Talk:Cultural racism/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 20:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Parking the empty table below for the review.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What are your thoughts, Goldsztajn? Looking forward to your review. Midnightblueowl ([[User

talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 13:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl:Apologies for the delay, I've been doing a bit of background reading on this and got sidelined by some other work. It has my full attention now and should be able to get the review completed by the weekend. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Not a problem. There's no rush. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tonight I made some comments here that might support the review. Nice work Midnightblueowl. -LaTeeDa (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

GA reviewer commentary

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This review is difficult because the article covers a subject which cannot be treated in simple terms, but at the same time needs to explained in such a way that a broad audience will understand. The real difficulty lies in what is considered a broad audience! Nevertheless, my main concern here is a lack of concision within the article - there are sections which are longer than necessary. This problem is compounded by the overuse of quotes. (Further discussion on these last two points below).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS - Lead Needs to be shorter and simpler. I agree with the points LaTeeDa raised, albeit some more changes would be needed. I would suggest a short coverage of the origins of the term, differentiating biological and cultural racism, and then mentioning a few key contemporary theorists and issues, movements and persons which can be identified as or with cultural racism. So for example, post-fascist parties, xenophobia and politicians could be mentioned (eg Jörg Haider, Pim Fortuyn, Marine Le Pen...although probably safest to stick to the dead ones.) I think important not to mention fringe, extreme right examples in the lead (so for example the EDL would not be mentioned here). MOS - Layout Following the lead, it is not clear for me why the concept and definitions sections are separate. They are both extensive, with extremely detailed descriptions with often long quotes around individual academic work. I would suggest two sections "origins of use" and "definitions" (or conceptual history as per LaTeeDa). Historiography - this section does not read as historography which would be an explicit comparison of the works of theorists of cultural racism...which would end up verging on original research. Instead this section is more a detailed description of different theorists. If there is a theorist that does present an comparative analysis then I think simplest to present a short summary of that author's work. If there isn't I would drop this section. Reading the article it seems to me that Mukhopadhyay and Chua's (2008) delineation of three types of cultural racism would work well here and could be explicitly used (culture as an explanation of racial inequality, cultural racism and global inequality, cultural racism as a political tool) as the organising framework for the Examples section. This would also deal with problems outlined in point three below. Section on opposing cultural racism works well, no changes necessary. MOS - Words to watch No specific comment MOS - Fiction Not applicable MOS - Embedded Lists Not applicable
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Referencing is excellent.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some areas of contention: I don't have access to Rattansi (2007), so I can't see their sources, but the claim that the term racism was "coined" in the 1930s is contestable. A check of "racism". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) shows deprecation from racialism, exact use of the word as early as 1902 and derivation from the French, which dates from the 19th Century. several academics associated with postmodernism, namely Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida – yes in the case of Lyotard; Derrida and Foucault are most commonly grouped as post-structuralists. The entire section on Blaut to my mind is UNDUE − unlike geography or development studies, theorising racism is not a specialist area of his, his analysis of Weber would be contested and there is material arguing Weber's treatment of race was more nuanced than Blaut argues.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main problem here lies in the way in which the article defines the topic. There is an over reliance on sources which indicate this as a predominantly European concept. I think to the extent that the present theorisation of the concept is being undertaken mostly by scholars based in Europe, that is true; but the use of the concept seems far broader and stretches back longer than the article indicates. A Google Ngram search shows quite an interesting pattern of two surges in use: a first explosion between 1968 and 1974 and a second (more than twice as large) in the period 1991-1998. That second period aligns with the parts covered in the article, but what of the first? Unsurprisingly, the term explodes in use in North America at the tail end of the civil rights movement and the growth of far more radical movements and this is reflected in looking at the sources from that time. William Wilson, one of most important US sociological scholars of African-Americans differentiates cultural racism from biological racism in Power, racism, and privilege: race relations in theoretical and sociohistorical perspectives (1973). John L. Hodge, Donald K. Struckmann, Lynn Dorland Trost (1975) Cultural bases of racism and group oppression: an examination of traditional "Western" concepts, values, and institutional structures which support racism, sexism, and elitism James M Jones (1972) Prejudice and Racism (Jones' work from almost 30 years later is discussed in the article, but he too is speaking of cultural racism in the early 1970s) I also think it is possible to locate the emergence of Apartheid in the late 1940s within the rubric of cultural racism. Xolela Mangcu (2017) speaks of this. (That is not to discount Aparteid's anteceding biological racism, but rather to highlight the ideological shift that came into play following the 1948 National Party victory.) Finally, this is point really for a later stage (ie featured article level), but discussion which incorporates South and East Asia (eg Hindutva as a form of cultural racism) and Spanish/Portuguese speaking Americas would be very important.