph is clearly about the 15-17th centuries when such things did not exist), you removed a significant amount of text as well. And yes, most people believe that people who espouse the belief that two racial groups should not marry is a form of racism. --Fastfission 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I stated with my changes that I dont oppose writing about the topic I just wanted them to be rewritten from a more balanced POV and my changes were only intended to be temporary to give people an idea of what I was requesting. I do agree with you other then that but I hope you atleast see my viewpoint.

Jerry Jones 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While NPOV is a necessity, in this context it does not mean explaining why the Nazis were justified in persecuting the Jews. -Will Beback 08:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does not mean they were justified I am just showing their viewpoint and that is all. In my opinion you do not kill people no matter what they do. I jsut get tired of every single mainstream news source going on and on about poor people being the victims of evil white oppression and they never show the other side. Please feel free to browse any anti semetism and race related article and it will just say "The Purple people were victims of racism here. The purple people were yet again victims of racism in the 1800's. Anti Purpleism dates back to the 17th century and persecution against purples was widespread. They had a poll tax released against the purple people, and they were again victims of anti pupleism."

This is a joke and this is all I read everywhere. Most people do not even have a clue why this is widespread. This is not benefiting anyone hiding historical viewpoints because they might offend certain groups. This is what wikipedia is supposed to fight against. Wikipedia would be so informative and really improve if we can present all sides from a NPOV. This will keep people in the middle and informed and give wikipedia a great reputation. I merely want to present all sides and have people make up their own minds yet I am accused of being a white washing vandal.

Jerry Jones 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not making the article balanced, you are deliberately whitewashing things, you are deliberately obscuring things, and you are deliberately being achronological because it serves your personal agenda. Please read our WP:NPOV policy before deciding you know what it means. The POV that the Nazi anti-Semitism played a major and decisive role in the Holocaust is considered an obvious fact by everybody except for Holocaust deniers, whose fringe POV deserves no role on this page. And just as a stylistic tip -- claiming that "censorship" is occuring when other editors overwhelmingly disagree with you will not get you very far, as a rule. It is not persuasive and it says "POV-pusher" all over it. --Fastfission 11:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont have an agenda other then to give wikipedia a good reputation and be fair to all sides. You accuse me of white washing articles but I removed calling black groups racists and you dont accuse me of blackwashing; only white washing. I remove far right and far left terms when its stated as a fact by a certain groups (All groups have agendas. There is no fair group) because its nonsense and tells people what to think. All I want is for readers to think for themselves without some viewpoint being shoved down their throats. Do you honestly think that me removing far left from communists groups is somehow going to make people think they are not far left and vise versa? I just believe in showing them why they are far left and far right instead of telling them. Let the information speak for itself. This will greatly improve the quality of wikipedia and keep people reading and coming back. Yet people accuse me of POV. I just want to make things fair and I would be more then happy to work together with all of you to do it. All viewpoints are valid and need to be included in wikipedia because no viewpoint is right regardless of how maintream it might be and we need to acknowledge this. Ofcourse anti semetism was a major reason why the holocaust happened I just didnt agree with implying that carrying any racial type viewpoint will lead to a holocaust especially because these viewpoints were widespread viewpoints all throughout the world before and after the holocaust. I didnt oppose including this in the article I just wanted it to be rewritten as with my other edits.

Jerry Jones 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones, the following falls into the category of nonneutral opinion based on original research. Nazi ideology believed that Jews were controlling the German press and were not patriotic, and were subverting the German government with Bolshevism. Especially in a matter where there is controversy, citing sources is most useful. For example, the following page explicitly states Nazi racial policy: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rassenpo.htm Summarizing the content and linking to it averts the problem of putting forward our own opinions. The Nazi viewpoint pushes Aryan supremacy. That is different from accepting the assumption of Aryan supremacy, and moving on to how Nazis justified their claim to white supremacy (by villifying others through false statements, and so on.) Skywriter 11:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse Aryan supremacy was a foundational viewpoint but if you look and read Nazi propaganda reels along with Nazi writing its common knowledge that this is what they said. It doesnt mean it's right it just means that was their viewpoint and people refuse to cover their viewpoint to sweep history under the rug. I am not sure why you are bringing up aryan supremacy because I merely included the German viewpoint saying that Jews were controlling the press and using it as tools of communism according to Germans. Both issues are related and if you want to include them together by all means feel free to do so.

Jerry Jones 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so people get an idea where User:Jerry Jones is coming from, here are a sample of some of his recent edits: [1] [2] [3]. Here are some of his earlier edits: [4]. And, of course, there are his obsessive attempts to describe anyone who is either left-wing or a criminal as a "Jew", both as his current userid: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] and as his previous userid User:JJstroker: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wth? You point out some other user and accuse me of making these edits? Who are you to do that? Show me the edits I made on my account.

Jerry Jones 02:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Half the edits are from your Jerry Jones account, half are from your JJstroker account. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the edits are not even mine and the others are edits I admit to doing. We already established that I remove "Racism" and "Far right" if its used incorrectly. That is not your original claim of me saying that I add if someone is Jewish to every article. If you were to not only focus on certain things you will realize on many of those same articles where I would remove "Far right" and "Racism" I would leave it in other places just as long as it was accurate. I dont believe in stating if a group is far right because I believe the readers should come to that conclusion by themselves. Dont tell the reader show the reader. The articles seem amatuer when you say racist every two sentences and it doesnt comply with wiki NPOV policy. These groups deny that they are racists and regardless of what public opinion is you cant say that they are. The best thing to do is to show they are racist and let the reader make up their own mind. This will not jeopardize wiki NPOV policy while adding greatly to the content quality of the articles. This way all sides are happy and everything benefits. I dont appreciate what you are doing and I strongly feel that you are just destroying NPOV policy. I would also appreciate if you would actually discuss my edits instead of just making accusations and reverting my edits.

Jerry Jones 00:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the Nazis insisting ever they weren't racists, but if you have a source it'd be interesting to see. -Will Beback 01:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

---

List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics.

This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.

This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated.

Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?

This list cover a period of about 48 years since independence (1957).

List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):

(1) Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays

(2) 99% of Petronas directors are malays

(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese

(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays

(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status

(6) 0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies

(7) 5% of all new intake for government police, nurses, army, is non-malays

(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960

(9) 2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%

(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960

(11) 95% of government contracts are given to malays

(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Taxi permits, Approved permits, etc

(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers

(14) 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. UTC, UMBC, MISC, etc

(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses

(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given

(17) 0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)

(18) 8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period

(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000

(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000

(21) 2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000

(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%

(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible

(24) 10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays

(25) 5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004

(26) Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years

(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"

(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired i.e. Medicine (in 2004)

(29) 10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays

(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003

(31) 25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957

(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957

(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago

(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas

(35) 3 million Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status

(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenships compare with the Chinese and Indians

(37) 5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is rich or poor

(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget

(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names

(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort

(41) 0 temples/churches were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built

(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No temples, no churches are required to be built in housing estates

(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004

(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)

(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins

(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less

(47) 10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969

(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed

(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s

(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960

(51) 0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s

(52) 20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200

(53) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record

(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays

(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum

There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism.

Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated.

Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.

If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.

Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish.

We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays.

Writing this much is a good way to not get taken seriously.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I brought this up earlier and it was partially fixed, but the definition at the top of the article is not a good one. It says:

Racism refers to a belief system that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine cultural or individual achievement. This can lead to prejudice against individuals based on a perceived or ascribed "race". This racist outlook in assuming that the human species can be meaningfully divided into races, often breeds ignorance, fear and hostility towards people.

However, what most people mean by racism is the fear and hostility itself. Srnec 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not super happy with the definition either but think it is something we should try and be precise about. Here is what Merriam-Webster defines racism as:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

And here is the Oxford English Dictionary:

a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.

b. Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.

Colloquially I think the MW definition is closer to what "racism" means in American English. But I'd be interested in what others think. --Fastfission 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's coming at it from a different viewpoint. Scientists studying the human genome are finding little in the way of real differences among the "races," according to an article that appeared in 2000.

www.latimes.com/news/science/science/lat_gene010212.htm "Tiny Gene Disparities Go a Long Way Science: DNA of people of different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show" ...SNPs--which stands for "single nucleotide polymorphism"--are not the only kind of variability that exists in the human genome. But they represent about 85% of the differences that exist.... different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show" SNPs, meanwhile, are not only invaluable for medicine, they should help shore up knowledge of evolution and human history, scientists say. Though people cannot be clearly divided into "races," scientists can still detect certain patterns of SNPs that crop up more in some parts of the world than others. This should give researchers clues to the movements of different peoples during history. different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show" By charting these subtle differences, researchers have already learned much about human migration patterns. Their findings are often buttressed by other fields of science such as anthropology or archeology. different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show" "This kind of data is going to make possible a very complete description of the history of the human race--who went where and when," Altshuler says. "It is an unparalleled data set to explore the population history of the human race." (Dr. David Altshuler, a researcher at Harvard and the Center for Genome Research at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. Altshuler is senior author of a Nature paper that reports this week on 1.4 million SNPs found by the public genome effort.) different races is unexpectedly alike, new genome findings show"

Skywriter 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's further discussion from a scientific perspective. http://www.henryholt.com/tangledwing/konnernotes.htm and this: http://www.yale.edu/yjhple/volume_1/pdf/033%20(koenig).pdf

Ethics of race-based medicine by Nicholas Wade in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/health/11heart.html

and in WP here:

"Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife. The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races. Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not. In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being. "It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep." read the rest here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html

Skywriter 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary definitions provided seem good. Both Merriam-Webster definitions seem good, as does the second Oxford. The first Oxford defintion is interesting. The problem I have with it is that it is not a value-related definition. It better defines a form of racialism, as that Wiki article says:

W.E.B. DuBois argues that racialism is the philosophical belief that differences between the races exist, be it biological, social, psychological, or in the realm of the soul. He then goes on to argue that racism is using this belief to push forward the argument that one's particular race is superior to the others.

I think DuBois is right in that racism is primarily about superiority of one sort or another. I propose an altered first paragraph below, changes in bold:

Racism refers to a belief system that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine the value of human beings. This can lead to hostility against individuals based on a perceived or ascribed "race". [remove:This racist outlook in assuming that the human species can be meaningfully divided into races, often breeds ignorance, fear and hostility towards people.] Racism often includes the belief that people of different races differ in aptitudes and abilites, such as intelligence, physical prowess, or virtue. Some individuals who use this concept of racial categories, believe that different races can be placed on a ranked, hierarchical scale. By definition one who practices racism is known as a racist.

I don't like the second-last sentence either, but I can't figure out how to change it. Perhaps the idea of "racialism" should be brought up and I think the dictionary defintions should appear near the top of the page too. One more thing: this article throughout employs the term "racism" far too liberally, just about any differentiation between individuals could be called racist under the terms of this article. Srnec 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about hair color. Skywriter 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a "dumb blond" I do. P0M 01:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How does hair color affect the perception of racial characteristics? Asians have black hair as do others. A small number of white people have blond hair and fewer still are red haired. Some black people are blond. Brown and gray haired people fit every racial profile. What is distintive here that merits inclusion in an article about racism?Skywriter 01:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Economic racism is by far the most serious form of racism in today's world. Most of the above definition focuses on individual feelings and attitudes but it is the larger picture that is most pressing. Economic exploitation based on racial barriers is much more devastating, and Du Bois identified economics as the central component of the problems between 'the races.' Skywriter 01:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of the sentence "The term race plus the suffix ism added refers to a "meme" that the human species can be divided into various groups based on physical characteristics such as skin color and hair color, as well as cultural differences and beliefs." Indeed, the whole opening seems to take for granted that people can be grouped based on physical characteristics. That is self-evident. We can talk of "red-haired people": that set of people with red hair. We can talk of "white people": that set of people with light-toned skin. How is acknowledging such differences racist? It is not, it is the belief that such differences constitute differences in value of some sort between persons which is normally termed racism. Srnec 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Urk. I am certainly not happy with the current definition on the page. It equates racism with a claim about reality. There is a good Pinker quote to show that this is not a universally accepted definition. ("the case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable. It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups.") Whether or not Pinker's POV is correct is not for us to decide, but it is proof that this page's current definition of racism is too broad. Another way to say that is to compare racism with sexism. Sexism is not the claim that homo sapiens can be meaningfully divided into discrete groups called "sexes", nor the attribution of certain traits to the sex of the individual. The current article ought to either (1) acknowledge the fact that there are many definitions of racism (I would prefer that) or (2) define it in the narrowest, everybody-can-agree-with-that terms. Arbor 13:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a terrible definition. If you are going to define it, a dictionary definition should be the only definition...not one that combines opinion with fact. Racism is not a "system" that once subscribes to as would be Catholicism or Protestantism. It is not a club. Additionally, there ARE different races of people, but identifying them goes beyond appearance. Since we view racism and being a "racist" as negative, it should simply be defined as the dislike of a particular race or races by another for no reason other than race. If you water down the real definition of the word and imply that different races do not exist, you cannot have racism.71.244.220.237 09:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The current definition of racism that is listed is based on the historical origins of racism and racial theory. Much as Darwin's theories were adopted by Social Darwinists, racial theory spawned a renewed belief in and justification of racism. The fact that many people don't understand the underlying meaning of racism and use the word inappropriately does not yet justify changing a definition based on the idea's origins.--130.15.129.18 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism in India

I tried adding some stuff on racism in India....Since this is my first "real" edit, i could use some help. Could someone improve the footers in the section on India. I seem to be a dunce :( Sshankar 12:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I was adding this to your talk page but then I just saw your comment here...for citations, I think it would be better to just add the links at the end rather than use citations, like so:

It is claimed by some activists[34] that casteism practised in India is a form of racism, but this is debated.[35]

The markup for which is:

It is claimed by some activists[http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/echoes/echoes-17-04.html] that [[casteism]] practised in India is a form of racism, but this is debated.[http://www.ambedkar.org/WCAR/Casteismas.htm]

What do you think? -- 127.*.*.1

I agree, thanks, and i cleaned it up.

