Talk:Racism/Archive 16

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 15 |

Archive 16

| Archive 17 →

Discrimination WikiProject

Stale

 – no replies %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking for people to join a proposed Discrimination WikiProject for discrimination articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Discrimination - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"doctrine"

I question using this word in the opening sentence. To me it implies a religious belief. I will change it to "concept" and see how that flies. Steve Dufour 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Greece section

Stale

 – %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The section accusing Greek ethnic cleansing seems completely biased. The author of this section confuses the Ancient Macedonians, of which Alexander the Great was one, with the people of the modern-day called the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Ancient Macedonians were rural Greek speakers. The people of today's "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are not ethnically or linguistically related to the ancient Greek Macedonians.

The people of "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are a Slavic people who are not native to Greece, and were never historically present in any large number in what is now Northern Greece, the home of ancient "Macedonia."

The name of the modern "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is hotly disputed between that country and Greece, perhaps leading to this author's resentment.

Furthermore, the wording "Milosevic's supposed attacks on Kosovo" is off base. Milosevic's ethnic-cleansing in Kosovo is known to the world as historical fact, not speculation.

This passage could fit nicely in a Serbian nationalist or right-wing propaganda magazine, but not on Wikipedia.

personal observations

I have noticed oftentimes that racism and accusations of racism on a message board or chat room are often grounds for a rather vigorous flamewar with much name-calling. 204.52.215.107 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ugh, how do you indent in these boxes? my response to the above: welcome to america!--Enhancedvibes 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You add one colon to the front of your text for each level you want to indent --Orange Mike 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Racism Among Arab Tribes?

Stale

 – no futher comments or discussion %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can elaborate on this topic for this article? There has often been hostile relations between members of the Hazara and Pashtun Arab tribes (most likely due to the Shi'a Sunni conflict still going on today). Caterfree10 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For starters, niether the Hazara or Pashtuns are Arabic in any sense of the word. Padishah5000 18:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hegel and Trevor-Roper

Stale

 – %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"In the nineteenth century, the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel declared that "Africa is no historical part of the world."[citation needed] This view that Africa had no history was repeated by Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of History at Oxford University, as late as 1963.[citation needed] During the Nazi era German scientists rearranged academia to support claims of a grand Aryan agent behind the splendors of all human civilizations, including India and Ancient Egypt.[31]"

While it is quite certainly interesting and worth mentioning, it should be mentioned that Hegel and Trevor-Roper are NOT racist in what is cited - they just adhere to a Hegelian view of history, where history is the history of the civilized man. In this view, Africa did not move past the pre-historic stage until colonization began. 62.107.120.111 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is clearly racist, however, in that they dismiss any and all pre-colonization cultures in sub-Saharan Africa as not "civilized" including such cultures as the builders of Great Zimbabwe! --Orange Mike 13:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Read Hegel to grasp his take on "civilization". Furthermore, it is common to refer to any events in for example Scandinavia prior to Christening (ie before 1000) as "prehistoric" instead of "historic" (even more so, as the museems who do investigation into these eras are archaeological, not historical.). From one point of view, history is the study of written sources as to gain knowledge of the time in which they were written - whereas prehistory is archaeology and associated fields of study. From this point of view (which is widely accepted as a rule of thumb among laymen), Africa had no history (outside Roman colonies) before the Europeans colonized it.62.107.120.111 20:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Egypt was in Africa. There was also a significant Muslim presence in Africa before Christian/European colonization, which was extensively literate. I understand what you are saying about how things are classified in academia, but don't be so quick to assume that European Christians brought writing to Africa. Natalie 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. I made the error of associating Africa with sub-Sahara African, which is certainly wrong. Following this, I quite see your point. I would argue that we need to elaborate on what is considered racist in Hegel's statement and what is simply correct, following standard definitions. 62.107.120.111 20:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, presuming standard definitions are stated somewhere. Natalie 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

" Academic Racism Against Africans PLEASE GUARD THIS PHOTO"

Someone ( 62.56.125.193 ) doesn't like the "Skulls" photo in the Academic Racism Against Africans section. They deleted it without comment on August 3rd 2007. This photo is well sourced, and has been in this article a long time. It is an excellent example of the topic being discussed, AND SHOULD NOT BE DELETED !!! PLEASE HELP GUARD THIS PHOTO FROM DELETION !!!! I added it back a few moments ago.