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Personally, I think the number direct quotes in the article should be dropped by about 50%; far more summaries and shorter. I think the length of quotes often distracts. I count 200 items inside inverted commas, about 90 of which are one or two word phrases. That in itself is a very significant distraction to reading and stylistically it is not suited for a broad audience <cough>. That leaves over 100 quotes which are often 20-30 words in length. That's 2000 odd words at least (and not counting the four large quote boxes).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Some points which I would suggest editing or deleting: The term "racism" is one of the most controversial and ambiguous words used within the social sciences.[7] This is simply an assertion on behalf of the author cited here, to my mind they do not have a reputation credibly sufficient to sustain such a statement and the statement itself does not help to clarify anything in the article. In this section, briefly focus on the difference between the term in popular discourse as primarily pejorative and within academic discourse as the socio-structural (material) production of inequality. biological racism had become increasingly unpopular in post-fascist Western societies during the second half of the 20th century There are only really four states this would apply to: Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany. Moreover, the origins of biological racism predate the origins fascism. Finally, I think the discrediting of biological racism was not confined to the West; in the "East" (Communist and Capitalist) as well. Perhaps better would be something along the lines of: Following the Second World War the widespread knowledge of the crimes of Nazism greatly discredited biological racism. There's also a follow up to this point, which is possibly not more than an extended note for a later date, but radical and liberal critiques of racism emerge in the 19th and early 20th Century: for example in the US, in liberal form in the anthropology of Frans Boas and Margaret Mead, in radical form in the organising activities of the IWW in the 1910s and the CPUSA in the 1930s.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One small concern regarding the Jean-Marie Le Pen image; have you seen the licence? Is there an alternative? If not, I think it is ok to let it pass, but in the meantime I will do a little more checking.  Done Issue resolved--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I believe at this level all pictures should have alt-text for accessibility, however, I do understand it is not considered a criteria for a good article. If you don't wish to do this, let me know, I am happy to add them myself. Is it possible to add a few more images which are not portraits? Eg on Commons there are pictures of Identitarian movement and AfD rallies, perhaps two more would be quite suitable.
	7. Overall assessment.	Please don't take the above too critically and I hope my tone does not undermine the fact that there is a lot of work here which is excellent. The fact that this article was deleted previously attests to how difficult it is as a subject and the fact that it is at this point, in my view, very close to a good article. I've yet to get an article to this level, so: chapeau! However, the complexity of the issue makes it a very hard article to write and I think some of those problems here are a factor in why the article is at this point. I am trying to be very conscious that this is not featured article status, but good article...we're not responding to academic peer review (yet). :) So let me know your reaction - I think the substantial issue is editing downwards and summarising, with some small addition points. I would say, just make an attempt at an edit given the points myself and LaTeeDa have raised and I will take another look. Let me know what you think; there's no rush, more than happy to let this sit as long as you feel is necessary. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Midnightblueowl: took me a little longer than I expected, but I hope useful. I've left a proposed structure for follow up below, but feel free to amend or change as you prefer. I'll add {{done}} to the table above following changes etc...but you've done this far more than me, so if you prefer something else, again, suggest away... --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, this is annoying but in my notes I forgot to copy across a final point – it concerns the need to incorporate Fanon – let me know when I can add it. I don't want to interrupt your reading of this text. --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Other commentaries

Azerty82 Commentary

As noted in the article’s talk page, I’m raising concerns regarding the reliability of Rattansi (2007). Even though it is published by the Oxford University Press and has 384 recorded citations on Google Scholars, one cannot make such a basic mistake as saying “racism was coined in 1930s” when writing a “Very Short Introduction [on Racism]” (i.e., the first recorded occurrence of "racism" in English dates back to 1903, in French to 1902, the first occurrence of 'raciste' to 1892).