I added the Govt. stand on "caste as racism", though the link for reference i provided was not very exhaustive. Please change it if you find something better. Also, I have read many times in newspapers about 1) african-exchange students suffering racism here. In fact, i remember something about the daughters of the (ex?) king/president/whatever of an African country saying something about this in an interview. 2)'north-east indians' 3)'(white) tourists in India'

Please help. I also will try, but i might need to do a bit of offline research. Also, Can someone check if the pic on this [36] page comes under fair use? I believe it's an iconic image; when the incident took place, it was all over the papers. And besides, this article needs pix IMO.

'P.S.:'yes, i realise my entry is a bit too long and vague, but i'm trying my best.Sshankar 10:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Racism has failed, for the following reason:

(

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted."

This article seems to be filled with assertions, especially the racism by country section:

"Austria has sometimes been criticised of trying to sweep its Nazi past under the carpet, typified by the widely pronounced myth that Austria was a victim of Nazi aggression rather than a willing participant."

"In fact, Canada's treatment of Aboriginal-Canadians is still governed by a document frequently described as racist, the Indian Act."

"Problems are currently under hot debate, although socialist Finnish government denies them."

It goes without saying that racism is a pretty contentious topic and accusing a nation of racism is a pretty big claim but even these assertions and historic conclusions for the most part aren't even accompanied by any referenced citations. The Good news is that problems with the by countries section and other POV issues are old news to you guys and you're already working on solutions. Because you guys are still debating solutions (like in the Canada section) the article really isn't technically stable.

Also I think this article would benefit from additional pictures (though this is obviously secondary); there must be tons more relevant pictures out there for this article than what it currently has TonyJoe 16:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submit for Peer Review?

I have read the whole article now, and and quite disappointed. Racism deserves a better article on Wikipedia. We should work hard to make this the best article about Racism anywhere. I have little hope that the Good Article nomination will get anywhere. A more effective mechanism is Peer Review, and I am tempted to submit this article. But maybe the editors of this page can clean it themselves first? There are patches of brilliance in this article, but the rest is an opinionated mess. The most glaring problems I can see are

1. Very strange definition. This simply won't do. There are (at least) three attempts—in different places, even!—to "explain" the relation to racialism, all are biased. I have little hope that we can find a definition of Racism that we can agree on, and neither should we. This is not a usage guide. Instead, this article must describe and explain all usages of this word, and not "take sides" about which is correct. Violates WP:NPOV
2. Unverifiable nonsense. "This racist outlook in assuming that the human species can be hierarchically divided into races, is often bred of ignorance, fear, and prejudice." How exactly should this claim ever be verified? Violates WP:V
3. Section 5, Racism by country, has no hope of ever becoming anything else than a badly edited list of anecdotes. A constant invitation to any POV-pusher who visits this page to add another personal grievance. I would have it removed completely. "By country" is simply not a very effective way to describe this. I am all for historical or geographical overviews, but the difference between Racism in Belgium and Racism in Luxemburg are bad categories. Antisemitism in the Medieval Europe (not caring whether that happened in Thuringia or Bavaria) and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany are good categories. Remove by WP:NOR, if you need a reason, unless there is a primary reference that has already made such a compilation.

Arbor 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, peer review sounds like a marvelous idea. ScWizard 00:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of a peer review? I think the problems you've mentioned are all good ones, but I'm not sure PR will fix any of them. What it needs is someone willing to spend a lot of time overhauling it and getting rid of most of the existing content, which I heartily support. --Fastfission 02:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If we all agree on that, there is indeed no need for Peer Review. But in some collaborative situations it is often helpful to have somebody else make a painful big-picture decision that the original contributors are (understandably) loath to initiate. Arbor 07:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely sympathetic with any big changes you want to initiate! :-) One way to ease the pain might be to first separate out the "by country" section into its own article, and then to take from it as needed for a new historical section. A global history of racism is a big undertaking, but I'm willing to help out where I can. --Fastfission 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be to engage those editors who actually like the current format in a debate about this. So far, everybody who has responded in this subsection wants the article to change. I suggest to implement your idea, Fastfission, about factoring the by country into a separate article, and slap an "Original Research" warning template on that article. But let's wait a few more days to give those who oppose such a heavy-handed measure time to respond. Arbor 13:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Did It

I don't have a whole lot of free time, but I'm going to do what I can to help the people in here who are trying to get this article back on track. This article doesn't need peer review or nomination for "good article" status. It needs for those of us who aren't using this as a soapbox to fight back.

I excised the 'Racism by Country' section into a separate article which can deal with its POV problems on its own. It's absolutely riddled with wildly POV and unsourced claims and it does not belong inside the "Racism" entry.

I hope everybody agrees that the outline is far more manageable than before. I have a few questions, though.

The thing about Finns and speaking Finnish and all that. It just stands out as more of a random factoid than some sort of addition to the piece. It's not even transitioned into well. If somebody wants to tell me that it is well-written and poignant then I'll digress.

As for the Jewish thing, I'm sympathetic and think that perhaps a review of the racist attitudes Jews have contended with could be a welcome addition. That being said, this thing about Russia and not being allowed to migrate to Palestine and expulsion from the West Bank stinks of agenda.

The snippet seems to imply that the British reason for limiting Zionist immigration was simple racism. It also seems to imply that the Jews expelled from the West Bank were somehow victims of a racist government. They may be victims of the government and the government may be racist - but it came off to me like the Israeli government was harassing Jews for racist reasons - which needs some documentation.

I'm sure plans to re-insert the poorly written, non-transitioned, biased snippet are "...in the works" ...

I have reduced the number of times the word "racialism" appears in the article to 6 and fully intend to reduce that number, given community support. Would it be too controversial to add a section like "Arguments for Racism" where proponents of racism can have their own sandbox within the article to list the historical and contemporary arguments for racism - including scientific racism. The bottom line (in my opinion) is that the term "racialism" is mostly a white nationalist synonym for scientific racism. That's what becomes obvious when you Google "racialism."

Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, change the things I can't accept, and the wisdom to know the difference.

--Wikitopian 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning "racialism", the term obviously has several different meanings. In French (I don't know in which measure this French definition may influence or not the English term), renowned scholar Pierre-André Taguieff uses it to qualify the "racist theories" which emerged in the 19th century; i.e. "scientific racism" as exemplified by Arthur de Gobineau, George Vacher de Lapouge, etc. Taguieff makes the point that the word "racism" itself didn't enter the French language until the 1930s, and at that time qualified the Nazis' policy (the term "racism" was closely related to nazism itself, at the point of being a synonym). I reintroduced this etymology which someone abusively deleted. In English as well, the term "racism" is relatively recent — I also reintroduced this deleted part. Lapaz 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the abusive data pirate who committed this abomination. I will digress from removing your etymological analysis of the word "racialism" which boldly places itself right there in the introduction. It's not unanimously agreed that racialism needs to be breathed in this article aside from its synonimity with scientific racism. If the etymology of the term racialism does deserve an entire paragraph then it seems to break the flow of the article to make it the second paragraph.

