Talk:Racism/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 18 |

Archive 19

| Archive 20 →

Remove Antiquity Section

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

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

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

In History NPOV tag

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

Grammar Tag

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

In the Age of Enlightenment

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

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

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

Afrophobia

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

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

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

Please add to See also

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

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

Reason for the tags unclear

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

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

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

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

20th century section - Imperial Japan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See: Japanese occupation of Thailand. The satellite thing is a minute sub-point in my argument anyway.

"Do not delete content without consensus" is not Wikipedia policy. Halaqh doesn't seem to have said anything about that. You have given no reason for your edits on this page. If you feel I am wrong and do not wish to discuss it here, continue restoring your edits. But you have not addressed my concerns at all. This article is not about Japan's views on racial equality. It is not about racial equality. After all that I have said, why are you still discussing the Thai diplomat?--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

? Racial equality proposal was supported not only Japanese but French, Italy, China, Brazil..... Are you live in 1919? Even in 1919, the racial equality proposal was reported in US and other countries. Why do you censor the fact. I edited only historical event. There was no my view. And you also deleted Civil Rights Movement. Why do you want to specify only Holocaust and censor other events?--Bukubku (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the civil rights citation you added by mistake. If you hadn't noticed, I restored that edit. Really, the civil rights movement itself is a bit off-topic. It was not racist, it was counter-segregationist, segregation being racist, but that's a two step dislocation from this article. This article would be better suited to discussing the segregation policies that led to the civil rights movement. The Holocaust directly involved racism, as did Rwanda.

Yes, I notice that the 1919 consensus was supported by countries other than the Japan. However, it was not passed. It has no bearing or relevance in the article. It is slightly off topic, and has little historical value; other than further demonstrating Woodrow Wilson's lack of a moral compass.

However, could you please use your knowledge of Japan in this era to create the page 1919 in Japan? (You can use articles like 1919 in Ireland as a basis) --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Replace pan-Farism by pan-Iranism

The Pan-Iranism is the correct describtion for Pan-Farism und should replace the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.136.80 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Related AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicano vendido. Jaque Hammer (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What about "softer" racism?

I found it odd that no mention was made to several facts that point to a "softer" racism in the US in the 20th century: 1) When the Pentagon was built in Virginia, the decision was 'locally' made to double the number of restrooms so that blacks and whites had different facilities. The President at the time reportedly was furious and the separate restrooms were never used. Fact remains they were built though. 2) During the World War, American Soldiers were reportedly outraged that in England blacks and whites were allowed entry into the same pub (instead of being forced to go to separate pubs). There is also mention here of an informational film used by the US military to prepare their soldiers for the experience. The film shows an old grandmother figure encountering a black and a white soldier in the street at the same time and inviting both for tea at her home. The film then concludes stating that the soldiers must prepare for they would likely face this sort of situation in the UK. Now, this isn't exactly racism (by the letter). It's more racial separation (if that is the correct term). However, I find it odd that in a text on racism, no mention is made to such forms of racism (and make no mistake, while it's not truly racism (compared to the other examples), it still deserves a place on this page in my opinion).--80.200.161.202 (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

These specific examples, unless specifically discussed by reliable sources as significant examples of racism, do not belong here. Yes, they are manifestations of racism. However, they are two of millions of such examples. Why comment on these two? More to the point, if we did have reliable sources discussing them in this context, they more likely belong in Racial segregation in the United States, if anywhere. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For me key component here is the "2,000,000" examples. You are (opinion) being conservative in that number and yes, let's not let either of these articles just become a list of racism in action. Or, let's start a List of racism in action and put them there. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I said 2 of millions, as in: these are two examples; there are millions of examples. More to the point, it's a figure of speech, not meant literally. In any case, a list article would not work for this. First, you've got an inherently unencyclopedic topic. Think of all the news stories that pop up where some commentators identify the story as involving racism and others do not. Next, you have the vague, hard to define instances. With the separate bathrooms at the Pentagon: Is that an issue by itself, or does it go with other examples of segregated bathrooms? Should segregated bathrooms be combined with segregated water fountains? Do they get group together with segregated schools, bus seating, waiting rooms, dining facilities, armed forces units, blood transfusions, neighborhoods,... ? Remember, Wikipedia is not meant as a place to build lists of nearly boundless scope or of a random nature. If there are reliable sources for these two instances, take a look at Racial segregation in the United States and see if there is a place in that article for them. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I keep forgetting how serious folks are here. I agree with you on all your points and was not really suggesting that such a list be started or I would have started it myself. However even the what I imagine to be off-the-top-of-your-head objections tempt me to do it just to see what you would come up with if you really put your mind to it. Fortunately, we will never know. Carptrash (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph needs to be re-worked

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

If this constitutes racism, then a student of good, objective science may be forced into being racist. Different races have different genetics, and different genetics create different predispositions - which may or may not play a large role (be primary determinants) of the individual's traits and capacities (both physical and otherwise).

It really matters how "primary deterimnant" is interpreted and how "inherent superiority" is interpreted, but the way it reads now is very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqradel (talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Racism:-

Why can't we give reasons why we cant use words to defend africans? Why doo we have to make "special pages" just for a topic like "racism" 11:16 23.1.11 Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.36.41 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Definition/Opening line change.

Since we are all part of the Human race and there are many forms of racism, would it not be more logical to change the opening line of the definition to something like the following.

Racism; The practice or belief that the human race may be segregated or sub-categorized based on any determining factor. The belief that one human being is more or less human then another. For example, factors such as genetics, skin color, religious or cultural practices, among other differences have all been used to segregate or sub-categorize the human race and can all be considered a form of racism.

I could be wrong and it may have grammatical errors, but in my opinion this may be a more modern definition. And it shouldn't be too hard to find references for this definition in human history.

Rsn10100 (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if Wikpedia is a real encyclopedia, or whether it really is a "how to be politically correct" manual, hiding behind an encyclopedia facade.