For the record, here is the full citation (p.4) : The term ‘racism’ was coined (sic) in the 1930s, primarily as a response to the Nazi project of making Germany judenrein, or ‘clean of Jews’. The Nazis were in no doubt that Jews were a distinct race and posed a threat to the Aryan race to which authentic Germans supposedly belonged.

The /definition/ section (which I have renamed /historiography/ since my original intent was to provide a summary of the concept’s history) should mainly give voice to leading scholars of the concept, not any scholar that has written on ‘cultural racism’.

To me, the ‘third argument’ given as to why racism is “appropriate for hostility and prejudice on the basis of cultural differences” is irrelevant since it does not really answer the issue. It is supported by a single source.

The scope of the article is still restricted to the Western world in general, and Western Europe in particular (Israel being the exception although it may be regarded as a Western country). I know that it is more difficult to find literature on cultural racism in Eastern Asia, Africa or India, but the article's scope cannot be limited to one continent, or even to one civilizational area.

Goldsztajn, I have added [post-fascist] in the sentence “biological racism had become increasingly unpopular in post-fascist Western societies during the second half of the 20th century” because the doom of fascism in Europe was the main reason for the lexical shift in far-right discourse from the 1960s onward. But maybe it is not the case for the US, and I’m principally familiar with (West) European literature on the subject. Azerty82 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Two quick reflections –

1. The term "post-fascist societies" is ambiguous here. We don't speak of the USA or New Zealand when we are talking of post-communist societies, a general reader will see post-fascist as meaning the states I mentioned in the review. I understand that the intention is "in a world following the fall of fascism", but even here I think this is a problem, because it is Nazism that was annihilated and became taboo; actually existing fascism in Europe continued for at least three decades (Portugal under Salazar as a founding member of NATO, Franco as, well...Franco!).
2. Regarding geographic scope – I'd like to hear the nominator's response regarding how much work they think is feasible. I mentioned in the review the need to expand the geographic coverage, and I think that would be crucial for featured status, but for good article status we will have North America, Europe, Israel and South Africa, to my mind that is an adequate starting point. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

1. The term "post-fascist" was used to mean "after the fascist project went into political disgrace [in Western democratic countries]", either in territories that experienced a fascist regime or in territories that did not, although the term is probably too ambiguous. A nitpick though, Francoist Spain and the Estado Novo are not universally described as "fascist". It depends on the definition you use: the minimalist/historic definition (Duce's Italy and the Third Reich), or the maximalist one (that of Roger Griffin and Maurice Bardèche), although even in a (semi-)maximalist approach, you can find an extensive literature describing Vichy France, Francoist Spain or the Estado Novo as "semi-fascist" or "fascistic" (French: fascisant). But you hold a PhD in Political Economy so you probably already know it!
2. Those discussions remind me of a paragraph I had written for the article Europe-Action some months ago. It is probably pertinent for the article, although it (again) focuses on (Western) Europe: A concept created by neo-fascist activist René Binet in 1950, "biological realism" claimed to be able to establish individual and racial inequalities upon scientific observations. Binet argued that "interbreeding capitalism" ("capitalisme métisseur") aimed at creating a "uniform barbary" ("barbarie uniforme"); and that only "a true socialism" could "achieve race liberation" through the "absolute segregation at both global and national level. Europe-Action also drew influence from the so-called "message of Uppsala", a text likely wrote in 1958 by French neo-fascists related to the New European Order; and deemed influential on European far-right movements that followed as it carried out subtle semantic shifts between "differentialism" and "inequality". The ideas of Binet and "Uppsala", characterized by a worldwide "biological-cultural deal" where each group would remain sovereign in its own region, foreshadowed both the racialism of Europe-Action and the ethno-pluralism of GRECE. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I did deliberately use the phrase actually existing fascism (fascisme réellement existant).  :) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I would have also qualified Francoist Spain and the Estado Novo as fascist regimes, although not Vichy France as there was no single party; the nitpick was just a short off-topic debate until Midnightblueowl comes back ;-) Azerty82 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I have found some time to write a more in-depth review (sorry for the previous verbiage),

I would argue for the following organization of the /Definition/ section (1) racism (i.e., the original, biological definition with a short history of the term) (2) racialization (i.e., the categorization of a group via inherent and insurmountable features) (3) cultural racism

I would have created two sub-sections in 'opposing cultural racism': (1) critical pedagogy (2) advocacy of multiculturalism

The sentence This differed from earlier forms of anti-Semitism, which rarely regarded Jews as a distinct race is unclear. When is 'earlier' when the context is the 1930s? Jews were never categorized as a race before the mid-19th century since scientific racism emerged at that time.