Self-racism?

Stale

 – %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any article about people who are racist against their own race? -- Frap 02:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea for an article.

Hitler is believed by some to have had some Jewish ancestors, and the implication was that he attacked Jews to "cover" for his own membership.

Joseph McCarthy was a very loud anti-homosexual. He seems to have not been exactly a total heterosexual.

One of the things that happens to people who are members of a minority that is despised by the majority is that they are subjected to the same indoctrination as everyone else. If little white kids learn that black people are "nasty" then little black kids learn that black people are "nasty." One of the strong points of the civil rights years was the "Black is beautiful" movement.

One of the results of the earlier cultural tides that valued white skin was that black families would buy into those values and treat their lighter children with more favor than their darker children. The same thing applied for those children that "had good hair."

It would be interesting to look at the attitudes of the untouchables of India, the Burakumin of Japan, etc. Maybe they are protected from self-directed racism by the differences in the general cultures of their nations.

It would also be interesting to look at a related phenomenon, the reactions of the various ethnic groups in the Middle-East. I've monitored some web sites that cater to people from that part of the world, and it is shocking how much open hatred and disrespect is expressed between, e.g., people from Afghanistan and people from Pakistan. I don't know whether they are classifying themselves by [race], ethnicity, nationality, or what.

Another thing that would be interesting to do an article on would be the factors that protect people from becoming racists. People who do not hate themselves, who are well integrated, etc., seem less likely to become racists. Perhaps there are other factors that promote resilience against racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick0Moran (talk • contribs)

I will begin by stating the title of this section should be Intra-racism - which is the correct sociological term. There have been a lot of studies (in peer reviewed journals) in the US of racism within racial groups, specifically within the African-American community and African-Americans v. Caribbean Americans and African-Americans v. Afro-Americans. This issue should be addressed on the racism page because blacks in the US have a different culture than blacks anywhere else in the world. There is racism within the black community based on skin color, social class, occupation, education, etc. There is racism between afri-amer and carib-amer also based on skin color, assimilation, music, etc. I have some references for these issues that i will post at a later date. --Enhancedvibes 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider This

RACISIM as a idea based on reality.

The uncomfortable truth is that humans are no different than any other animals...there are different groups and "races" that have different characteristics and are slightly smarter than others. Its nothing to get excited about, or angry about, or upset about, its just the truth. Its simply evolution and natural selection at work.

The different "races" of humans correspond to "subspecies" in the animal world. Members can and certainly do breed with other subspecies. And while group A is, on average, more advanced than B, certainly some members of A are below B. We're speaking of trends and averages here. To understand it more fully I suggest you pick up and read "The Bell Curve."

Theres a place for everyone, and no one should seek to persecute another group based on race/ethnicity, but to deny that Asians are, on average, smarter than whites, and that whites are, on average, smarter than Latinos, and so on and so forth, is just childish denial of a fact of life.

Wake up people...acknowledge biological reality, but seek to improve yourself, whatever your station in life. Make the most of who you are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.31.234.165 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 June 2007(UTC).

If you are stating that a fact of life is that "Asians are, on average, smarter than whites, and that whites are, on average, smarter than Latinos, and so on and so forth, is just childish denial of a fact of life" please put some valid sources, cause the beginning of the article states an opposite idea of what you are stating: "Many scholars maintain race to be a social construct with potent social and political effects but no basis in biological science.[2][3][4][5][6][7]"

Sounds racist to classify humans as you did with your comment. And it is even more racist to make a classification without any valid reference. (~~Frank~~)

I would guess they may be using the Bell Curve findings as possible evidence, although it is hotly disputed. The Bell Curve equated IQ as a genetic concept linked to race.