I respect your point, Lapaz. I will leave it alone and see if the audience has a concensus on the issue.

--Wikitopian 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there "data pirate"! If there is any discussion on the sense of "racialism", I do agree with you that it would be better not to talk about it, at least in the intro. However, mind you but part of the etymology inserted does not concerns racialism but "racism" itself — the part which says that it enters the English and French language in the 1930s, mainly in reference with Nazi Germany. This should doubtlessly be kept (etymology is, after all, important enough), although not necessarily in the intro — but it is interesting to state it in the intro insofar as the intro discusses what "racism" can mean. How are we supposed to give an answer to such a complex matter without starting by the basis: etymology and apparition of the word, if not of the thing? Lapaz 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually moved the "racialism" content from the intro to specific subsection (I wasn't aware of this discussion about the inclusion of not of racialism; IMO, it should be included as this "racism" page is necessarily the hub for all racism-related matters, and "racialism" should be linked from here...). Lapaz 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to have a dialogue with you, Lapaz.

I did some researching and I think you'll agree with me that this article is going to be one of the most difficult articles in the history of "wiki" to protect from POV problems. Since I am just a mere mortal I think the best way that I can serve this article is to help enforce Wikipedia's style guide - in a constructive manner.

If we can stick behind this new outline and encourage people to keep the different sections proportional in size and within the 32k style limit then some of the sentences may, just may, sit there long enough to get sourced, spell-checked, and stylistically improved. We may even manage to get ourselves a readable article. Article Size --Wikitopian 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too exclusively Foucauldian

Honestly, I like Foucault enough to probably be called a Foucauldian most of the time. But he's not really the authoritative voice on the history of racism itself, and discourse analysis is hardly the most popular way for looking at the origins of racism. There are lots and lots and lots of authors who have written on the history of racism, and I think we should aim for an account less associated with a single author. (I am aware of the many ironies which could be observed here in terms of my trying to kill the author here.) The Stoler piece given in the references gives a good account of a number of different accounts of the origins of racism, whether it is a modern phenomena, etc. (Further irony: Stoler is explicitly Foucauldian in the piece.) I'm happy to forward a copy to anyone interested, but I'm going to (eventually) try and rewrite the "history of" section to take more into account the fact that there are quite a few different views on the subject. --Fastfission 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, very well. But How about someone answering my question about the pictures of anti-racists in the Racism in India part? And please someone tell me if that part is POV, as you say the others in the racism by country page are. I asked that question so long ago. Unsigned comment by User:Sshankar

Well, Foucault's analysis is interesting, to say the least. I'm sure you can find many others authors, so why not include them? Lapaz 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Size

Racism fires up a lot of emotion, and a lot of folks get indignant if they think others are "sweeping history under the rug" by prioritizing what must stay and what must go. I have a proposal that I want to see if I have any support with. It's a proposal for a guideline for the article, not something to stop people from improving the article but rather some much-needed structure to assure the article's gradual improvement.

The Wikipedia style guide states that the preferred size of an article is no larger than 32kb. I think given the relentless pressure on this article to expand in every direction, taking this rule seriously can do the article a lot of good. Here's how my numbers break down:

Current number of characters in article: 41708

Section	Current	Proposed
History of Racism	16,602	11,000
Types of Racism	9,111	11,000
Everything Else	15,995	11,000
Total(Characters)	41,708	33,000

How about the cause of racism???

A lot of people will think this is a bit obsessive but this is a really prominent and important article and it had truly gotten out of control. Any thoughts? --Wikitopian 13:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Correctism

I acted on a hunch and Google, wikipedia, and everybody else agreed that "reverse racism" is _not_ defined as minority discriminating against majority and the example (South Africa) that was used is a great example of a nation in which reverse racism defies the population dominance pattern. I'll source this when I get the chance.

Many believe 'reverse racism' to be a misnomer. However, by trying to define it as a 'minority' group discriminating against a majority, that seems to be an attempt to broaden the base of the idea to make it seem, in it's self, not racist or specific to one group. See the following (from http://colours.mahost.org/faq/definitions.html ):

REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites.

[edit] "The Catholic belief in the 'Deicide People'"

I've removed this phrase, at least temporarily, as it seems imprecise as currently formulated. Issues:

• Is this belief specific to Roman Catholics? Is there any reason to single out Catholics rather than Christians in general?
• At what period was this doctrine? Has it ceased to be doctrine? (obviously, yes; but the current language is unclear)
• Was "Deicide People" ever a established appellation in Roman Catholic or Christian usage?

Obviously not all these issues can be addressed in a passing reference, but they are relevant to the exact phrasing. If indeed, it's worth keeping - there were certainly many instances of European, Christian anti-Semitism outside the deicide charges.--Chris 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree --Wikitopian 14:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

--Wikitopian 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia requires citation for everything, and rightly so, but to doubt that the Catholic Church had an official policy which considered the Jewish people as a "deicide people" is a sure sign of lack of minimal knowledge concerning this topic! Hum... Jesus was crucified, you're aware of that, ain't you? And, well, Catholic people believe Jesus was the son of God, and God himself, ain't I'm right? So, now maybe you understant why the Jewish were called a "deicide people" until VAtican 2 (1962-65) when the policy and official terminology changed by the POpe? I don't think we need a citation tag for that!!! (or, would you need one to prove that Jesus was crucified according to the Bible?) Lapaz 14:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it always negative?

I've heard different definitions of the word and some of them give me the impression that being racist isn't necessarily bad. Some of them are more strict than others, and the ones that loosely define racism classify a lot of people as racist, and not just the "whoops you're racist" racists. For example, one might say that racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability. I would not argue if someone called me racist under that definition, and I don't believe that is necessarily bad. I think race plays a much smaller role in deciding a person's traits than gender or the economic conditions into which they were born, but it still has a role. It's not wrong to make presumptions based on certain things, and while less things should be presumed on race than on gender and whatnot, it's not wrong to assume a few things. Think how long it would take to get to know someone if nothing was presumed. A black person in my part of the world is more likely to enjoy hip-hop than to not like hip-hop, so if I were getting acquainted with a black person, me assuming they like hip-hop before knowing for certain would not offend them, even though by the definition used earlier, it would make me racist because I noticed a difference in character based on someone's race. I don't think that makes me a bad person, and I don't believe segregation or oppression is a good thing. I've been accused of being racist by people before, and because the person calling me racist doesn't have enough of an attention span to enter into a conversation about what racism really is, I simply reply, "I'm racial; not racist," even though that is stupid to say. Is that correct? Am I racial or racist, or neither? If I'm "racial" should that actually be a term people use? There's a huge difference between saying "black people's lips are generally larger than whites" and "black people are all evil". If I am racist, is that inherently bad? 24.154.173.50 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "colour" with "race". Although there are quite a lot of human beings who are black, our colour depends on the amount of melanin that we have. If you were to consider not this superficial colour question, but genetic differences, well, actually you may sometimes find more similarities between two seemingly far-related persons than between two similar looking persons. There is no "black race", as there is no "white race", and you can't jump from "colour" to "race". You're surely aware that since these DNA tests have become popular in the States, some (black) people are seeing that half of their family was white, or vice-versa: you may have half of your family black (or white), and yourself be from another colour... Now, you should distinguish "biological racism" and "cultural racism". If you consider first that "blacks constitute a race" (which is wrong as I've just explained), than you can say "all black people like hip hop better than white people": this is "biological racism": you say hip hop music is linked to "black genes" (although there is no black genes!!! genes don't have colour, and one may actually share more genese with a person with another colour than with another like-coloured guy!), dispelling any influence of CULTURE on it. But, you didn't say that, you said "most black people in my part of the world like hip hop": assuming you're speaking of the USA, you're here speaking not of a "racial" difference but of a "cultural" difference: you're not saying that Black people in Africa or that black people five centuries ago "liked hip hop". So concerning this specific example, you are not noting a difference based on "race", as what you thought, but rather a difference based on culture & social class.