The following issue is not really addressed in the article (that is why I had introduced A. de Benoist's response in the /critique/ section): do cultural racists view other cultures as incompatible with their culture, or as incompatible and inferior to their culture? Ethnopluralism does not clearly argue for an inferiority of other cultures (at least its main proponent de Benoist), but rather against the coexistence of several cultures within the same territory.

Are the 'three arguments for cultural racism' to be considered linked to each others? Because the fact that two phenomena lead to the same consequence is not an argument for using the same, or even a similar, denomination per se (that's why I had changed the order).

A section on the 'pre-history' of cultural racism would be interesting. The article on racism does not begin in the 1890s, de Gobineau and Chamberlain were racists before the word existed.

(More comments soon) Azerty82 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

LaTeeDa Commentary

Lead. The lead is clean and well written. I suggest pruning out some detail in the second paragraph, and saving the third paragraph for the article body, to create a crisper intro. But, not necessary.

Concept I struggled in places with the organization, and understanding the relationship between the concepts and the scholars. Subsections like 'Definition' cry out for intro paragraphs that set the stage for the concepts that follow. For example, 'Definition' has six paragraphs about six scholars. The six weren't linked together for me, and I was searching for a narrative thread for how one built on another or if they were congruent or diverging. It might help to be explicit about when each was working and where. Overall, a lay reader like me needs more contextual hand holding here.

The subsection Cultural prejudices as racism seems like it should be higher up, maybe in the Concept section, or maybe standalone subsection above Definition. Isn't this the crux of defining the topic? So, again, scratch discussion of this in the intro, and place near the beginning of the article body.

Critique. This section read well for me. I was left wondering what is the time frame here, and if some of the critiques have come later, and become conventional wisdom. Maybe there is a way to indicate the degree of adoption of cultural racism by scholars, vs. competing concepts, and how this is changing over time. Ngram suggests a non-linear history of adoption - why is that?

Examples. Section titling is a little unclear. Maybe retitle the entire section 'Cultural racism in Western countries', and then reorganize slightly to 1)The European or Western Identity, 2) Europe, 3) United States, 4) Within the far right, 5) Islamophobia. Also, maybe I missed it, but address why the emphasis on Western countries.

Miscellaneous thoughts:

• Change section title 'Concept' to 'Conceptual history'
• Change section title 'Critique' to 'Critiques'
• Maybe expand discussion of how 'prejudices based on culture' are otherwise understood, and history of that understanding. There is discussion about the historic concept of race, but not this.
• Critical race theory is mentioned. How does Cultural racism fit into critical race theory?
• 'Alternative definitions' subsection - First paragraph could be flushed out (or maybe scrapped?). In what way did Mukhopadhyay and Chua note that scholars used the terms differently?
• The quote box for Uri Ben-Elizer seems out of place. I found myself looking for text about him in the section - but he is described in a lower section.

-LaTeeDa (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sleeping on it, maybe the issue with the Definition and similar sections is a reliance on primary sources. For example, in Definitions, and Alternative Definitions, there are eight paragraphs each discussing a different scholar's perspective on definition, and each sourced to that scholar's work. Are their review articles or textbooks that cover this, that would help us decide what is notable and how much weight to give to the individual scholar perspectives? LaTeeDa (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that there are any textbooks of tertiary sources that do a good job of summarising the primary sources, at least not at present. I turned to some of the main introductory books on racism, such as Rattansi's, but rarely do they go into much depth on the whole concept of cultural racism. That has meant relying quite a bit on the original primary sources themselves. Not the best situation to be in, but it's the situation we are presently faced with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Responses from nominator

