Talk:Racism/Archive 13

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 12 |

Archive 13

| Archive 14 →

Official Governement Policy

I dont know if we are working on making this article better or not, i have removed official and someone put it back. I have made the topic more inclusive. These titles were placed here by editors like me, they can be changed. But if you want to leave it as official then UK, Uganda and more will maybe India have to go. Idi amin did not make removal of Indians official policy he just did it as a dictator. Indians still live and always lived in Uganda, so it wasnt official government policy and they are no sources given to suggest it was part of the official policy of UGANDA, to add UK George Galloway a very nice man, is making a personal statement, again there is no evidence of an official policy of racism just manifestations of racism, Discuss here or admit my changes to the title.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The case of Uganda certainly fits, and the argument for the UK seems to be a general one against racial profiling, though if that isn't official policy, its inclusion might need to be reviewed. Tewfik^Talk 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why i removed the word Official, Uganda did not have an official policy of kicking indians out. So why is it there. official is a problem. show balance, dont edit beyond your means, what do you want your cake or do you want to eat it. You are so careful to revert what i did, but you didnt look at why i took out the word official because it is next to impossible to prove, unless you can bring the Ugandan official documents to say it was part of their government policy legally.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Official" doesn't mean "in the constitution". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

why dont you tell me what it means then? Is it clear what the purpose of Official serves. isnt Government policy then enough. Official means written in the body of the parliment; look it up and see. Official policy, what is the dif between official policy and policy? --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Official" means a policy written down by the government somewhere; it doesn't mean it's "in the constitution". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My question explain the dif between "official government policy" and "Government policy" very simple. where did Idi Amin write this down? r u sure he wrote it down? or did he just do it.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If something is "official", then it is "authorized by a proper authority" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition); thus something that is "official" does not necessarily have to be written down but merely authorized by a civil officer, whether through legislation or (non-written) decree, explicitly or surreptitiously. "Government policy", conversely, must be written into law or government documents, and it is therefore inherently official and explicit. So, something can be "official" (authorized by a civil officer, whether through written or non-written means, explicitly or surreptiously) without being "government policy" (explicitly written into law or government documents). But to avoid the confusion surrounding this terminology, I hereby propose that the title of the section be changed to the more broad "State-enforced racism". -- WGee 06:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, racism applies to perceived races only, not to castes or any other social classes (cf. Racism#India). -- WGee 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the section "Institutional racism" desperately needs to be expanded, as it is the most common and effective form of racism in the West. As a measure of its preponderance and significance, institutional racism is the main subject of debate on the CNN series Paula Zahn NOW: Racism in America. It is also the most widespread and serious form of racism according to civil rights groups such as the NAACP. Moreover, institutional racism is frequently cited as a major cause of civil unrest and low economic status amongst Europe's Muslims, for instance in "France and Its Muslims" by Stéphane Giry, published in the October/November issue of Foreign Affairs. -- WGee 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i agree with the rename but suggest Government endorsed racism, as the current title actual is incorrect.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Government-endorsed racism" is probably a better title than the one I suggested, since "endorsed" means "formally supported especially by public statement" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). Thus, we avoid the complex and controversial debate that would accompany my original title, about whether or not certain states are informally or surreptiously enforcing racism. -- WGee 02:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it is probably best not to conceal that relevant debate, as per WP:NPOV; "State-sponsored racism" is a more appropriate title then. -- WGee 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting this

State racism]] played a role in Nazi Germany, fascist regimes in Europe, and in the first part of Japan's Showa period, before World War II. These governments advocated and implemented policies that were racist, xenophobic, and often genocidal. Even if the main purpose of shôwa Japan policies were not the genocide of other populations, degrading terms such as as kichibu (beast) were frequently used by the Japanese government and military to describe neighbors such as the Chinese, Koreans and Philippines — and the policies implemented caused the deaths of millions of civilians.

Now i dont know much about this but i dont think it should be included without refernces--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazism, Facism and Shôwa imperialism

Zakisan5, this section is in the article from the beginning and your argument that only Nazi germany comitted genocide and, in consequence racism is irrelevant. You tried the same tactic in Japanese war crimes article, but the peoplewho followed that article had good knowledge of the subject and you had to stop your deletions. So, please, stop your propaganda.