Let's take another example: imagine I live in a racist country which practice racial discrimination between people with brown eyes & people with blue eyes (maybe someone said that blue-eyed people are Aryan and other African, whatever you wish!). So, people with brown eyes will be considered inferior (in much the same way that the aristocracy in the Middle Ages hardly thought of peasants as anything else than barbarians who couldn't read nor write, whereas they spoke Latin...) and therefore be forced in a lower social class position. In times of economic stress, the blue-eyed people will keep the food & money for them, and the brown-eyed people will have to survive with what they have. Because of this difficulty to survive, many will start relying on begging or stealing to find food. Some blue-eyed people, feeling guilty or just generous, will give them some money or food; others will say : "f... brown-eyed people, all thieves!". They have just transformed a social difference into a racial difference. What's the distinction between both? One is permanent while the other is an effect of society and politics. Take another example: let's say you're an American and you travel to South America, Bolivia or somewhere. Everybody says "hey! you're a gringo", and then poor village-people might say: "hey! gringo! that means he might beat me up; or, now, most probably that's he's a wealthy tourist, I can borrow him a dollar or two that won't mean much for him although it'll be a month-work for me..." Then he will say "all gringos are arrogant, they feel superior, they never want to learn foreign languages, expect everybody to understand them, etc." Suppose you're a poor gringo traveling without a dime, and that you learnt how to speak Spanish. But before you get a chance to present yourself, as an individual, the others say: "ah! a gringo!" and identify you with this stereotype. You have no chance to speak for yourself: this is racism. Lapaz 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The term "racism" is pejorative and implies ill intent. Nowhere outside of perhaps a klan rally can you claim that you're a racist in mixed company and have anybody assume that you are a scientific racialist who merely accepts and respects genetic variations in human sub-groups. Even in a klan rally they'll assume that.

This article should provide links to articles which deal with scientific racism, "race and multi-locus allele clusters", "race and intelligence" but should not waver from defining and describing racism as the term is understood by the overwhelming majority of the academic community and lay people alike. --Wikitopian 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Racism is a form of social discrimination. To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit, and is inherently unfair to each individual person.--Wiley 15:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All racism is social discrimination but not all social discrimination is racism. The two terms aren't interchangeable, the definitions aren't interchangeable, and your conclusions regarding the fairness of discriminating based on class or category affiliation is POV.

This is why I wanted to stick to a very formal definition of racism which is derived from an authoritative source (like the UN) rather than trust the community to arrive at one. And you mean to tell me that discriminating for/against somebody because of group or class affiliation is unfair by definition? I will "prejudge" a member of the KKK as being narrow-minded and bigoted. I will "prejudge" women to be less tall, less muscular, and more likely to be a stay-at-home parent.--Wikitopian 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Civil rights include, but are not limited to ... the right to be free from discrimination ..."[37].

Okay. So even if discrimination has changed over the last century to mean only negative discrimination - that is also how the term "racism" has evolved. Even when I'm wrong about something it just makes me that much more right about something else :)--Wikitopian 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing Larry King get really nasty with a caller who maintained that for a member of a minority group to hate a member of a majority group on the basis of genetic/cultural/language (or whatever his exact criteria were) was also racism. King claimed that it is only "racism" when the person holding the negative attitude is a member of a group that has the power to come down on the other group.

I think I recall reading approximately the same opinion expressed here. It's interesting what happens when one person or a group of people think they have the power to tell other people what the right thing to believe is -- even if it's about who is a racist and who is merely a person with hateful attitudes.

What happens to me when I react incorrectly to somebody else because of an irrational factor? What happens to the other person? There is a real story about a white family living in a frontier situation somewhere, Australia if I remember correctly. Some adult needed emergency medical help, and the nearest adults who could help were members of the wrong race. So the adult told the kids to go to the much more distant white people for help. Help came, but it was too late. If I think somebody is a potential enemy when s/he is a potential friend I cut myself off from help. If I think somebody is on the up and up because s/he shares my race, but a more objective look would warn me that s/he is rather shady, then I hurt myself.

What happens to the other person when I react incorrectly? It's pretty obviously bad if I hurt somebody because s/he is a member of the "wrong" group. But if I have responsibility for guiding the behavior of a person (e.g., as a teacher) and I fail to correct what somebody is doing wrong because s/he is a member of a favored group, then I'm actually letting that person down. Suppose, for instance, that I'm teaching some combat skill to some person who is going into battle and I keep telling them they're doing well when in fact they are doing all the stupid things. They feel good, go out on the street, and get killed. P0M 06:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racialism and intro

I recently moved a short paragraph on DuBois' definitions of racialism and racism because his definitions are probably widely (though not universally) held and the distinction he makes, whether applicable to the words he seeks to define or not, is the one the previous paragraph is trying to make. Furthermore, adding that comment to the scientific racism section seems out of place because DuBois specifically denies that racialism as he defines it is racism and therefore it has little bearing on other definitions of racialism, ie scientific racism. Also, by placing so high up in the article, the pertinent link to racialism—and its myriad definitions—is provided early on. Srnec 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See "I Did It" section above for reason why I put the text on DuBois invisible. Lapaz 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but did you read what I wrote above? I think that DuBois makes a distinction that is very important to differentiating between racism and making racial distinctions. A while back, this article defined racism in the opening line as "various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes." Clearly this is not the commonest definition (if it is used at all). I can separate people into groups based on hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, skin colour, shoe size, and many other things. Such groupings may be meaningless, but they are possible. I tried to fix the intro a while ago and I originally added the DuBois quote because his distinction between simply recognising differences, even more severe and meaningful differences, is not what most people call racism, because racism is an axiological (usually pejorative and relatively nondescript) term. I linked to racialism to provide an understanding on the ways the word is used contra DuBois's usage, but DuBois's distinction (not his terminology) was the key. I understand that DuBois does not have some innate importance such that his comments deserve to be in the intro, but because they were clarifying to the points made in the first paragraph, I thought they were pertinent. Can they be readded? Srnec 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong categorisation

Racism is stored in Category:Racism. Category:Racism is a subcategory of Category:Prejudices. But, Racism not a Prejudice! The word "Prejudice" appears only once in the text, in the item Related_concepts. --Injinera 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• One of the definitions of racism in many (perhaps most) English dictionaries is "prejudice based on race". --Wiley 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about the article on Racism with its current content, not about Racism itself.--Injinera 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad definition

The first sentence of this article is bad enough to turn me off already: "Racism refers to various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine or influence cultural or individual achievement or the essential value of human beings. "

Racism is not about separating people, it is a lot more than that. That opening totally undermines the concept of racism.