For instance: The first paragraph in this article gives the following definition of "Racism":

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1]

That sounded rather weird to me (since when do genetic factors constitute "nationality?") I have long had the impression that the word "nationality" is a reference to the country-citizenship of any particular person, i.e., I am an "American," not because of anything in my genetic makeup, but because I was born in America and that automatically makes me an American National, because of the laws/Constitution of America. My racial genetics has absolutely NOTHING to do with my nationality! So, why is "nationality" included in the above "genetic factors" definition?

Being my usual naive self, I assumed I must be wrong, after all that definition was supported with a "RELIABLE SOURCE" citation, which happened to be the august Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which is a Britannica Encyclopedia Company (another one of those august "RELIABLE SOURCES" that Wikipedians seem to cherish so much...)

Not sure why I decided to click that RS link, but I did. And guess what I found? If you think that maybe that august RS link didn't support the definition found in the first paragraph in this Wiki Racism article, then you can "go to the head of the class."

Here are the two ACTUAL definitions of Merriam Webster, at the link given in the first paragraph:

"Definition of RACISM

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.

I wonder, could whomever posted that opening paragraph definition of what Racism is, have done so without good faith? Did he fail to actually read the definition given at the MW link? Or, did he read it, but decide to change the definition to suit himself (an act of political correctness), knowing that the link he supplied to meet the RS requirement, did not say that at all? Seems that either scenario would justify the suspicion of a bad faith edit, in that first paragraph.

So, why is the article locked, preventing the first Par definition from being changed to what the supporting link actually says? Yes, I know that articles like this often generate so much controversy that the vandalism activity tends to rise too high, so the lock may be necessary. But, then why aren't the approved Brahman Admin-Editors doing the editing corrections themselves? Is it because they like the absurd, politically correct definition in the first paragraph, which announces to the world that Wikipedia really amounts to little more than a manual for how to be politically correct, edited by a collection of pseudo-intellectual Huffington Post snobs? 66.81.36.73 (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you first register as a user. This gives the regular, often long-time editors at least the hope that you will be around for a while and are willing to he held at least marginally accountable for your edits. Then launch into the history of the article and see where and when the "nationality" (which also strikes me as odd) word was added. Then, if the editor involved is registered you can write him or her and inquire as to what he or she was thinking. I found this phrase of yours intriguing." decide to change the definition to suit himself (an act of political correctness)" It seems to suggest that only those dedicated to PCism define terms to suit themselves. I have not found this to be the case. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for such a quick response, and for your very legitimate attempt to remove some of the absurdity in that first paragraph, which unfortunately was quickly reverted back to the absurdity of "genetic factors which constitute...nationality," by editor Harlan wilkerson (talk | contribs). He cites the UN ICERD Convention, as his justification. More, politically correct absurdity! Because a world political body somehow wants to include "nationality" in its political definition of "racism," that is sufficient to refute the science of genetics which clearly indicates that one's nationality has nothing to do with the human genome?

Your gallant attempt to remove one of the plainly stupid statements in a Wikipedia article, has been quickly overruled by one of those politically correct Admin Brahmans I was referencing. Pretty much reinforces my point, that Wikipedia is operated for the purpose of enabling the PC crowd to advance their own PC agendas, not for the purpose of creating a real, world-class body of encyclopedic knowledge.

a) The first paragraph violates rationality by claiming that genetics factors are responsible for one's nationality. Only incredibly stupid people would try to make case for such an ignorant statement. Yet, here we are, with higher up Wiki Admins ensuring that Wikipedia will continue to declare to the world how it supports such stupidity.

b) The first par violates the WP:NOR policy. The very idea that genetic factors determine nationality is so novel, so absurd and so without any scientific support, that it amounts to pure, unadulterated WP:NOR.

c) The first par violates the rule on verifiability.

"To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source....This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.[1]

"This policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception....Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed.

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three."

[Bold emphasis added by me]

The first link in par one, DOES NOT SUPPORT THE STATEMENT that it is alleged to verify. In fact, that link is a total fraud and should be removed right away, according to the rules on verifiability above. But, Wiki Brahman Admins apparently have the power to excuse themselves from the rules, which are supposed to apply to all of us, when they have their PC agenda to advance.

Thanks for trying; at least we know you are not part of that PC crowd, which is willing to protect incredibly stupid and ignorant statements in Wiki articles, if they appear to support a favored PC agenda. 66.81.36.73 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP. The "Legal" subsection of this article cites the definition of "racial discrimination" contained in the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". More than 170 State parties have agreed that includes any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. See Article 1 [1]. That definition has been very reliably published and adopted by the overwhelming majority of the World's governments. harlan (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOAP says this:

"Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic..."

There is nothing in the SOAP guideline which gives you exemption from avoiding stupid, ignorant statements, which anyone with a semblance of knowledge about human genetics, would recognize as idiotic. I suggest you get off your UN PC soapbox for a few moments and show us what scientific data supports the idea that genetic factors are responsible for one's nationality. That may, for some unfathomable reason, be good political PC idea for whatever PC agenda you seek to advance with your Wiki power tools, but it is a scientifically stupid idea, which only a very ignorant person would believe. There are plenty of other places in Wikipedia for you to discuss the UN Human Rights agenda, but to try and get that across in the first paragraph of this article, violates many WP rules. If you had any real concern for the reputation of Wikipedia, you would be the first to comply with those rules, instead of using your power tools to exempt yourself from the standards the rest of us Peons are expected to adhere to.

I repeat, that the first citation link in par one is bogus and violates the WP:SOURCE and WP:VERIFY rules. That link does not support or give credit to the utterly stupid idea that genetic factors are responsible for one's nationality. 66.81.36.73 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that (talk} has added two more bogus links, in a futile attempt to justify the idiotic statement in the first paragraph ("genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits...").

None of those three links properly verify (according to the Wiki WP:VERIFY rule) or give any support to the idea that genetic factors constitute NATIONALITY. Thus, all three links are bogus and are strong evidence of editing in bad faith. In fact, the third link specifically denies nationality is linked to genetic factors, when it states that "This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens....Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization..."