The policies of Showa Japan such as the decision made by Hirohito to ratify on August 1937 a proposition of his Army to remove the constraints of the international conventions for prisoners of war and stop using the term "prisoner of war" (Akira Fujiwara), the sanko sakusen (2,7 millions chinese according to Mitsuyoshi Himeta), the vivisections of unit 731, the Nanking massacre (200 000 chinese according to Tokyo tribunal), the bombing of Chongqing, the practice of cannibalism etc., all motivated by the pursuit of the hakko ichi'u and the racist theory that Japan people was the chosen race guided by the descendant of goddess Amaterasu, have caused the deaths of millions of civilians in far east Asia whether you like it or not.

Propaganda like the Kokutai no hongi, approved by prime minister Fumimaro Konoe, all refered to the concept of uniqueness and superiority of Japanese "race" common to the concept of nihonjinron. The use of terms like maruta (log) and kichibu is the expression of that racism.

Apart of what can be found on Wikipedia, there are many books that discuss the aspects of the racist theories of the Shôwa period, such as A short history of Japanese war crimes by Edward Russel of Liverpool, Hidden horrors by Yuki Tanaka, The thought war by Barak Kushner, The enigma of Japanese power by Karel van Wolferen, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan by Herbert Bix, Unit 731 testimony by Hal Gold.

--Flying tiger 14:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are no refernces in the article it should be removed. its as simple as that. add sources or anyone can add anything.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Flying Tiger, I would discuss this matter more productively. At first I’d like to say that you labeled my sentences quite easily as ‘Propaganda’ without investigating the contents of my idea. It is easy way to label something like it, but it will create nothing new. Please make sure the points below; 1. I would never advocate everything what the Emperor of Japan had done in the past. As I stated in the sentence which you deleted, ‘We also have to take notice that in those times, at the height of imperialism, the tendencies of racism were all around the world. it is fact that Japanese Military also had the similar tendency to it, for example, they sometime called white superpowers, which colonized almost all Asian Countries except for Japan, as 'Kichiku'(Devil)’. Of couse I hate all kinds of racism, But in those days it did exsist all over the world, of course in Japan. 2. However, as I stated ‘we have to take notice of the fact that Japanese regime had never tried to do the genocide on Chinese, Koreans or any other races in Asian countries. Japan genuinely had warfare against the Allies and China, in contrast to Nazis which tried to exterminate the Jews who were pure civilians’. As you may admit, the Emperor of Japan never had such genocidal policies. I mean, it is a evidence that it is not ‘State Racism’. It makes big deffrence. 3. Nevertheless, you deleted all my sentences and add your ideas on ‘State Racism’ and intentionally, you emphasized the wrong doings of the Emperor of Japan much more than Germany (to make readers feel that Japan did worse things regarding rasicm than Nazis Germany, even though you admitted that the Genocide had never been the officail policy of Japanese government), that is ‘Propaganda’. If you really hate the ‘racism’ itself, why you have done like this? 4. Also, I would like you to explain the reason why ‘Chiune Sugihara, who had saved thousands of Jews by his single-handed decision as the consul of the Empire of Japan to Lithuania, was never punished or accused by the his Government’? This story has been well know all over the world as now he is called ‘Japanese Schindler’, Still you insist on your idea that Japan had obvious sysytem of ‘State Racism’? If you only want to advocate specific ideas and attack somethnig specific, you should not do it on Wikipedia. 5. Also, you misinterprit my idea; I did never say that ‘only Nazi germany comitted genocide’. But as I stated above ‘in those times, at the height of imperialism, the tendencies of racism were all around world. it is fact that Japanese Military also had the similar tendency to it’. I just stated ‘to consider Nazism and Japanese government before and during World War II as similar racist movements’ is not fair regarding its scale and also substance. I already have written the reason above.

Please answer above, and let me know whether you would like to do the pursuit of the truth of the history or just propaganda of your own ideas. If latter, if though I give you millions of references, you will easily deny them all for the reason being ‘every reference is propaganda for classic-right wing’.　...from Zakisan5

First, let me write that I read all your arguments. The main problem I think is your will to adequate racism and genocide. I did not wish to emphasize about Japan. It was in answer to your comments. In my mind, all three regimse should be trated equally.