This is going to take some time to unpack, as we have had the GAN conducted about the same time as Azerty has undertaken some quite significant alterations to the prose of the article. I'm going to partially revert the article to its more longstanding structure, and work from there, to try and bring about some stability for the moment. By this I do not mean to say that Azerty's edits are worthless or should be discounted, just that we need stability amid a GAN. Their edits can easily be reintegrated in the coming days. More comments soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• This reversion means that the term "post-fascist" has been removed from the article's lede. I can see Azerty's point about the European far-right's switch to emphasising cultural differences being a product of their attempts to adjust to fascist defeats in the Second World War. At the same time, I agree with Goldsztajn that the term "post-facist" is perhaps misleading here in that implies that all of Europe had previously been ruled by fascist governments, which obviously was not the case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Both LaTeeDa and Goldsztajn suggest that the lede is too long. To that end I have removed one of the sentences from the second paragraph, thus shortening it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have renamed the sub-section "Critique" as "Critiques", as per LaTeeDa's suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure about LaTeeDa's suggestion to rename the section titled "Concept" as "Conceptual history". I think that if we are trying to ensure that this article is as accessible to as broad a range of readers as possible, we need the clearest language possible, and I think "Concept" is definitely clearer than "Conceptual history." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• LaTeeDa notes that "Critical race theory is mentioned. How does Cultural racism fit into critical race theory?". This is a difficult one. Critical race theory is primarily (although far from exclusively) being a U.S. phenomenon; most of the scholars who have devised and promoted ideas about "cultural racism" have been from Western Europe. Many of the latter clearly have some basic familiarity with critical race theory literature, but it is not always clear how much their own ideas should be seen as part of the critical race theory movement and to what extent they are something separate. Unfortunately, because there is very little historical literature examining the development of these concepts it is not really possible at this time to be more explicit in describing the connections between the concept of "cultural racism" and critical race theory. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• LaTeeDa states: "'Alternative definitions' subsection - First paragraph could be flushed out (or maybe scrapped?)." I actually think it's easier to scrap it than to expand it, as there are not many useful Reliable Sources with which to flesh it out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Goldsztajn states that "The entire section on Blaut to my mind is UNDUE" and on this I'd have to agree. I've scrapped the section and heavily cut back on the use of Blaut here. I've kept only a few sentences, summarising his basic argument, and merged it into the section below. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Goldsztajn has raised some concern about the copyright issues of the Jean-Marie Le Pen image. However, as far as I can see the image is under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license and thus should not pose any problems for us here. If I've missed something, however, then please do point it out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • My concern related to the individual rights issue of a photo taken in the person's home (ie private space). There are quite a few more of him in public space on commons, IMO it would be safer to choose one of those.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see what you mean. In that case I shall certainly find a replacement image. Thanks, Goldsztajn. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Goldsztajn suggests that we add a few more images, for instance of an identitarian march. On this, I would perhaps disagree for the reason that there is not presently the room. If the length of the article's text expands, then that would facilitate more space for images, but at present I think it would make the article look cluttered. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe substitute images for a couple of the quote boxes. BTW, this image from AfD, to my eye, is compelling and captures how sophisticated the far right has become in its cultural racism messaging. I would even suggest this for the top image. —LaTeeDa (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting image and I think it could potentially be used in the article. I would probably be cautious about using it as the lede image, however. The current image (the sticker from Wroclaw) is explicitly stating a message of opposition to multiculturalism in Poland, in all its forms. That fits the concept of cultural racism very neatly, which is why I think it makes for a good image at the top. The AfD image, however, is only placing focus on expressing opposition to Islam in Germany. That fits the concept of Islamophobia quite neatly, but as the article makes clear there is still a debate as to the relationship between anti-Islam sentiments and cultural racism. On that count, I think it would serve us less well as a lede image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Midnightblueowl here, the image from Poland is the better between the two. Ideally, I would like to see a collage of four photos in the lede which would include the present one, something like this image from Japan, something from Americas and an "anti-" one, perhaps something from one of the anti-xenophobia marches in South Africa, but ideally an image from outside of the Global North. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