It should be further noted, that the UN Human Rights convention [2] is all about racial discrimination, not about the proper definition of "Racism," which should be accurately stated in the first paragraph of this Wiki article, which certainly is not the case at this time.

Does Wikipedia have any RATIONAL Admin-Editors that are truly concerned about the quality of Wiki articles? Obviously, there is at least one of those kind, but since he has been overruled by another one, that seems to have the power to break many Wiki rules, so he can use this Wiki article to bludgeon readers with his particular form of WP:SOAP, then it begins to look like the majority of Wiki Admin-editors really don't care that some want to use their Admin power tools to advance their own WP:SOAP agendas, regardless of their lack of adherence to the rules. I know of no group that actually believes that genetic factors determine or constitute NATIONALITY. The idea is so utterly un-scientific, so utterly stupid, that no rational person would embrace it.

The only way to correct the utterly stupid definition given in the first paragraph, is to remove the reference to "nationality." 66.81.51.123 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

19th and 20th Century European nationalism was based upon stupid and unscientific theories of race and myths of Jewish, Aryan, and other races. See for example "The Jews, Myth and Counter-Myth" in Les Back, John Solomos, "Theories of race and racism: a reader", Publisher Psychology Press, 2000, ISBN 0415156726, page 201 [3] Many British War Cabinet memorandums were devoted to the subject of establishing "a national home for the Jewish race in Palestine" See for example Lord Curzon, The Future of Palestine, CAB/24/30 (formerly GT 2406) October 1917. Modern-day supremacist groups, such as the so-called Aryan Nations, expound similar theories of White kindred races and a Canaanite Jewish race.

In HCJ 630/70 Tamarin v. State of Israel [1970] IsrSC 26(1) 197, the plaintiff demanded that the government register his nationality as "Israeli", rather than "Jewish". The Court ruled that to agree to Tamarin’s demand could lead to a schism in the Jewish people. The Supreme Court President, Justice Shimon Agranat, said that “the wish of a handful of Jews to break away from the nation and create a new concept of an Israeli nation was not a legitimate aspiration.” He said "There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people. ...The Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewries." The notion that groups such as the Bnei Menashe, the Lemba, Beta Israel, and Falasha Mura constitute a genetic fraction of the Jewish nation has some scientific and Israeli government support. See for example PBS Nova Lost Tribes of Israel [4]

The Nuremberg Laws on Citizenship and Race, September 15, 1935 [5] included the "Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor". [6] Subjects were considered members of the Jewish race without regard to religious practice or beliefs. See The US Holocaust Museum page on "The Nuremberg Race Laws" [7] The preamble of the statute was premised upon "the knowledge" that the purity of German blood was essential for the further existence of the German nation. It prohibited marriages between Jews and "nationals of German or kindred blood". A person of "mixed Jewish blood" was one "descended from one or two grandparents who, racially, were full Jews."

There are quite a few easily verifiable examples of racialized legal definitions of German and Jewish nationality based upon genetic factors.

Ralph Wilde explained that: "the racialized concept of a “standard of civilization” was deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were “uncivilized”, lacking organized societies, a position reflected and constituted in the notion that their “sovereignty” was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of “civilized” peoples." [8] That concept was embodied in discriminatory Indian removal laws and US Supreme Court rulings which held that Indian tribes were "domestic dependent nations". See Philip J. Prygosk, "From Marshall to Marshall, The Supreme Court's changing stance on tribal sovereignty", American Bar Association, [9] and Ed Vogel and Erica Bulman, "Panel backs tribe's claim, U.S. not respecting anti-racism treaty, U.N. committee says", Las Vegas Review-Journal, [10] harlan (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind. Carptrash (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you believe that this statement is scientifically valid?:

"...the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities..."

The belief that genetic factors constitute nationality, is incredibly stupid, yet Wikipedia indicates that is true. But, notice how the statement is worded. It first mentions belief, then it goes on to state an alleged fact, as if there is no legitimate dispute about that alleged fact -- that genetic factors DO constitute NATIONALITY, as well as they do constitute race.

While genetic factors DO constitute race, they DO NOT constitute NATIONALITY! My genes have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am an American Citizen. Yet this idiotic statement in Wikipedia holds that NATIONALITY, in addition to race, is determined by genetics.

While some have discriminated against others on the basis of one's NATIONALITY (the country of which a person is a citizen), it still remains that genetics are NOT a factor in determining the NATIONALITY of any given individual. It is thus stupid, ignorant and apparently a result of PC bias, for any Wiki editor to insist that genetics is a determining factor in what is one's NATIONALITY. Yet, one editor insists upon keeping the word NATIONALITY, in the sentence that purports to state what genetics determine in a human being.

The Wiki WP:VERIFY rules are still being violated, because all three of the citation links for that absurd sentence do NOT support or verify that stated fact -- that genetics determines NATIONALITY . As I have noted previously, the UN Human Rights statement does not outlaw State discrimination in their laws about citizenship. That is permissable and does not constitute racism. There is absolutely nothing in the UN HR Declaration, that suggests that human genetics are a determining factor in one's NATIONALITY. French citizens, as well as American citizens come in all kinds of races and ethnicities. That is because their genetics have nothing to do with the fact that they are citizens of either country.

This kind of stupidity in Wikipedia, is why I will not join up and become a regular editor. Apparently, Wiki Administrators do not care that such ignorant and stupid statements are allowed to remain in Wiki articles.