As I tried to wite before, it is true that the main purpose of the shôwa regime was not the genocide of other yellow people. However, that does not mean the politics implemented were not RACIST. Many authors have wrote about the imperial propaganda that washed the brain of shôwa soldiers to make them think that neighbors such as Chinese were not worthy of respect. All the massacres of civilians were greatly facilitated because of this perception. I'll just refered you here the case reported by historian Tsuda Michio in Nankin daigyakusatsu to Nihonjin bo seishin kozo of a japanese seargent who had raped and killed many chinese women and became impotent when he discovered that is last victim was a japanese immigrant.

Apart, from degrading other yellow people, the shôwa propaganda also degraded occidentals in general and Jews in particular (USA = Country of the Jews, see The Thought war by Barak Kushner)

When you write that Japan as not try to exterminate chinese or philippines, may I reply that 10 millions civilians were enslaved for slave work in Manchukuo and 2,7 millions died only because of the sankô sakusen. Is it not near genocide ? Those were not warriors, they were civilians.

Even if the policy was not : "let' go exterminate neighbors." Was not the effect the same ? And those poor maruta exterminated by Shiro Ishii with the approval of Hirohito ?

The work done by Hideki Tojo's wife in eugenism is also an illustration of the shôwa ideology : create a super race of sun warriors for the glory and expansion of Japan. You can not deny the main goal of the hakko ichi'u was the implementation of the kodo above all asians whether they wanted it or not ? The shôwa soldiers were convinced that they were superior as expressed by nihonjinron.

You give the example of Sugihara who saved lives. What about the nazi John Rabe ? He did the same in Nanking and was not punished either by Hitler... Does that mean that Nazi germany was not racist ?

I'm sure we can come to an agreement but Nazi germany must not be isolated for the only purpose of direct genocide. Shôwa regime was a racist state.

--Flying tiger 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Flying Tiger, I read all your argument above and I also hope that we can come to an agreement, on the ground that both of us hate all kinds of racism and genocidal ideologies. I would like to discuss this matter on the basis of the policy of Wikipedia, neutral and fair. At first, I would like to ask you, what does your sentence’ The main problem I think is your will to adequate racism and genocide' mean? If you use the word 'adequate' as 'advocate', I would repeatedly state here; I hate all the racism and genocide! Also, one more question about your sentence above, why did you use the term 'yellow people'? in this case, I think 'Asian people' is appropriate. As I repeatedly wrote, it is fact that Empire of Japan was influenced by the racism of that era of imperialism, but you may admit that 'eugenism' was nothing new even in those day, but it had been used some hundreds years prior to those era when white superpowers started colonized all over the world. I understand that you really studied about this era and read lots of books as me, but I would like to point out that your ideas came from both appropriate source and biased, uncertain source. Some authors who you referred to are based on specific ideology and point of historical view. I know there have been lots of books described how Japanese military was cruel, but lots of them were biased by emotional, ideological ot political reason, such as Iris Chang. What I hate is, to stir the people’s hate against something by rhetoric, even if the rhetoric advocates my own race, if it drives people to hate something, I deny and hate it. You may admit that, if some people dislike specific race and label them as ‘racists’, it is ‘RACISM’. ‘Wikipedia’has been my favorite website for it’s abundant information and neutral, fair attitude, but recently sometime I have been disappointed when I found some articles using that kind of rhetoric to degrade some specific people. Last but not least, as for the Mr.John Rabe, please refer to the Wikipedia article; ‘Instead, Rabe was detained and interrogated by the Gestapo. Due to the intervention of Siemens AG, he was released. He was allowed to keep evidence of the massacre, excluding the film, but was not allowed to lecture or write on the subject’. Indeed, he was punised by Hitler. Also, you quoted that Empire of Japan ‘also degraded occidentals in general and Jews in particular’, as I stated in prior message, it is fact that ‘Japanese sometime called white superpowers, which colonized almost all Asian Countries except for Japan, as 'Kichiku'(Devil)’ at the time when all Asian people, including Japanese, were despised by the severe prejudice from them. But at the same time, I would like you to refer to the Wikipedia article of Chiune Sugihara, who is one of the guys I mostly respected all the time; ‘Despite German pressure for the Japanese government to either hand over or kill the Jewish refugees, the government protected the group.’ Please read my opinion above carefully…I am not in hurry. ...from Zakisan5

-What I mean is I disagree with your will to make an absolute link between racism and genocial ideologies. You can be racist without being genocidal and that was the case of the Shôwa regime.