Please sign your postings. You can do so by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~

I agree that racism is about more than separating people. We separate people into blonds and brunettes, but nobody gets killed on that account. Are you perhaps saying that the first sentence should reflect the existence of the institution of racism and describe the damage it does? P0M 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination on the basis of race exists regardless of whether or not an institution is associated with it. -- Wiley 10:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the existence of discrimination does not imply the existence of an institution based on it. If one person decides I am the spawn of the devil because I have a cast in one eye and so he puts that eye out with a pool cue, that is already bad enough.

Technically, "to discriminate" means simply to take cognizance of a difference in characteristics. A good doctor should discriminate between patients who are allergic to horse serum and those who are not. If a doctor should fail to notice the difference then some patients being treated for or innoculated against certain diseases might well die.

So what does "discrimination" really mean in the context of this article? It is the affective contamination of any characteristic in the mind of the beholder. A doctor would not act appropriately to hate or to love those people allergic to horse serum. If the doctor did, then he would be a poor doctor indeed. Characteristics are contaminated with affect for many reasons, but the prototypical case is probably when some powerful event occurs in the presence of the distinguishing characteric. In the case of positive affect, the result may be a paraphilia. John Money describes the case of someone whose sexual history was marked by a very intense experience, the "defining" characteristic (from the standpoint of the patient) was the presence of insects crawling over his body. After that defining event the young man could only achieve a satisfactory orgasm when insects were induced to crawl over his body. In the negative cases, something terrible happens to somebody at the hands of a person wearing a red baseball cap (for instance) and ever after the sight of a red baseball cap creates extreme apprehension, visions of violent retribution, etc.

If an affectively contaminated discrimination is taught to a group of people, then the individual sharing that characteristic is not up against a single nut but a subculture of nuts, or maybe even a culture of nuts.P0M 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category instead of individual merit. Distinctions between people which are based on individual merit (such as personal achievement, skill or ability) are not socially discriminatory. -- Wiley 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That meaning of "discrimination" is an extended sense of the basic sense of the word, to distinguish. Humans distinguish others on the basis of "class or category" as you put it. There is nothing wrong or even dysfunctional with, e.g., putting all humans with red hair in one group. If you are allocating resources for skin cancer screening, it would perhaps be worth it to budget more money per red head than for brunettes. Doing things that way might save more lives than spending the same amount of money per individual regardless of hair color. For instance, it might pay to tuck in a skin cancer screening advertisement with hair care products and cosmetics intended for red heads. It is the cases where people have strong emotional reactions attached to red heads that may be problematical. If some guy automatically raises a girl from an 8 to a 9 just because she has red hair, that doesn't necessarily do any harm to either one of them. But if somebody hates all people with red hair then that irrational hatred can motivate harmful actions directed against Carrot Top and his ilk, and it can also prevent the person who hates redheads from finding his soul mate or his perfect business partner.

It doesn't work very well to tell people that their extra appreciation of or their hatred for redheads is irrational and hurtful. That is because people typically have evolved strong defenses to protect these instances of affective contamination. Just try to tell a dedicated racist that s/he is irrational and hurtful.

In order to be able to ameliorate racism we must understand its etiology and then dig out the root rather than periodically lopping off the branches. P0M 06:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Civil rights include, but are not limited to ... the right to be free from discrimination ..."[38]. --Wiley 07:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to get the definition improved for so long... This is a much better intro now. Srnec 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asians

Asians are like the main target for racism, many Asian Students that go to another country and educate there get discriminated. What is wrong with being an Asian. I'm and Asian student myself and everyday I'm teased bullied, name calling and more , it gets worst and worst. Sometimes I even feel ashamed of being and Asian...

That's interesting, because I've noticed in Asia that the people usually look down on "foreigners", be them black, brown or white. I guess what goes around, comes around?

I don't know what's wrong with being Asian, I hope you have a better time at your school. --r0m

Seriously... Chinese, Vietnamese and Some others are targets. jackietang33 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want, you can get in touch with me via my userpage and then e-mail. Whether one is in a primary school, a secondary school (middle school, junior high, high school), university level, or graduate level, your educational institution has a responsibility to discipline people who make racist attacks. At my university we occasionally have outbreaks of negative behavior and the administration takes violations seriously. (The same applies for abuse directed toward other groups, too.)

There is not anything wrong with Asians. There is something wrong with a portion of the American public that feels (perhaps at an unconscious level) so bad about themselves that they have to knock other people down and stand on them in order to make themselves six inches taller. They are pathetic, but they can also be dangerous at times. Organize with other Asians, document (video recordings would be excellent if you can do them without putting the racists on their guard), and complain as a group to the authorities. P0M 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] commercial[s]

I have a vague impression that several Budweiser-Light commercials released this month, or this week, seem racist,... In addition to whatever about this industry.

Does anyone know of any articles thereof?

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article focuses pretty my only on White-on-(your race goes here) racism. It COMPLETELY ignores racism practised by other nationalities. There is extreme racism that exists Yellow countries such as China, Korea, Japan, etc. North Africans completely look down on Black Africans, etc. This article should be here to describe racism and some key points in history. Not label Whites as racist in a hundred different stories.

Could you restate you point? What exactly is bias?

Bias means something is measured unevenly. I shouldn't have to give you English lessons.

My friend, the term -Yellow countries- is considered to be racist.

• Ry0d0x 11:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have been brainwashed to think so. If one says White and Black, then it makes sense to also say Yellow, if you actually want to be fair and consistent.

In the Chinese language, the terms "Yellow coloured people" (Huang Se Ren); "White coloured people" (Bai Se Ren); and "Black People" (Hai Ren) are standard, and only perjorative if the predjudice of the speaker or listener is against that race anyway.

However, it is believed by some that the absense of "Se" (= coloured) in "Hai Ren" is perjorative against black people, and "Hai Se Ren" may be used as an attempt to redress this. ~~ADM 19th Oct 2006

This article is way too Eurocentric. It has only a brief mention of racism not involving whites, this needs to be expanded. So I agree that this article is biased. People with a knowledge of Asian, African, etc history should add sections. --rom

That is interesting because as a 'white' person I was surprized when I heard Chinese people reffer to themselves as being 'Yellow' and didn't understand me when I said that where I come from we don't use that term, I guess if they use it in their own language it makes sense to transfer it into English to them. I myself don't use the terms white black or yellow even when reffering to myself, maybe I am alone in this. Anyway I agree that there needs to be a section on racism in asia/china/whatever, we should as always try and document all aspects of the issue. This is a difficult subject and we should try and remain even and try not make comments which could be considered racist themselves (including on talk pages imo). It would be good if someone who has some knowlage in this area could write something. Also I think that we should refrain from attacking people and their opinions on talk pages, especially what people consider to be racist regardless of what brainwashing you may think has happened. I personally would consider 'yellow countires' to be racist, just as I would consider 'white countries' and 'black countries' to be, that's my personal opinion and I think we can all understand what a subjective topic racism is if we have experienced it or not. Also I would encourage everyone to sign their comments. In short, be polite. Ta. -- SnakeSeries 11:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am starting to agree with you SnakeSeries after what you just said made me realise that We(chinese People) can be racist ... But we chinese people do not always use the phrase Hai Ren, we mostly refer them as the nationalities, not their colour.jackietang33 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BZÖ

I removed this entry from the list of racist organisations:

"Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) - leader of the party, Jorg Haider made a lot of Anti-Slovenian statements and is very similar to Adolf Hitler."