This is not the sort of issue that Administrators are supposed to deal with, although if you use the words "stupid" one more time something will be called for. I an one of those not happy about the inclusion of nationality here, but it is up to us, not administrators to arrive at wording that works for everyone. Meanwhile let's see if any of the pro Nationality folks pick up the gauntlet and explain how genetics relate to nationality. Carptrash (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem lies here: "I have long had the impression that the word "nationality" is a reference to the country-citizenship of any particular person, i.e., I am an "American," not because of anything in my genetic makeup, but because I was born in America and that automatically makes me an American National, because of the laws/Constitution of America." First of all, one's impression is not the basis for a contribution to scholarship, including an encyclopedia article. Second, the meaning of "nation" in America and toAmericas is not universal. The term means things in different places. Even in Europe, it has meant different things at iferent times. Scholars have to take all of this into account, and we have to take into account the work of scholars. Genetics is a 20th century phenomenon but clearly historians have well-established that in the 18th and 19th centuries many people thought of nations as having a strong biological and inherited dimension. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The topic of the article is Racism. The sentence in question does not say that racist beliefs are scientifically or politically correct. The published beliefs of the members of the Aryan Nations regarding literal "Racial Nations" descended from the biblical Adam and Cain (e.g. [11]) are a widely recognized form of Racism, not a serious branch of science.

Wikipedia:Verifiability explains "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. I've supplied a half dozen reliable published sources above which say that some governments and individuals claim that nationality can be an inherited characteristic. Believe me, that applies to modern-day members of Federally recognized Indian Nations right here in America. They still have to trace their descent to one or more relatives enumerated in a census conducted by the US Government Dawes Commission.[12]. Please read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass harlan (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope this makes sense to someone, but I'm trying to be constructive here. Nationality is not merely defined by genetics as the current opening line implies. And Racism is not simply defined as 'Genetic' differences nor is it simple to define [13]. As individuals we are all genetically unique but that doesn't mean we are all of a different race. And no matter how genetically different, we are all still human and thus part of the human race to which racists would sub-categorize.

The fact is that there are many forms and many definitions and so I say we cover them all. My suggestion still stands to change the opening line. "Racism is the belief that the human race may be segregated or sub-categorized based on any determining factor." "A Racist is a person who puts the belief of racism into practice through action." Then we can list references and then list sub-categories with additional references throughout history. And additional sub-categories could include 'Genetic factors', 'Nationality', 'Cultural', 'Religious', etc.

And I know this is a touchy subject, but laws do not define the meaning of words. It is the definition of the words that define the interpretation of the law. Rsn10100 (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is how people use words that deetermine their definition. But, this is not a dictionary. This is an encyclopedia. There is a body of literature on racism and we should review that literature, and introduce the article, and begin with an explanation of how scholars view racism. This would include legal scholars, sociologists, historians, and others. RSN10100 what ou propose sounds reasonable, but I think the real probvlem with this article is the body, not the introduction! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Middle Ages and Renaissance

I deleted "Though the Qur'an expresses no racial prejudice,"

The Koran clearly prefers people of the tribe of Abraham.

According to the Koran, the tribe of Abraham is chosen by Allah to rule the nations, and the tribe of Abraham are also the only ones that called muslims.

[3.33] Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations.

[22.78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!

Sources: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=3.33&size=First+100 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=22.78&size=First+100

St.Trond (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure if "tribal preference" counts as racism (the concept of 'race' as we know it hadn't yet been invented); however I do agree that the article about racism is no place to discuss whether or not millenia old texts are or aren't racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.53.28 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted "Though the Qur'an expresses no racial prejudice," again:

The Koran claims that the descendants of Abraham are chosen above the nations. See [3.33] above

According to the Koran, the descendants of Abraham are chosen by Allah to rule the nations, and the descendants of Abraham shall be bearers of witness of God's will to the people. See[22.78] above

The first sentence of the article states: "Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity,.." In the context of today the Koran has elements of racism. If the world has advanced this may not be a problem any more, but the header of the paragraph is "Middle Ages and Renaissance". St.Trond (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The two quotes do not use the word tibe. And it is anachronistic to think this has anything to do with race. It certainly says something about inheritance, and reward. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The two quotes use "descendants of Ibrahim" and "your father Ibrahim" respectively. Inheritance here is described as genetic inheritance from Abraham. Racism is described as caused by "genetic factors" in the first sentence on top. The claim of the sentence is not credible, and "Though the Qur'an expresses no racial prejudice, such" should be removed, like it has already been done twice. St.Trond (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wanting to add a new resource for external links

To whom it may concern, I was wondering if it was possible to add a resource to racsmonline.com from this wikipedia article. This site existed years ago, and I had decided to rebuild it. Within the past few weeks. This site approaches racism from a 'mostly' neutral standpoint, with an overall emphasis on fighting racism. But before it can be fought, it must first be understood. My url is http://www.racismonline.com

Much thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcellusk (talk • contribs) 05:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

YouTube video of an acient history lecture and Pygmies

Edmund Marriage leads an investigation of ancient and modern writings about history to determine information about ancient civilizations and particularly about "man's golden age." In You Tube video lecture entitled "Learning from History Part One - 10 - 13" at a point 2m:44s he begins his information about the Pygmies whereupon he says that throughout history the Pygmies were considered sub-human and were hunted and eaten as food by the nearby other Negro tribes.

For some sort of confirmation of this I searched Google and found this Wikipedia article in section "Contemporary" stating virtually the same things happening in modern times.

In this lecture, Edmund states that the Pygmies are actually extremely intelligent--able to learn several languages very quickly, knowledgeable about rain forest plants, trees, and the diseases and cures of these plants. Edmund provides reference book citations for his talk--one of which includes "The Pygmy Bible" / "Pygmy Kitabu" (New York: Random House, 1973) by Jean-Pierre Hallet that Edmund claims can confirm all that he was saying.