-"Asian" is a vague term reffering to people as diverse as arabs, persians, indians, and thaï. Race is not a scientific concept but when you refer to "white, black and yellow", everybody understand. The Dai Tô'A sensô was only against people from far east asia and thus, from the yellow race.

-You admit that the Shôwa empire was "influenced bay racism of that era", I argue that its ideology such as the hakko ichi'u of the shôwa restauration was racist in substance and that the ideas promoted the view that Japanese "race" was superior to others.

-eugenism as a science was promoted by Francis Galton in 19th century and it is as a science that it was promoted in Japan by Tôjô's wife.

-You argue that my sources are biased and you cite Iris Chang. I never referred to her and I cited japanese authors such as Himeta, Fujiwara, Yoshimi and Kubo. However, in all your interventions, you never refered to any author... just your personal feelings about racism.

-I know John Rabe'story well, I have his diary. He NEVER was punished for having helped chinese, he was just ordered to stop doing "propaganda" in Berlin against Japan, the main ally with Italy. This is a BIG difference. Rabe was never ordered to stop his humanitary actions in NANKING when he patrolled the streets helping the poor chinese who were beaten, raped and killed by the shôwa army of prince Asaka and his fellow Nakajima and showing the japanese soldiers his Nazi regalia. I am sure Sugihara would not have been able to do propaganda against Germany in the universities and ministry of Tokyo...

However, all these arguments about individuals actions such as Rabe or Sugihara are irrelevants, since they were not linked to their governements. The Jewish question is in itself very marginal to Shôwa racism but you just have to read the Wikipedia article about the Shanghai ghetto to see that jewish community of Shanghai, including some of the people saved by Sugihara, were confined to the ghetto in very harsh conditions ordered by the Japanese occupants to please the germans...

-If you do not like references to articles about Japan, we will have to delete also those about Germany. We have to be neutral. --Flying tiger 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Flying Tiger, I have read your argument and felt that we are getting closer to some agreements.

At first, as for the ‘Link between Racism and genocial ideologies’, your argument ‘You can be racist without being genocidal’ I agree with this idea, and I think this is a key point of our argument. In fact, there are various racisms are still going around the world in nowadays, in this modern world. And now they are not overt as 70 years ago. But at the same time, our dissent also belongs to here. My notion about this was repeatedly stated here; ‘It is fact that Empire of Japan was influenced by racism derived from those days' Imperialism all around the world. But it is not fair to consider Japanese government as the same genocidal movements as Nazis, since Nazism’s main purpose was obviously racism’. Genocide is the appearance which racism goes extreme. You may argue that ‘ It is fact that Japanese Government never had genocidal policy. But I know that they were very racistic and comitted terrible things. They shoul be treated equally with Nazis'. This argument seems endless, but I would like to tell you, as I checked the main article today, regarding the current sentence, I don’t have any objection. But I would like to point out a couple of things; why references of ‘Main Articles’ are The Holocaust, Japanese war crimes, Ethnic issues in Japan? Taking one subject of Nazism, and 2 subjects of Japan is not fair; If you refer to Japan, I think 2 Nazis articles and 1 Japan article would be fair. Also, why didn’t you refer to Italy? They were Fascist Government which was allied with Nazis. Is there any reason to ommit them? One more, Title: If you use the term ‘Showa’ , it should be ‘early Showa’. Showa is a long term. After the war, there was long pacific era of almost half a century. If you agree to my suggestions, we will be closer to an agreement.

Regarding the term ‘yellow’, I would like to say that this term is slightly different from ‘White’ or ‘Black’ , has a smack of prejudice. But I would understand and not blame you for just one word. Just like me, you are doing this argument in the short intervals of busy days… The term ‘Dai Tô'A sensô’ is not the meaning you mentioned. Navy simply used the term ‘Pacific War’ because their main battle fields were in the Pacific, and Army used ‘Dai Tô'A sensô’ since their main fields were not in the Pacific, but in East/South East Asian area(Dai Tô'A). And this term used to mean 'war to release the Asian races from the imperialism and conialism of white superpowers', not the war against people in Far East Asia.

Regarding the 'eugenism', I have never heard that Tojo's wife promoted this concept in Japan. Can you specify the source?