OR

The following is or, as there is no scholar who is actually making the allegation that the statement is racist.

Racist opinions occurred in the works of some historians and geographers: so in the 14th century CE, the Tunisian Ibn Khaldun could write: - :"...the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals..."

If you disagree, please provide the full quote and the name of the scholar who is calling Ibn Khaldun to be racist.Bless sins 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the quote is bogus, Bless? Because if it's not bogus, then it is prima facie racist in the extreme. --Orange Mike 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Name me one (reliable) source that says this is an example of racism. (Me and you don't count as a reliable source).Bless sins 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP common sense should be used here. It's obviously racist, I don't think you need a source to say it is any more than you need a source to say that the 25th of august 2007 is a date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.112.7 (talk) 23:59, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Bless, did you read the intro to the article that describes racism as: Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that members of one "race" are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other "races.". If that quote does not fit this description, than I don't know what does. sigh. Jeeny ^(talk) 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To be moved to Wikiquote

I'm moving here to talk, before someone more knowledgeable than me can move it to Wikiquote. Tazmaniacs 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In the 14th century CE, the Tunisian Ibn Khaldun could write: - :"...the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals..."

In the same period, the Egyptian Al-Abshibi (1388-1446) wrote, "It is said that when the [black] slave is sated, he fornicates, when he is hungry, he steals."

Many Christians of the pre-modern period shared similar or even harsher racial beliefs, as the wealth of data below conclusively prove:

Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].” Homilies on Genesis 16.1

“Mar Ephrem the Syrian said: When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did. . .Noah said, ‘Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed.” Paul de Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs (Leipzig, 1867), part II

St. Jerome: “Chus in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body.” (The Homilies of Saint Jerome, vol. 1, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, Homily 3, 28).

St. Ennodius (474-521): “Keep your chastity constant. Don’t let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face.” Epistulae 7.21

John Philoponus, Greek Christian philosopher (6th century): “The Scythians and Ethiopians are distinguished from each other by black and white color, or by long and snubbed nose, or by slave and master, by ruler and ruled,” and again, “The Ethiopian and Scythian. . .one is black, the other white; similarly slave and master.” A. Sanda, Oposcula Monophysitica Johannes Philoponi (Beirut, 1930), pp. 66,96 (Sanda’s Latin translation).

Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, 9th century): When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse. . .his face and entire body became black [ukmotha]. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents.” C. Van Den Eynde, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 156, Scriptores Syri 75 (Louvain, 1955), p. 139.

Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch (d. 940): “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.” Patrologiae cursus completes…series Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1857-66), Pococke’s (1658-59) translation of the Annales, 111.917B (sec. 41-43)

Bar Hebraeus (Syrian Christian scholar, 1226-86): “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’” Sprengling and Graham, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, pp. 40-41, to Gen 9:22.

Gomes Eannes de Zurara (official royal chronicler of Portugal, 1453): “These blacks were Moors like the others, though their slaves, in accordance with ancient custom, which I believe to have been because of the curse which, after the Deluge, Noah laid upon his son Cain [read: Cham], cursing him in this way: that his race should be subject to all the other races of the world.” C.R. Beazley and E. Prestage, The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea in the Hakluyt 1st series, no. 95 (London, 1896), 1:54.

Francisco de la Cruz (Dominican, 1575): “The blacks are justly captives by just sentence of God for the sins of their fathers, and that in sign thereof God gave them that color.” Bartolomé de Las Casas in History (DeKalb, Ill., 1971), p. 417.

Lincoln didn't free the slaves?

Stale

 – %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In the September 18, 1858 debate, Abraham Lincoln said...