Can this book reference be used in this article? Are there modern references to quote Negro (tribal?) leaders ordering the hunting of the Pygmies that could also be included? Oldspammer (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess that they weren't hunted and considered sub-human by Bantu for no reason. According to Richard Lynn, their IQ is only 54. So his idea that pygmies are "extremely intelligent" is really far-fetched. See this: http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/12/sucks-to-be-a-p.html --85.160.149.25 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That claim of an IQ of "only 54" sounds like total rubbish to me. Firstly, show me an IQ test that works culturally and linguistically for pygmies. Secondly, do you know any people from western culture with an IQ of 54. (I do.) Can you imagine them living independently at all? Gee, there's some crap in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that comment is A) racist and B) the only edit by an anonymous editor. Please don't feed the troll. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I read tons of books about the topic. They're technically normal. They appear fully functional, just their average IQ is lower. Perhaps this link will help you understand the matter.--Beholdernig (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP's source is a blog citing Richard Lynn. Lynn is barely worth talking about, much less citing. Your "source" is even worse. "Anthony Hancock" is a Holocaust denial, racist publisher. Their "findings" are determined before they write the first word of anything. If this is the material you're reading "tons" of, you're shoveling a lot of crap into your head. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And I repeat my thoughts from above - That claim of an IQ of "only 54" sounds like total rubbish to me. Firstly, show me an IQ test that works culturally and linguistically for pygmies. Secondly, do you know any people from western culture with an IQ of 54. (I do.) Can you imagine them living independently at all? Gee, there's some crap in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read the link, you'd know. Thankfully I don't know anyone with such low IQ personally, but I heard of a case of 17-year old illiterate gypsy murderer whose IQ has been established at 41 and it seems that he was at least as capable to live independently as the pygmies.--Beholdernig (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you "heard of a case..." Sorry. Wikipedia demands more than that. And you say "Thankfully I don't know anyone with such low IQ..." Why "Thankfully"? I submit that you would be a lot better informed if you did. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The important part, which Beholdernig probably meant to bold, was "gypsy". Similarly, I consulted on a 30ish white racist sociopath with an IQ of around 35. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As both of your links show, you have a preference for known racists who start with conclusions, carefully select vague and/or poorly structured data, then torture that data to match their a priori assumption. It's a combination of regression fallacy, confirmation bias and scholarly incompetence. - SummerPhD (talk)

Now sir what are you talking about? Autor of that article is J. Philippe Rushton, psychology professor and a renowned scientist. I had the honour to read some of his books.--Beholdernig (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rushton is also a racist and a moron. Sorry, that's redundant. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you run out of arguments :)--Beholdernig (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

He's a racist moron. No argument. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It may interest folks to know that the term moron "was once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0-25)." (From the article Moron.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No arguments, just insults...I guess that's exactly what morons do. --Beholdernig (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As well as an attempt to inject humour and lower tensions, I was hoping to get you wondering if Pygmies really have low-moron level of intelligence? HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Beholdernig won't be answering for a bit. While his sock case is being examined, he's enjoying a brief vacation on account of incivility. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Permanently blocked as a sock. When he returns, it will be as another sock. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary section

Hey all, I'm a new editor so I can't edit right now, but I was wondering if someone could add this to the evolutionary section:

In The Selfish Gene, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins writes that "Blood-feuds and inter-clan warfare are easily interpretable in terms of Hamilton's genetic theory." Dawkins writes that racial prejudice, while not evolutionarily adaptive, "could be interpreted as an irrational generalization of a kin-selected tendency to identify with individuals physically resembling oneself, and to be nasty to individuals different in appearance".

Also, why is the NPOV tag on this section? It seems pretty fair to me.--Babank (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition is logically inconsistent

The first paragraph needs to be re-written. As is, it provides a logical paradox by stating that "racial discrimination" is the effect of racism.

I'm a white male who practice racial discrimination, thanks to some bad run-ins with African Americans in my youth (and a lifetime of growing up in a culture that also discriminates). For example, when I see loud young people with dark skin on the street, I cross the street avoid physical. That is "racial discrimination". However, I am not at all "racist" by the definition of this article. That is, I do not believe "that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

There are two different dictionary definitions of racism:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. behavior that treats people of different races differently.

As this is an enycyclopedia and not a dictionary, I think we need an expert on the subject (not me) to tease out the differences here. Perhaps definition #1 should be called "strong racism" and #2 should be called "weak racism". Again, I'm not familiar with current academic thought, but we do need to fix an article that starts with a contradiction.

3. The statement that genetics is a primary determinant of differences between human beings is a statement about biology, not psychology; one may debate "primary" (or, one can reject scientific biology I suppose) but there's no debate among scientists that genetics plays an important role in determining or specifying differences betweeen human beings. That's not racism, that's a statement about the way things are in the world. However, believing that one human being is superior to another, or that one group of human beings is superior to another, is just that, a belief that unfortunately motivates a lot of behavior. The definition of racism is a definition about behavior, about beliefs and the like. So, I'd like to see the opening line of this controversial, and interesting, article changed so that the definition of racism is a definition of what people think, believe, do, or whatever and not something about genetics. ProfWhit (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello I'm a different person than the man above, I do agree with what he is saying, but my reason for this edit is because the words "a" and "certain" need to be switched in the first paragraph .... what a pathetic mistake on such a highly used article ...

Middle Ages and Renaissance section

The section about Arab and North African slavery seems to imply that Islamic bigotry toward Turks resulted from the diffusion of Aristotelian ideas but there are Hadith recording Muhammad himself as saying what would nowadays be considered racist things about turks. They can be seen here http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6956 and include Book 041, Number 6956 - Number 6960. Here is an example (6959): "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour would not come until the Muslims fight with the Turks-a people whose faces would be like hammered shields wearing clothes of hair and walking (with shoes) of hair." Right now Arab racism is chalked up almost entirely to outside influence (Judeo-Christian ethic, Aristotle, etc). The very statement about Judeo-Christianity is absurd from an Islamic perspective anyway; Muslims believe that Judaism and Christianity were originally revealed by Allah, and that the Jews and Christians of the bible are really Muslims, and that the Jews and Christians from the time of Muhammad onwards are imposters who have doctored their holy books. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

no link anywhere to kkk

Suprised to find no mention of Klu_Klux_Klan on this page EdwardLane (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion on anti-immigrant sentiment in contemporary Europe

Article is Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s, deletion discussion here.--Sum (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Racist is a weasel word

People can't even agree what races are so how can you call someone "pro-racist" or "anti-racist". Are you implying certain people racist towards fictional races that don't exist? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"We" aren't saying anything about racism and racists. Reliable sources are. We are merely reporting what the reliable sources say. If you feel there is no such thing as a racist or that it is a "weasel word", you will need to take it up with the academic community at large. Good luck. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Inter-minority variants

I don't think this section - or its title - is relevant: how is inter-minority racism different from other types of racism? This section reads: "Prejudiced thinking among and between minority groups does occur": does anybody dispute this? Apokrif (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

definition?