I know that you have never referred to Iris Chang, I took her just for a example. What I meant was, the Japanese authors you referred to are all leftists or communists, and some are Marxists. As you may know, Marxism has very specfic point of histrical view, and their histrical ideas are usally not conisdered as neutral in democratic world. Of course, I don’t criticize you for your own belief or ideology, but in Japan, especially in 1960s and 1970s they had lots of disturbances in Japan, and some extremists had gave rise to terrible and bloody incidents in and outside Japan, which dispersed strong Anti-Japanse sentiments all over the world. They were all against the government and democracy, so they did lots of the ‘propagandas’ against their own country, which I think worsened the relationship between Japan and China, which had been just about to be recovered and improved after the war by the efforts of both side.

Reagarding the Shanghai ghetto, I would like to tell you that in the latter half of the war, even almost all Japanese, including women and children in main land, were enforced to work for the industries of the military without sufficient food and clothings, and millions were burned by the bombings of Allies. The plight of the Jews in Shanghai ghetto was not ascribed to the racism, and of course, not to please Germany!! ...From Zakisan5

Hi,

-Ok, I will add articles about Germany (4 Nazi, 3 Shôwa in all), however, I do not know those about Facism.

-The text already refer to "Japan's first part of the Shôwa period".

-I know the Dai Tô'A sensô was officially against Occident but in fact it is the local people from far east who suffered from the invasion despite all the propaganda about releasing them from "evil occidental imperialism".

-Katsuko Tôjô's implication in eugenism and birth policies is covered on Wikipedia in Eugenics in Imperial Japan. I also read references about her propaganda role in Women and war in Japan 1937-45 by Thomas Havens.

-Without proof of direct political activities, I consider that when you accuse Himeta, Yoshimi, Fujiwara, Kubo and Tsuda Michio of being "leftists, communists or marxists" you use the traditionnal argument of right-wing ideologists who attack the messenger when he support views that are not what they like to read. All these historians have discovered concrete proofs written in primary sources such as the "Sugiyama memo" or others to support their claims. This is sadly not the case of their detractors. Being published by Aoki Shoten or Shin-Nihon Shuppansha does not mean you are automatically a "communist" for the same reason that being member of the LDP does not mean you are a fan of Nobosuke Kishi...

I will make some changes in the links, just write me what you think. --Flying tiger 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I checked the article and think it’s reasonable.

Our debate has been fruitful, now I know that you are not the person who dislike and attack some specific race emotionally, and I hope now you know I am not the person who do the vandalism with Right-Wing Propaganda.

I think our debate above should stay here for long, as a proof that the debate can surely take us to somewhere better, as long as both are rational (not nationalists, ha ha).

Thank you for your comitiment, and when we meet again somewhere in ‘Wikipedia’ and if there is dissent again, let’s debate fairy like this time.

From Zakisan5--Takayuki 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The debate prove you are a rational person and not a nationalist fanatic. It is a classic example of the utility of the discussion page. --Flying tiger 16:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Institutional racism and affirmative action

This is further to the content added by Coolguy81 and removed by me, concerrning job reservations, the Mandal commission, et.c. I agree that the content is well-cited and attributed. However, it is inappropriate her, since Affirmative action has its own article, and I suggest that the content be placed there. It is also contestable since it assumes that caste discrimination is racism, something that is not universally accepted.

This raises the question of just what institutional racism is. I consider that the common usage is for the situation where systems systematically discriminate against a community, in contradiction to institutional or government policies.

By this definition, of course, apartheid and the White Australia policy do not constitute institutional racism. State racism would be a better place to include these.

Imc 10:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your views.Affirmative actions are meant for educationally or economically weaker section to come forward. In India especially in states like Tamilnadu given citations proves that people who are getting benefitted are over represented and educationally and economically better of or equal to people who are getting discriminated(so called Upper castes).Many more additional citations can be given to justify these claims. Article 2.2 of International convention on elimination of racial discrimination [1] clearly states that affirmative action policies has to be stopped once objectives are met and should not cause reverse discrimination of other ethnic groups.(India is also a signatory to that convention). Certain Indian states like Delhi,Haryana follow reservation percentage which is more than the population of so called lower castes.