Well, say if he changed his mind later, or if this is the same Lincoln as on the $5 bill. Jidanni 12:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved this here:

In the September 18, 1858 debate, Abraham Lincoln said:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

This article is about Racism, not Racism in the United States. There is no reason to give undue weight to Lincoln or even to the 1858 debate (why not the Valladolid controversy? Or the debate between polygenism and monogenism? Or the theories of scientific racism of the 19th century? Or Nazism? Or... Or... Or...) Tazmaniacs 19:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Racial purity redirected to racism ??? wth

Stale

 – %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply offended that the term racial purity has been redirected to racism.It is nothing to do with racism at all.Racial purity is to do with the preservation of white genetics and the creation of people that are of one race and not many races mixed together.This topic deserves it's own article as this article is discriminatory and does not cover the racial purity topic at all.

Only people who wish to see the extinction of the white race would compare the term racial purity with racism.

As for the article stating that it is a mistaken belief that one race is better than another.I think the fact that all modern nations were founded by white europeans whilst africa remains a cancer on the world proves that the white mans genetics are superior to the genetics of the black man(australia,new zealand,america,canada,south africa were all modern day nations founded by white europeans,compare them to countries with mainly black populations)

This is not a racist point as i know some will see it,i am stating facts that should be glaringly obvious to you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.204.72 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a big issue today and we need to stop it. We all contain the samee genetic makeup, skin, really the only thing different is the pigmantation of the skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.183.64 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is in fact the very definition of racism given in the opening sentence - you believe that the white "race" is superior to the "genetics of the black man". Whether right or wrong, that's word-for-word what it means to be racist. Racial purity makes sense as a redirect. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Social Marxist definition ("Politically correct definition")

The word "racist" and "racism" is often used to insult white people (People of European Origin), and used as anti-European Hate Speech. The word "racism" and "racist" therefore became racist in itself, because it is mostly used by non-Europeans and Anti-Western organisations to insult people of European origin. Non-Europeans very seldom insult each other with the words "racist" and "racism" even when extreme forms of racial hatred occur between these people (of non-Eurpeans origin).

Politically correct (PC) definition of "racist" now means believing, supporting or stating anything that is opposed to the anti-white hostile agendas of any non-white racial or ethnic population.

In other words, under the PC paradigm of defining "racism" - the principles of truth, honesty, merit, morals, etc. no longer count regarding how "racism" is defined. Rather, under the perverse PC paradigm, "racism" is defined only by whims of those with political agendas actively hostile to the white race. Truth, honesty, merit and morality be damned! That's partly why there is such evil double standards regarding the moral expectations and the behaviors between the races. (The recent "Jena 6" protests in Louisiana - demanding blacks not be punished for crimes - are an example of that double standard.) marx

Psychological Underpinnings of Contemporary US Racism

Stale

 – %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This section is uncited and offensive. "People who identify as "White" are trained to think of racial outgroups as terribly exotic, even if they live right next door, order wings from the same take out place, and wear the same stuff from Old Navy"? I would like this section to be removed, due to the fact that it is uncited and focuses only on racism practiced by Caucasians. Kerri Lynne (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Proper citation in article?

Stale

 – %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but it seems that the sections "Sociological definitions", "Race: social construct or genetic reality?" and "Ethnic conflicts" (possibly among others, I don't have time to comb through the whole article) are improperly cited, and need to be cited in the footnotes and not in the main text. Kerri Lynne (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Academic racism was pushed by white supremacist Caucasians" - this appears to be an outrageously racist and derogatory statement. In an article that seeks to minimise stereotypes based on skin colour there are a number of unqualified and yet extremely perturbing statements deriding people with "white" skin.

Clearly the owner of this page does not regard him/herself as "white" and in fact harbours extreme racist views that are aimed at deriding those whom he/she regards as "white".