The lead section seems a bit strange. In particular, the definition seems rather out of date. "Racism" as defined here may reasonably apply to scientific theories of 100 years ago or so but nowadays the word "racism" is simply a term for "racial discrimination", especially of a pernicious sort (to the extent that there exist non-pernicious behaviors that could be termed "racial discrimination"). I don't think there's a single person or organization nowadays that self-identifies as "racist" (except possibly in a few exceptional circumstances when trying to be deliberately provocative), even though there are certainly persons and organizations that self-identify with the definition given of racism. Benwing (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I totally rewrote the lead, copying text from the racialism article and clarifying the fact that "racism" and "racial discrimination" are almost always used for pernicious treatment (vs. e.g. affirmative action) and that "racism" is an epithet rather than a self-designation (for which "racialism" is preferred). Benwing (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Benwing. Since you wrote the lead and recently posted here I was just going to just ask because I'm curious.

"Differential treatment of racial groups that is intended to ameliorate past discrimination, rather than to harm, goes by other names (e.g. affirmative action); the characterization of this practice as "racism", "racial discrimination" or "reverse discrimination" is normally only done by its opponents, and typically implies a belief in the harmful nature of the practice with respect to the groups not receiving assistance."

Where is it cited that affirmative action is not racial discrimination? Later in the article the UN definition DOES include racial preferences. (I've made no changes to the lead I'm simply asking why this line is included in the article)--Ninjatank (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Middle Ages and Renaissance

The "Middle Ages and Renaissance" section seems like it's been written by Muslims, i.e., very biased. Especially the parts about the Reconquista and the supposed suppression of racism in the Islamic world. Wthwiki (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Racialism be merged into Racism. All the dictionaries appear define racialism as a synonym for racism, while some minor nuances of usage are mentioned within the article Racialism, this information can easily be included on the Racism page.Tetron76 (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a totally different concept. There are not just minor differences, there are hardly any similarities. 70.116.76.173 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Since none of the 12 dictionary definitions I have support this can you produce sources to support this assertion?Tetron76 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Racism and Racialism may seem similar, but they arise from different situations. Racism is discrimination, like "You suck cause you are a (insert race here)!!!" whereas racialism occurs when people treat others differently, but not necessarily in a negative way, due to their race, with an emphasis on the difference of race. Heres what i got off a quick search off google "A racialist may agree that the races are equal, but think people would be better off if each race stuck with its own kind." Do also take a look at the article on Identity politics, its like a glimpse of what I feel racialism is. Sort of like discrimination, due to emphasis on racial differences, but minus the overt negative connotations as its talking about political representation of minority groups. What I am trying to say is that they are separate subjects, deserving of their own article, but however, I agree with you that they are rather similar and their differences hard to grasp. Perhaps a section on each, with a link to the other, and a writeup on how they differ, rather than a wholesale merge? Songjin (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I found this article and i think this portion of the passage is quite good

"... racism refers to the socio-political effects pertaining to individual attitudes, institutional discrimination, and certain ideologies based on the concept of race. Racialism, on the other hand, is the basic epistemological position that races actually do exist, and there are significant differences between and among people of different races." Songjin (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that Racialism should be merged into Racism, as they are completely different theories and concepts. For example, racism is the "scientific" theory that races are inherently different by genetics and evolution, whereas racialism is the belief that some races are morally different, by culture, not descent. If this needs verification, merely click on the separate articles and read the first paragraph or so--it clearly states the definition of each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.229.186 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Note. Saying "I do not believe" and then not saying who you are is not a good way to make a point on wikipedia. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

i Agree with Songjin and was looking for the "like button". But I think it is blurring the distinction which means it should be stubbed on this page. And explained. seee Dubois v Appiah on the source of dispute. Which proves it does cross over into racism.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I second Songjin. let it be as a separate topic as the word "Racism" is very large & unique & is entirely different from this. If merged then this topic would go unnoticed & would loose its importance & someone may recreate this one later on. --Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 00:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems everyone pretty much agrees that it should not be merged with Racism. I'll go ahead and remove the tag. 24.206.66.222 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It should absolutely be merged with each concept clearly defined because the two are so frequently conflated and/or confused, as is evidenced in the responses to your suggestion. We should look to scholars who have been grappling with these concepts for years. The two sources listed below help us understand that 'racism' is a by-product of 'racialism'- the former being the actual oppression, discrimination, etc. that most of us take issue with and that is traditionally tied to social structures, and the latter being the foundational conception that race is a biological fact, allowing for such discrimination. Because many scholars of race contend that 'racism' is linked to systemic and hierarchical structures and processes and thereby a technology of power, our public discussions of racism should take this into account and parse it from discussions about racialism. Your proposed merge would create a space to address the consistent confusion about 'racism' and 'racialism' and help us understand why (for instance) a Native American having prejudices against a white-identified European American based on some belief about their collective "nature" may be an example of 'racialism,' but not necessarily of 'racism' due to the particular socio-historical context and contemporary power relations between these two groups.

1. Fredrickson, George M. Racism: A Short History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2002. Pages 153-54. 2. Appiah, Kwame Anthony. "Racisms" in Anatomy of Racism, ed. David Theo Goldberg. Minneapolis, 1990. p 222. --Royalearth (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudo-science"? Describing racism as motivated like this is suggesting racist views are unjustifiable.