Refer your views on whether caste can be considered as race. External links given in this article states that race is not biological concept and human perception about perceived ethnic groups. First paragraph also says that race is sometimes used to refer certain ethnic groups.For example, Jews were considered as race by Hitler whereas Jews are followers of Judaism religion and could have come from multiple ethnicities. Malaysia considers Chinese,Indians & Malays as separate races in its census, but Indians could have come from Aryan ethnicity or Dravidian ethnicity.So discrimination based on caste can be considered as Racism since there is no standard definition for Race. (Caste is also decided based on birth).

I am reinserting those well cited paragraphs remaining in this article for long time.I suggest that modification, addition or removal of contents can be done after some consensus is reached. in this talk pages. --Coolguy81 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Providing references is only part of the criteria for including any facts. More important is that they be relevant. Relevance decreases as more specific articles are written. Either or both of Affirmative action and State racism would be more appropriate, depending on which of your arguments you are pursue. However, the purpose of Institutional Racism is stated in the leading paragraph "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin". It does not include deliberate and clearly stated government policies. The claim that affirmative action benefits its recipient more than is fair is made in every instance where it is practised. I've no intention of getting embroiled in an edit war, but it is a pity I can't help make this page more coherent. Imc 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Followers of racism will always try to project it as affirmative action. Worldover affirmative action policies are introduced with proper data.For example United states has proper data about the status of Blacks vis a vis Whites. In India, Government does not have any census based data and all government surveys point out that status of backward classes and upper castes are more or less same.(This section does not talk about reservations to scheduled castes.It only talks about reservations to backward classes).Indian government is introducing reservations only to satisfy whims and fancies of certain groups. How can you justify such action as Affirmative action?--Coolguy81 14:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm saying that there are specific headings under which your content would be better placed. You argument that it is racism itself makes the same point; if it is racism, then it is racism by the state, so include that content under the appropriate heading. It just clutters up the landscape here, in this overarching and introductory article. Institutional racism has a precise definition, a dedicated article, as well as a heading here, so the content should be in that article if it can be justified, and just a pointer here. You have failed so far to justify it as institutional racism. Imc 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Institutional Racism is not more appropriate title for the contents being discussed by us. It was appearing under "Racism as official government policy". till few days ago.Subsequently changed to "State sponsored racism" based on lengthy discussions between various regular contributors of this article[2].Subsequently Institutional racism/State Racism contents combined under Institutional racism. I don't have any problem if you move contents under different title.--Coolguy81 12:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Russia

Russia faces a severe racism problem, it should not be neglected on this page.

Whacko first sentence

Why is the first sentence (definition of racism) totally out of whack with what you will find in any dictionary? (Please get out your dictionary and see what the Oxford scholars or Webster think the word means, based on extensive study of historical word usage) It asserts the existence of "human races" which is certainly controversial among scientists.

My point is, if someone won't rent to Jews or hire black people , they are racists according to Oxford but not according to WP, unless they also believe in "inherent biological differences ...". So people who advocate discrimination based on race/ethnicity but don't like to be labelled "racist" will be very happy with WP's extremely narrow definition.

Why does this little known and obsolete notion get to be the definition in the first sentence, while the modern usage of the term is relegated to the second sentence, qualified by "Some writers have used the term". Should be the other way around.

Racism existed before the doctrines about "inherent biological differences ..." were invented, and continues to be widespread today when hardly anyone is advocating such doctrines. 24.64.165.176 05:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

the human race

There is only one race, and that is the human race, which we all belong to regardless of skin color, nationality & religion. This idea that there are different "races" within the species homo sapiens is not true. Race is a political concept and in a scientific sense we all belong to the human race; this has been proven by genetics. If a human dislikes another human based on nationality, is this racism? No. It is not based on race, it is based on nationality. If a human dislikes another human based on religion, is this racism? No. It is not based on race, it is based on religion. If a human dislikes another human based on color, is this racism? No. It is not based on race, it is based on skin color. As for human skin color, it ranges from a pale pink to dark brown so nobody actually has white or black skin which is why those two terms are incorrect. It is silly to say a human is "white" when their skin is pink or red. Just like if a human has brown skin it is silly to say they are "black". Dividing humans in this way only serves to cause trouble and is rubbish. Humans are not simply "white" or "black". There is a huge variance in color, tone and shading.

Where can this go?