On the one hand I completely agree that having a geographically dispersed range of images would be a very good idea. On the other I have concerns that doing so, at least at the current time, might represent something like Original Research. If the RS do not rarely extend the concept of cultural racism to non-Western societies, would we be engaging in Original Research or WP:Synthesis by extending that concept ourselves? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

ideally ... :) I was just thinking aloud and you are absolutely correct: all those would require clear association with RS in the article text. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that we all have concerns about Rattansi's claim that "racism" as a word developed in the 1930s; the term is clearly older. There's a section on the article Talk Page where we can discuss this further; while here, however, I would ask if anyone knows of any good academic sources that actually discuss the etymology and historical development of "racism" as a concept? We could definitely make good use of such a source at this juncture of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• More soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Goldsztajn raised concerns about an over-use of direct quotation and to this end I have sought to paraphrase a great many of the quotations used in this article. The removal of the section which relied heavily on Blaut's arguments about Western identity has also been helpful in this regard. There are some instances where I thought it best to leave the quotations intact, especially when outlining particular scholars' proposed definitions of cultural racism. I also left many of the direct quotations from Giroux in place, but that's largely because I find it a bit difficult to summarise his statements. If Goldsztajn or anyone else thinks that certain other quotations could be replaced with paraphrasing then please do say so; I'd be very happy to discuss it further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Goldsztajn notes that Foucault and Derrida are more closely associated with post-structuralism and post-modernism, and while that is true (or so I believe), at this point in the article we are describing Flecha's arguments, in which he positions Foucault and Derrida as part of the same "post-modern" trend; hence his employ of the term "post-modern racism." I think that the best thing to do here is simply to make it clear in the article text that it is Flecha who is calling these philosophers "post-modern", without actually stating that they are post-modernists, using Wikipedia's voice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I came at this from a concern about the significance of the term postmodern racism – it is not something I have seen much in use at all. In thinking about your response here, I looked a little deeper into the term - as far as I can see, Zizek is one of the first to use the term in 1993, although he puts it in scare "" quotes: What we must be particularly attentive to is the difference between this "postmodern" racism which now rages around Europe and the traditional form of racism. The old racism was direct and raw-"they" (Jews, Blacks, Arabs, Eastern Europeans...) are lazy, violent, plotting, eroding our national substance... - whereas the new racism is "reflected," as it were squared, racism, which is why it can well assume the form of its opposite, of the fight against racism. Etienne Balibar hit the mark by baptizing it "meta-racism". The quotes from Flecha in the article more or less paraphrase Zizek's work of six years earlier. Here, Zizek is not proposing a new category called postmodern racism, but rather locating the contemporary (of that time) expressions of racism within postmodern conditions (although using postmodern in a derisory form, basically code for neoliberalism). I realise numbers of Google hits are not definitive, but they can help us contextualise: a Google Scholar search of "postmodern racism" gives just under 300 hits, "cultural racism" just over 12,000 hits – so we are talking about a relatively small representation within a far larger form. I would recommend dropping the mention altogether of Derrida, Foucault and Lyotard since Flecha's catergorisations and characterisations are contentious. (I cannot access the citation but from what is mentioned in the article he seems to be drawing the bow of postmodern theory as nihilism, cultural relativism etc etc). Flecha does not seem to be a theorist specialising in theories of racism, I think it would be enough here to mention that his dichotomy of modern and postmodern racism matches that as earlier expounded by Zizek, who made similar distinctions in reference to the work of Balibar. Most important, Flecha's term is more than 20 years old now, but does has not appear to have been adopted by theorists in the field.