For the sake of giving this article balance, maybe someone can change this. There are many proven sciences that show fundemental differences between races. The only taboo or controversy is people mentioning it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.147.159 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 17 August 2011

"(T)he practice or advocacy of racial discrimination... is often justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science." This is not saying the observation that, "hey, look, his skin is darker/lighter and her facial features are different" is based on pseudo-science. It is saying that discrimination based on those differences is often justified by pseudo-science aimed at "proving" one race (typically that of the author) is superior to another (typically that of a locally marginalized population). - SummerPhD (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Racial discrimination section

Am I think only one that finds this section amazingly lacking, with a discussion dominated by an MIT study on discrimination for job interviews? That's it? That's all there is to say about racial discrimination? What about in other countries? The entire article except the history section seems to focus solely on the US. The US is certainly not the capitol of racism; but if I were young and uninformed and came here for information, I would certainly begin to think so. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your improvements. Carptrash (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Racial Inequality Section

I think a section that discusses racial inequalities caused by various forms racism would be valuable to this article. There is no current page about racial inequality and I feel it deserves mention under the Racism article. There are hints at racial inequality throughout the page however, there is no one section devoted to explaining how racism can lead to extreme racial inequality. Possible placement of this potential section could follow the "Types" section which includes topics such as Racial Discrimination, Institutional Racism, Economic Racism, and Declarations and International Law Against Racial Discrimination. A Racial Inequality section would tie these types of racism together and help readers understand the magnitude of how racism can cause great inequality among different racial and ethnic groups. Cnovoa17 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)cnovoa17

Bias

Dear Wikipedia,

The article section regarding racism in the Middle Ages, becomes very bias and one-sided when images such as:

Why not add another picture depicting the images of the "Moor" victims of the Reconquesta or the Crusades, in order to balance the article a little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The belief systems of the "anti-racists" promote racial biases of their own, to the degree that all non-white people are exempted from the possibility of being racist. EyePhoenix (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"all non-white people are exempted from the possibility of being racist." is an interesting concept, but does not address (among things) racism that occurs when there are no white people involved at all. Racism, it's not just black & white. Carptrash (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Slurs all racist activities and connotations together in an non-objective way

"Racism is popularly associated with various activities that are illegal or commonly considered harmful, such as extremism, hatred, xenophobia, (malignant or forced) exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism), etc."

"commonly considered harmful" this is a perspective that needs to be made more objective. I am from china and most racist people in china do not consider racism harmful. Also in America most racists do not consider racism to me harmful. If the author's intent is to assume most people are not racist that is silly because that can not readily be proven.

Also by slurring all the racist concepts together in that sentence gives a connotation of illegality which in America is especially not the case. Freedom of speech allows racism and by and large the great majority of "popular" racism (as the paragraph asserts) is non-violent.

Please someone unlock this article to allow me to correct this or someone correct it themselves. Thank you.

108.17.109.131 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are all based on misunderstanding the sentence. It does not say racism is illegal or commonly considered harmful. It says "various activities ... are illegal or commonly considered harmful" and that those activities are "popularly associated with" racism. The activities ("extremism, hatred, xenophobia, (malignant or forced) exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism), etc.") are "illegal or commonly considered harmful". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Supremacism and the first sentence about the crusades should be removed

The sentence that is in question states: "The Middle Ages Crusades have been described as an example of white supremacist colonialism." using the source given by Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy P. Mottahedeh. The book "The Crusades from the perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim world" states:
“Almost all the historians and chroniclers of the expeditions that were later called the first Crusade considered them a response to the Muslim threats to Christian Holy places and peoples in the east. They wrote from different points of view, however…” Then goes on to explain their own view of what took place.
By their own admission this is not a recognized view by historians it is an alternate view. Can we strike this from the article please? Thank you
--OxAO (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011

Someone should remove the citation needed sections of this article that are not explained or justified in the discussion section. Stoicscientist (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: When citations are provided, they will be removed. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

UN definition of racism: discrimination on race and ethnicity

Here's the citation that's needed for the last part of the abstract: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm specifically the first part of article 1. 77.250.97.191 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

edit request added 77.250.97.191 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the first part of article 1 and the abstract that you're talking about? Banaticus (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  07:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead definition of "racism"

The lead definition of "racism [and the first sentence of the article]" reads: "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination." My isssue is with the "justify discrimination" part. Someone can be racist but not necessarily agree with discrimination or even treat individuals within the race(s) that he or she percieves as "inforior" worse because of their race. A lot of people will probably counter this with "if someone thinks they are superior to someone else, then of course they are going to treat them worse." Not necessarily. For example, someone of at least average intelligence would have to agree that they are intellectually superior to someone who is mentally retarded; but that doesn't necessarily that mean they are going to treat them worse as a result.

The definition that I think best descibes "racism" (of at least what I have found), found on yourdictionary.com (a credible online dictionary), reads: "Racism is a belief that one race is superior to the other or the practice of treating a person or group of people differently on the basis of their race." Although, I think the phrase "at least in general" should have been inserted in between "is" and "superior," as one can be racist, but not necessarly think that every individual belonging to a race is superior to every individual belonging to another race or that one race is superior to another in every way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.215.148 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because racism goes both ways. It's not just "superior" people denigrating "lesser" people, it's also an attempt to limit those "superior" people in order to give a helping hand to those "lesser" people. See, for instance, so-called Reverse discrimination. Perhaps a mention could be made about the difference between equality of provision (everyone receives the same chances) and equality of outcome (everyone receives the same result), but I think we can leave the lead definition with the simple "discrimination" statement and get

more complicated later in the article. Banaticus (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

---

What a mess - this article really shows some of the weaknesses with Wikipedia when people get out of their depth.

First up: racism is a completely different concept to racial discimination.

Second - racism is the attribution to one or more individuals of negative or positive qualities or characteristics, which they may or may not in fact have, on the basis of their ethnicity alone. The critical point is that racism is only about attribution to a person(s) of a quality or characteristic. Racial discrimination is about treatment.

You need to get the basic concepts straight before getting into the finer detail nad ending up not being qble to see the forest for the trees which really describes what's going on with this article.