Out of various reasons.

Firstly, the FPÖ is more actively racist in the present day than the BZÖ. If you'll list the BZÖ, you'd need to list ALL similarily far-right parties. FPÖ, BNP, NPD, DVU, et cetera, just for concistency.

Secondly .. as much as I dislike Haider, and as racist as some of his statements have been, saying that he is "very similar" to Adolf Hitler just doesn't make sense.

ChiLlBeserker 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crypto-racism

A claim recently made (in an editing comment for this article) that a Google search for "crypto-racism" returns over half a million "google results". FYI: a Google search of web pages with the argument "crypto-racism" returned only about 1,240 hits. BTW, a search of web pages for "racism is a" returns about 304,000 results, while a search for "crypto-racism is a" claims about 71 hits (although only 1 is displayed). Regardless of popularity, an editor needs to show reliable published source(s) for content that they add. --Wiley 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User: Anonymous Wikipedian and I (User:Arbor) are having an edit war over his new section on crypto-racism. Here is the current format:

Crypto-Racism

Hidden racial bias is often termed "crypto-racism". It is used to describe both open racism in which code words and phrases are used in place of blatant epithets, and individual racism in which self-denial of ones own racist attitudes is a major element. Crypto-racism is most prevalent in nations in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict, but open racism is not socially acceptable. It is often passive aggressive in character.

The hallmark of crypto-racism is strong self-denial of the term by those accused of it. Still, some behaviors are widely acknowledged in popular culture as being crypto-racist, including, 1] intense focus on non-association (for example, "white-flight" in housing developments, racially exclusive golf associations, silent discrimination in hiring), 2] the use of tokens (lone members of the minority in an attempt to disprove racial bias), 3] stated views that racism does not exist and/or accusations of oversensitivity to "jokes", and the phrase: "I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are <racial designation>".

While instances of real crypto-racism are difficult to cite, parodies of crypto-racist attitudes do exist. One of the recurring elements on the Colbert Report is Stephen Colbert talking about his "new black friend" and claiming to be "color blind". blackpeopleloveus.com is a website with similar humor. [39]

My problems with this section are numerous. The last paragraph is simply non-notable and cannot be defended on any means. The middle paragraph aims to identify behaviour that is termed crypto-racist. The problem is to make this verifiable. I can see no way to do that. The term is an ill-defined neologism or insult which seems to have the same semantics as racist but for the lack of self-admission. Since I know very few instances where racist behaviour is self-identified as such, the meanings of racist and crypto-racist seem to coincide in almost all cases. I might be wrong, but WP is not the place to arbitrate such debates over word usage. So, the second paragraph needs verification. It also needs to be precise about who uses the term crypto-racist in that way. Finally, the first paragraph begins with a word definition. First two sentences are fine by me, but don't need their own section. We could simply state somewhere else that "many attitudes, while not overtly racist, are sometimes labeled crypto-racist because they display blabla". The third and fourth sentence of para 1 are unsalvageable. ("most prevalent in natioos in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict"—I'd like to see a reference for that. Also, I fear there is no way to verify the claim that crypto-racism, ill defined in the first place, is often passive agressive.)

In short, there are two sentences here that are worth of inclusion. That does not a section make. The rest is some combination of essay, opinion, wild guesses, and soapboxing that violates WP:V and/or WP:NOR. This article needs the opposite: a cool, detached, helful, edifying description of racism. Preferably the best on the planet. Which is why I just removed AW's section. I won't do it thrice, so it's time for other editors to chip in. At least give us give us a one-liner (remove, festoon with references, 'expand, encrypt or whatever). Arbor 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a Template:Unreferencedsect tag to the new section, with a comment quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. --Wiley 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

First, Arbor - deleting my section out of the talk page so that only your point of view remains, is not in keeping with the wiki guidelines.

I will be providing references as time allows. I don't have time to babysit this all day long. I have a job.

Your google searching skills leave much to be desired. A doublequote will get you only terms exactly as specified. Equivalents, such as "crypto-racist" are left off, as are constructs like this: "Coded (or plausibly-deniable) appeals to crypto- (and not-so-crypto-) racists have been part of southern GOP politics for decades. As Bill Clinton noted, despite the current right-wing outrage over Lott, “he just embarrassed (the GOP) by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day.”"

[40]

The fact that crypto-racism (as opposed to open racism) is the most prevalent form of modern racism is all the more reason to give this term its own section. Surely you recognize that Apartheid was a different character, don't you? Or do you need a citation for that as well?Unsigned comment by User:Anonymous Wikipedian

Anonymous Wikipedian, in the future please sign your comments in discussion pages by appending four tilde characters. --Wiley 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

AW, (1) I have no idea what you mean by me deleting your section out of the talk page. Please provide a diff (or just re-insert whatever you mean I removed). (2) If you don't want to babysit it, then don't enter it in the first place. See Wiley's quote above. No source -> information can be removed. (3) I did no google searching. (4) This is not a word usage guide, nor the place for original research, no matter how well-intended. If there is an established body of literature that makes a meaningful distinction between racism and crypto-racism then please tell us. Otherwise the section dies by WP:NOR and WP:V, even if all the editors here agreed that crypto-racism was the hottest thing since sliced bread. Arbor 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In conformance with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, I've removed the unsourced material (which could be added back as time allows in later edits if published reliable sources are cited).

- - I withdraw the accusation, Arbor. I created a Crypto-Racism entry on this talk page, wrote several paragraphs describing my position, saved - and just assumed wikipedia was heathy enough to absorb what I wrote. The servers seem to be dying a lot more often than they used to, there's not a day that goes by that I don't get the wiki-unavailable page, so I doubt it has anything to do with my end.

Insofar as the crypto-racism entry is concerned, this is not original research by any reasonable definition of the term. Or, if you wish to apply an inane and pedandic standard to this page, the entire page is "original research" because it contains dozens of assertions that are not strictly sourced, even when the statement appears obvious.

I really don't have time to work on this page now, but come the weekend, I will regularize this page to eliminate all unsourced material.