Kentucky's highest court in the case of Clifford v. Commonwealth held that a white police officer, who had not seen the black defendant allegedly involved in a drug transaction, could, nevertheless, identify him as a participant by saying that a voice on an audiotape "sounded black." The police officer based this "identification" on the fact that the defendant was the only African American man in the room at the time of the transaction and that an audio-tape-- contained the voice of a man the officer said “sounded black” selling crack cocaine to a white informant planted by the police.

Also history needs to be at the top--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a primary soure, I do not see how we can use it without violating NOR. besides, there must be tons of secondary sources on police profiling and racism in the US we can use. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Racism against Jews

Why is this topic so long in here when it has many other pages repeating this information? Should it not like other topics say see: blah blah, why have 5 or so paragraphs repeating information? it makes the article long and gives undue weight to one group of people, and to have Jews and Middle Easterners what about other races of people? In the name of balance it must be subed under another heading and reduced.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism has been called "the longest hatred" and resulted in the Holocaust. Surely it deserves 5 short paragraphs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

i am sure it does but dont you think wiki is full of information on this topic? lets just give others a space to discuss there racism. Racism is a global problem. I am African and if i had it my way this topic would focus on my poeple. When i think of Racism the world see's Africans hanging from trees in the Delta, so the debate of long hatred and poster boy of racism must go to the African. seeMaafa and Colonialism and Arab slave trade but that is my POV--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah, your unhealthy preoccupation with the Jews is disturbing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me tell you something, be careful with your accusation as they sound like a personal attack. You chose to see the world through your eyes, i have exaplained my actions and no logic person could disagree. What would throw your argument is if you realized the ENTIRE reason why Jews are mentioned in EThiopia is because i put them there. So i would like to tell you to resist your anti-semitic statements for those that are anti-semitic. It was also me that took out the Jewish involvement in the slave trade due to lack of reasearch. I am exhausted with these kind of editors, they have agendas and make these statements without any bases. Because they can, you dont realize you weaken your own case. Why dont u just say i am anti-European, wouldnt that be more valid? I have justified cutting the content discuss here and dont revert my work as my case is clear, how many more pages need to be a copy of the same content, 1 rule for you another rule for the rest of the world--madness!--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

will someone with an open mind look at Antisemitism and tell me does it look lacking? is it not clear? then why copy so much content from it here. What about giving space to everyone. Two races are in this section, exapand it to include others. selfishness--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about arguments and contents. Don't try to make this personal: I don't care about your personality, hoever you are. It is what you do here. Further, I reject your attempts to turn this into a victimhood contest. Racism against Jews lasted long enough and was devastating enough to warrant a few paragraphs. Surely limpieza de sangre (cleanliness of blood) and 19th century European racist pseudo-science are completely relevant here. See also WP:NOT#PAPER. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make accusations about me as an editor. I have made it clear to summerize the section into a smaller size which takes the most relevant bits and is compact. It is clear that i said this as the records say this when i made the change. This site is free for all to edit, there is no content which is exclusive to you (do you know my religion? and what difference does it make?), I can comment on any topic without fear of being called your unhealthy preoccupation with the Jews is disturbing This is a terrible sign of your mindset. Which is suggestive of ownership of any Jewish topic, as if you are lord of Judah and no one can comment on Jewish issues--there is a name for this thinking. Who are you to suggest what i can be preoccupied with, is it illegal? No one else would say this madness, imagine saying that to a white editor on African slavery? have what ever content you want, but sumerize it, no reason to repeat the same content which is at antisemitic just like all the other content. bring balance, only two ethnic groups have been listed, where are the others! Notice i have added nothing about African people so i dont think there is anygrounds for your victimhood claim. I didnt chop your content and added 1000 words on Africans.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

     this all just goes to prove that rascism exists. if you guys really were not racsist, it wouldn't matter how many paragraphs people
     are wiriting or not writing about this or that race. its the seperation that between races that causes rasism. were all fucking humans. 
     being jewish or black or white or gay or what the fuck ever, it doesnt matter. so let the jew have their 5 paragraphs, let the black have 
     them also, and just stop fucking fighting.

How much time

PLease take out any unrefernced stuff, no time was given for any other country, see above debate, this Mayalsia thing has been in here for a very long time and is

• A minor issue compared with the other countries listed here (why not add Trinidad? or Burma they have racism)
• No information regarding its sources--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)