--121.209.162.157 (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Racism Defined

In the interest of objective credibility, the definition of the word "racism" in Wikipedia as it currently appears must be corrected. Unfortunately, I hear this word being used incorrectly more often than it is used correctly. This current ill-worded definition certainly doesn't help and only serves to further confuse the otherwise simple definition of the word. The problem lies in the fact that the word "racism" is commonly and incorrectly substituted for, or used synonymously with, a handful of other words with similar but different meanings to describe certain kinds of racially charged attitudes or behaviours. To be certain, the word "racism" defined, in plain words, is a belief in the superiority of one's race over another. The definition ends there. Adding any more words to this definition would convolute the meaning with words that indicate a separate, secondary event. "I am racist, therefore I discriminate". These are two separate idea's, and although one usually follows the other, they are certainly not one and the same.

In my experience, the word "prejudiced" is a more accurate description of what most people are trying to express. However, the word "prejudiced" lacks the more hatefully evil and sinister historical resonance associated with the word "racist". As a result of it's more negatively charged impact it is used more frequently and incorrectly in favor of the word "prejudiced". In this context, the word "discrimination" would be more accurately described as an action or thought process as a consequence of, not simultaneous with, the development of the ideals of racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.38.123 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Image

posting such images aims to malign the image and reputation of all Muslims regardless of their race or ethnicity.

As we all know this was not the only form of racism in the Middle Ages therefore it is very important to balance the article.

ANSWER: there are already other images depicting western's racism and no other to represent an arab one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.233.98 (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

strange image on popup

In the upper right corner of the popup for links to this article, this image appears:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Bank_of_America_wordmark.svg/200px-Bank_of_America_wordmark.svg.png

I am mostly a user (reader) of Wikipedia, but I have never before seen this, and no explanation is offered for why it is there. I just thought maybe I should point it out.

--Windowrook (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting study about the subject

Here it is:

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.202.64 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Literature review on tolerance

Here is an interesting review on political tolerance, in particular ethnic tolerance. There seems to no section on research on what causes intolerance here so I think this could be a basis for that. Thoughts? http://ideas.repec.org/p/jet/dpaper/dpaper288.html Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2012

In the last paragraph of the main 'Ideology' section, the term 'race-baiting' is hyper-linked -but recursively links back to the 'Racism' page. I understand that it might be a place-holder for a 'Race-baiting' page someday, but as a user it's just frustrating when I'm trying to find out what the term actually means. Specific description/request: remove hyperlink from the term 'race-baiting' in the last paragraph of the main 'Ideology' section. 206.108.5.29 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done I replaced it with an interwiki link to the Wiktionary definition, as I believe you are correct that anyone following the link is looking for additional information. Though short, it provides the reader with enough to justify itself. Dru of Id (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

the first line of this article is idiotic....

...and unsupported by sources.

It claims that the definition of "Racism" is Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. This is nonsense. I have never seen Racism defined in such a way in any reliable source. The definition seems to imply that it's okay to hold all kinds of beliefs which are usually considered racist - "race x is inferior to race y" - as long as one doesn't "discriminate" based upon these beliefs. Who wrote this junk?

The closest thing I can see to sourcing for this wacky notion is in the definition section where the claim is made that

Racism involves the belief in racial differences, which acts as a justification for non-equal treatment (which some regard as "discrimination") of members of that race

which is sourced to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. However, what the dictionary actually says is

Racism: 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

There is nothing in there about discrimination or justification being necessary conditions for something or someone to be racist. Racism is simply the belief that one race is superior to another, and that race is a primary determinant of important traits and capacities. The present definition in this article is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia as it appears to try to excuse racism and racist beliefs (as long as one doesn't "discriminate"). Again, who wrote this junk?VolunteerMarek 10:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You guys messed this up

So much has changed, instead of a definiton, we have examples in the front paragraph. Wow guys.140.198.45.66 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2012

Famous Figures Helping Against Racism: Two of the most famous people that helped spread the word about racism are Martin Luther King Jr. who lead peaceful protests against racism and Rosa Parks who refused to stand up on the bus for a white man, and after getting arrested caused a boycott of buses.

R.G Grant. Racism Changing Attitudes. Austin, TX: Raintree- Vaugh, 2000. Print.

Cjones0037 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It isn't clear what you want to add and where you want to add it. Please be specific about what you would like to have done. Expressing your request in a 'please change X to Y' manner may help. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In Antiquity

The context of slavery surrounding the Babylonian Talmud characterization should be made clear.

The fact that racism is just a way to motivate and manage a caste system should become expressed as a theme throughout this article. As you may know, caste systems are a means by which privilege groups excludes and exploits the children of non-privileged groups; "casts", unlike "class", being an hereditary designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.222.151 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Read more about caste discrimination

Norway and other nations

These links might need to be introduced into the article

Norway

• "Convicted (in the Supreme Court) of racism. A 39 year old man is convicted for racist remarks at a coloured (farget) bouncer in Stavanger.";(from yesterday) --Sywoofer (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Other nations

See also:

• Racism in Israel
• Racism in the Palestinian territories
• Racism in the People's Republic of China
• Racism in Russia
• Racism in the United Kingdom
• Racism in the United States --Sywoofer (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors out of their depth

As I wrote in January, but someone unhelpfully deleted from this talk page

What a mess - this article really shows some of the weaknesses with Wikipedia when people get out of their depth. First up: racism is a completely different concept to racial discimination. Second - racism is the attribution to one or more individuals of negative or positive qualities or characteristics, which they may or may not in fact have, on the basis of their ethnicity alone. The critical point is that racism is only about attribution to a person(s) of a quality or characteristic. Racial discrimination is about treatment. You need to get the basic concepts straight before getting into the finer detail nad ending up not being qble to see the forest for the trees which really describes what's going on with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.148.245.233 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit of clarification. Your posting from January was not "unhelpfully deleted" by "someone". It was moved from this page to an archive by a bot because it say here without comment for over 90 days.

Why didn't anyone have anything to say? Basically, your post boils down to "This article is wrong, it should say (whatever) because I said so." What you'll need to do is be more specific about what should be changed and provide reliable sources to back up what you are saying. Otherwise, this thread will be archived 91 days from ... now. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)