References

--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Further to this point, Google Ngram comparison of the different terms used in the lede. I think the results regarding "new racism" would need to be analysed further (but I am not suggesting any changes in that regard); just noting that it reinforces the relatively limited usage of postmodern racism in comparison to all other terms. --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy to reduce the amount of text we currently devote to Flecha and his concept of "postmodern racism." However, I'm not quite sure how much to cut it down by. If we remove the explanation of why Flecha thinks postmodernism generates cultural racism, then we leave unexplained the very term "postmodern racism" in the first place. That, of course, would lead us to just removing Flecha altogether, and I'm not sure if that's a good idea. A third opinion might be good here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But why keep Flecha? He's not the first to use the term, the idea that postmodernism generates cultural racism is a highly contentious claim and 20+ years later the term itself seems to have little significance. Perhaps conversion to a note. Pinging @LaTeeDa and Azerty82: for comment. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've commented before that there is a risk in this article of relying too much on primary sources, which is a slippery slope to WP:NOR and undue weighting. It is clear that Midnightblueowl has been very careful not to add their own synthesis to the article, but just by including sources that have had little impact and aren't covered in secondary literature can be undue weight (and without referencing secondary literature, probably because there isn't much available, it is hard to evaluate weighting in the article). For a topic article like this, where it appears that there is a lot of low notability primary source content, our default should be to omit unless notability can be demonstrated. If there aren't good secondary reviews that cover in this level of detail, that might be a sign that the existing article content should be condensed. So, I agree that Flecha and discussion of 'postmodern racism' in this article should probably be removed, especially if it isn't referenced by secondary sources. LaTeeDa (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the paragraph citing Flecha's ideas from the "Definitions" section. I think it worth keeping the term "postmodern racism" in the article, however; according to Google Flecha's article has been cited 109 times so it appears to have some broader impact in the literature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• As Goldsztajn suggested, I have added alt-text to all of the images used in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that I have responded to all (or almost all) of the more minor comments that have ben raised at this GAN so far. There are, however, some meatier issues that I still do need to address and which will take a bit more thought, particularly the question of what to do with the literature produced in the U.S. in the late 60s and early 70s which Goldsztajn highlights. I'll hopefully get onto those later in the week. Thanks again to all those who have offered their thoughts here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Midnightblueowl: – a gentle nudge, just want to get a sense of your timing for going forward... Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge, Goldsztajn - I had no idea I had left it almost a month! My apologies. Will get onto this very soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've added a couple of sentences on cultural racism and the construction of apartheid, citing the Mangcu article that Goldsztajn kindly found. I've added it to the "Cultural racism in Western countries" section, because the Afrikaners could to some extent be seen as "Western", and Verwoerd was himself Dutch-born. The alternative would be to move it to a new section called "Cultural racism outside the West" or something, but frankly at the present time I don't think there are enough sources applying this concept to non-Western contexts to warrant the construction of such a section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest, I haven't been able to get hold of copies of the books by Wilson, Hodge, and Jones, all of which Goldsztajn highlighted. I rely quite a bit on libraries, and with lockdown in force that isn't proving an option. I haven't been able to find these texts available online, either (although if anyone does know of such links then please do let me know). Because of that, I haven't incorporated their ideas into the article itself; however, as Goldsztajn noted, these sources probably do have useful things to say. At the same time, the fact that these U.S. theorists were operating independently from the explicit theorisation of 'cultural racism' as a concept (which remains a very West European thing) we should be careful here to avoid moving into a direction akin to WP:Synthesis. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Azerty has suggested dividing the "Opposing cultural racism" section into two sub-sections, one on "critical pedagogy" and the other on "advocacy of multiculturalism". It may be that, as the literature on this topic expands, we will have the scope to do that, but at present I'm not really sure that division would be effective. This is particularly because there is a lot of overlap between these two topics; Giroux and Powell, both of whom are proponents of critical pedagogy, argue for promoting multiculturalism in schools. Would this material go into "critical pedagogy" or "advocacy of multiculturalism"? It could fit just as easily in either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Azerty also suggests that "A section on the 'pre-history' of cultural racism would be interesting." I can certainly see their point here (and would agree), but at present creating any such subject would pretty much be original research/synthesis on our part. Until we have Reliable Sources that explicitly start discussing pre-20th century phenomena as "cultural racism" (or by some synonym) then we shouldn't be jumping the gun. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Azerty notes that a particular sentence in the "Concept" section is unclear ("This differed from earlier forms of anti-Semitism, which rarely regarded Jews as a distinct race"). This sentence is actually no longer in the article; it wasn't really essential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Azerty comments: "The following issue is not really addressed in the article (that is why I had introduced A. de Benoist's response in the /critique/ section): do cultural racists view other cultures as incompatible with their culture, or as incompatible and inferior to their culture?" I think that this is a pretty complicated issue and there is no one right answer. The final sentence of the second paragraph of the "Definitions" section includes Balibar's belief that talk about cultural incompatibility often betrays a belief in a relative ranking of inferiority/superiority. So we do mention the issue. But I'm not really sure how to explore this issue further with the sources we actually have available to us. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Goldsztajn, Midnightblueowl, LaTeeDa, Azerty82, this review has quite a significant delay of 2 months, while it appears that Midnightblueowl has responded to all of the comments above. The reviewer may consider closing this review. Juliette Han (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed that Midnightblueowl had responded to this round. Will look over it this weekend. --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Just another nudge on this review. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Any update on the review? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the long delay, final reviewing this week. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(almost) Final reviewer comment