Anonymous Wikipedian 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec bashing

A "Quebec bashing" section was added without references and with weasel wording (example; "It has been argued that ...") --Wiley 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing that section altogether. Maybe the case has been made somewhere that Quebec bashing is considered racism, but this section doesn't describe this. This whole article has spiraled out of control, but even still, the Quebec section seemed bizarre and out of the blue. It was just an assertion, no context, only one or two sentences. Personally, I have know opinion on the subject either way, so if someone wants to add a section like that, by all means, stick it back in, but put a little effort into this time.Bobanny 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A paragraph in "Racism as official government policy" has been added. this paragraph, as with the "Quebec Bashing" one above is without references at all and with weasel wording. This seems like an attempt to bring the Quebec/Canada bickering (which can be seen elsewhere on wikipedia) to this page. I have removed this paragraph altogether. Should someone wish to re-instate it, please cite references. Furthermore, study of this issue will probably result in a non-involved person (unlike me) to conclude to a long standing, hard to solve dispute and not present day governmental racism on either side. In which case it probably doesn't belong in a page about racism. --Pixx 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Vanguard... as source?

Racism#Allegedly racist groups: "Al-Queda, Islamist militant group vowed to destroy Westerners, Jews, and Christians.[41]" ...the source is from National Vanguard.

But...

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites: "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia [...]"

And the reference isn't even pertinent to the subject. --Liberlogos 18:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the above mentioned link- most links under the heading "Allegedly Racist Groups" seem to be dubious and non reliable links. I will look into making it more 'encyclopedia-like' later but would appreciate some help. --khello 08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegedly racist groups section

Is it really appropriate to have radical fundamentalist muslim groups in this section, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc? Much of the muslim world is anti-jewish/anti-israel, but are they against jews as a race, or as a religion? I would think that they would accept the conversion of jewish people to islam, who would then be acceptable to these groups... but that's just my impression. Do we have any sources on this? --Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate question is whether there are actual allegations of racism being lodged against them, not whether the allegations are true. There may be other allegations that maintain them to be involved with religious intolerance. If there is an article on "religionism," then that information could be discussed there. P0M 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasian not technically accurate term for white people

I deleted the use of Caucasian as a term for white people because it is inaccurate, out of date, and was almost only used in the United States. Wikipedia is supposed to use accurate and universal terms. The proper meaning of Caucasian is people from the Caucasus or people who speak the Languages of the Caucasus. Also, if you click on Caucasian, it goes to a disambiguation page, not an article. Spylab 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So what is the correct name for White people, surely it cant be a layman term like "white people", in USA they say African American, ahh how about European-People-Halaqah 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Skylab. I think the word we use has to depend on popular and scholarly usage. In some cases, White people is exactly what people say so we should use that term too - as long as the precise context is clear. Indeed, it all depends on contexts. English scholarship on Brazil, for example, typically distinguishes between African-Brazilians, Indigenous Brazilians, and Luso-Brazilians, although even the scholarly literature there also uses the word "white." Let's follow our sources, and just provide the proper references. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The term Caucasian is not out of date, and is also used by forensic anthropologists. You are correct that it is not a technically correct term for white people because it is also used to refer to middle easterners, Indians etc who have a similar skull shape. These people (at least middle easterners) are classified by the US government as white. In popular usage Caucasian refers to people of European descent.

I believe that the term Caucasian is not out of date, it just doesn't technically refer to whites. Whites in America should not be known as whites, but as European Americans, like African Americans. Blacks get their special name, so should whites.

Race is a word that purports to refer to a category that lacks a proper definition, and names of specific supposed races are words that likewise lack proper definitions. Racism is a real activity and involves behaviors that depend on various names and definitions of supposed races. So what is significant is what particular racists term the people they are for and against. "Whites," "pinks," "Caucasians," "Aryans," etc, etc. are all words that get used for the purpose of manipulating others or fooling oneself. It would be a waste of time to try to find the correct name for a set that has not been formed, and it would also be a waste of time to find and use single words that have as their multiple referents a large number of overlapping sets.

[edit] Racist quotes section

'The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown.' - H.L. Mencken

This is an amzaing contribution, i mean if that isnt racism then i dont know. But they will say "he was a man of his time" so it was not racist just natural.--Halaqah 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, I think when people use the "he was a man of his time" line, they do not mean "therefore he was not racist," because they mean that at that "time" so-called good people were often racists; their point is that despite his being racist we should value those things he did or said that continue to be of worth by present-day standards. Let me give you an example closer to home: Wagner was an anti-Semite, but many Jewish music-lovers understand that he was a creature of his times. If we stopped listening to all music made by anti-Semities, we would stop listening to a great deal of mustic from the 19th century. In other words, I think the goal is not to excuse anti-Semites, but to excuse Jews who want to enjoy music written by an anti-Semite even as they reject his anti-Semtiic statements. I am sure there is much music and literature by whites that Blacks today enjoy and appreciate, despite the fact that for a very long time in American history even seemingly progressive Whites were held beliefs about Blacks most people would today find abhorent. The question is, do we through the baby out with the bathwater? I have a feeling Lincoln said some things about Blacks that would upset most of us today, but I don't fault anyone Black, White, or any other American, who appreciates his role in ending slavery in the US. I bet many GIs who fought in WWII were anti-Semitic, being "men of their times." But if they killed Nazis, man, that is just fine with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what the point is of the Racist quotes section. Is this necessary for the broader understanding of the topic of racism? It seems kind of random. Spylab 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do not see the usefulness of so many detached squibs without any attempt at analysis. Four Score And Seven Years Ago 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it's not good. Some of them are not even racist — Darwin's from Descent of Man is actually meant to be something sad, not something desired, and is not a reference to genocide but reflects the concerns of ethnologists of his day that believed that indigenous peoples were rapidly becoming an "endangered species" after their encounters with "civilized people". --Fastfission 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] innocent content fork, or back-door POV fork?

You judge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_african_type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_type Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-ordered topics

I started re-ordering the topics so they will be better organized. I tried to put similar topics together in appropriate sub-sections. I put the Racist Quotes section near the end, because that's more of a trivia section than a main topic. I deleted a paragraph on Affirmative Action because it duplicated a paragraph that's already in the Reverse Racism section. There are probably more cases of repetitive content, or topics that should be merged together under one heading. Spylab 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So why cant i find racist quotes, i think you put it so far at the end it fell right off the page/.--Halaqah 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph

I removed the following paragraph from the Racism in Mexico, Central America and South America section. It was oddly written and questionable and unsourced: "With respect to racism, the "Mestizos" term by adoption gives Spaniards and Portuguese decedents in Latin America a claim to racial purity that in fact does not exist. A Spaniard or Portuguese is actually a Mediterranean amalgamation, created by rape, plunder, and conquest, consisting of Celtic, Greek, Roman, German, Arab, (Moors and Berbers) Black Africans, Jewish, and Gypsy bloodlines. Were a "Mestizo" in Mexico can trace his ancestry neatly and relatively purely to the Aztecs and a Siberian land bridge; a Spaniard is a truly complete Mestizo mystery". --Xyzzyplugh 13:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Falun Gong homophobic

Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic. The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.

According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.” [42] Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.” [43] Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” [44]

It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here. Thanks--Samuel Luo oli 12 November 2006 (UTC) the end