Apologies for taking a long time to come back to this. This has been the most complicated (and interesting) GAR I've undertaken (albeit I have not done too many). There's been a lot of constructive comment from all the editors who have engaged in this process and I certainly do not feel I am a "lead" reviewer here, but have worked equally with (and relied heavily on) inputs from LaTeeDa, Alcaios and Midnightblueowl. I have to admit, that my sense of the article has somewhat evolved since the review started, although I believe some of my initial comments prefigure the conclusion I've reached. That said, and especially in light of the comments that this review has generated, I'm leaning towards a fail on this as a GA for two primary reasons:

• 1. The absence of discussion in the article of the origins of the term in the US. The response from Midnightblueowl was twofold:

(a) initially related to lack of access to the sources due to the COVID-19 situation, which is perfectly understandable, but not a justification which removes the need to discuss the US origins of the term;

(b) raising a concern of synthesis – but without examining the earlier US work itself we cannot make that judgement; and nothing in the work of the authors I cited suggests their work would stands in contradiction with the issues discussed in the article. This seems especially the case with James Jones, whose work from 1999 is referenced in the article.

• 2. I found this comment from LaTeeDa particularly useful: I've commented before that there is a risk in this article of relying too much on primary sources, which is a slippery slope to WP:NOR and undue weighting. It is clear that Midnightblueowl has been very careful not to add their own synthesis to the article, but just by including sources that have had little impact and aren't covered in secondary literature can be undue weight (and without referencing secondary literature, probably because there isn't much available, it is hard to evaluate weighting in the article). My initial comments about over-quoting in the article hint at this point raised more concretely by LaTeeDa. But my sense is that there's a methodological problem here − the article is primarily an agglomeration of the work of specialists, which I think works perfectly well when an article is dealing with a clearly defined subject (such as individual biography or a specific scientific concept) but becomes much harder with a such a complicated issue as this, which incorporates a constellation of sociological, historic and political concepts itself. (I think the section on Cultural racism in Western countries particularly reflects this problem). I suggested at the very beginning of the review that Mukhopadhyay and Chua (2008) would be a useful point of reference for some of the article structure since this is an encyclopaedic approach to the concept. In the article - just one page from Mukhopadhyay and Chua (2008) is referenced three times (and later encylopaedic piece by Chua (2017) is referenced just once), whereas specialist theorists (such as Balibar) are referenced multiple times. My impression is that that article is imbalanced between sourcing which is generalist in scope versus sources which are specialist.

Perhaps one of these points by themselves would not have given me ground to pause, but this is where I am. I'd appreciate the views of LaTeeDa and Alcaios on whether to pass or fail at this point. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and your time on this GAN, Goldsztajn. You make some fair points in relation to your decision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, LaTeeDa hasn't edited Wikipedia since May, shortly after posting here, so I very much doubt you'll hear anything from them. Alcaios has been active of late, but if nothing is forthcoming in another couple of days (it's been six), or after they next edit Wikipedia, I think you'll have to decide this without their views. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, noted. FYI sections of Wilson's 1973 text Power, Racism and Privilege seem to be accessible now via Google Books; parts available include discussion of the concept of cultural racism with reference to Jones' work (p.44). If I don't see any replies by the end of the week, I will close. All the best, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Goldsztajn. I'm not in the position to make alterations to the article at the present time (I'm entering Wiki semi-retirement), so if you wish to fail the GAN, I completely understand. Many thanks again for taking the time to review it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are entering semi-retirement, your work will be missed! Thank you also for being very patient in this process.--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Closing

As there are no further comments, will now close as GAN fail, however, chapeau to Midnightblueowl whose work has meant, while not (yet) GA, this is a strong, informative article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.