The bland statements that the scientific community has ruled out any genetic differences between races are misleading and false. It is common knowledge in the sporting arena that, statistically speaking, particular races excel at particular activities. It is not hard to imagine that genetic statistics that affect sporting ability can also affect mental and academic activity. In fact recently a very prominent scientist made a direct statement about the academic ability (statistically speaking) of a particular race - and EVEN THOUGH he was highly respected and highly educated he was still derided by the media because of a political fear, not a scientific truth.

Mathematical statistics commonly are performed to measure various perceived racial classes. Almost every census, immigration form and visa application, require division into racial class. These statistics demonstrate beyond all statistical deviation that certain classes are more likely to be involved in drugs, crime, sport, academics, corruption, etc. To state that there is no differences, culturally, mentally, physically, between racial types is like saying men and women are genetically identical - it's just not true, a lie, and I'm rather disgusted by how this article looks past facts and seeks to deride "whites".

This article needs a section on the extent to which "racism" is commonly used as an offensive label to deride anyone in a hypocritical yet seemingly defensible way.

Start with facts, stop the opportunistic edits that focus entirely on deriding "whites". If your grandpappy was a slave, get over it; look at Europe and the disgusting things whites did to each other, then ask yourself is your freedom worth less than the freedom of whites with grandparents killed/abused in world wars? White grandparents who were forced out of their homes into German concentration camps NEVER to see their families again? I'm sorry but this "my black grandpappy was a slave and even though I'm free I hate all whites" attitude is really sick. Really really sick. I've gotten over it. So should you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.234.53 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with sentence in interminority racism

Here [1], there is a sentence about tension between Muslim and Sikh minorities in England. This edit should be removed and placed in articles about religion in the UK. Neither Muslims nor Sikhs constitute a "race" and conflicts between them are not of a racial nature. Islam and Sikhism are religions, that too evangelical religions. Anyone can convert to Islam (he has to recite the Shahadah) or Sikhism (he has to take the 5 vows) and participate in the conflict, making this a religious conflict, not a racial one. The sentence placed is misleading.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin ?

There is a section concerning history starting in the middle ages, but it is not clear, from the article, that there was no racism in the Antiquity. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that people 2000 years ago, around the Mediterranean at least, considered other races as inferior, or considered the colour of skin as more important than any other descriptive feature. For example an early pope of the Catholic Church was black. Were Egyptians of different colours living together, or was the colour a socially discriminant factor?

I visited this page to find out about the origin of racism after i saw a bit of a movie "Cleopatra" on TV ( I don't think it was the one with Liz Taylor), and it clearly showed Nubians all down, inferior to other people. I just thought "That's not Ancient Egypt, that's segregationist America" (plus people on the movie were all speaking English, so it couldn't be about Ancient anything), and hoped I would find out about the origin of racism on wiki. It could be interesting, if anyone has a clue. Was a religious conflict the origin of racism? Which one ? Something else ? There has to be a starting point in history when someo people started to think "yuk ! Those (black / white / yellow) people are such (idiots / criminals / ...)", and there had to be a reason for that. Before, it was only about the nationality (in a wide sense), with for example Egyptians thinking "those Hittites are such criminals" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.159.118.174 (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that racism stems from humanity's innate fear of the unknown. Trying to find a single moment in history when something as broad as racism began sounds like an act of futility.

While I understand that the idea that there was no racism in antiquity is supported by some scholars, they idea seems very suspicious to me. I'm going to look into a book published by Princeton University Press called The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity by Benjamin Isaac. This book seems to claim that, in addition to the ethnic and cultural prejudices of the Ancient Greeks and Romans that scholars seem to generally agree upon, racism was present in the Greco-Roman world. I would suggest any one else interested in the topic should check it out as well.

I also think it's important here to widen the perspective here. Does anyone know about anything about racism in antiquity in Asia, Africa, or in the Americas? --Xaraphim (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea there was no racism in the ancient world is such laughable nonsense. in the reign of Caligula 37 - 41 AD in Alexandria the jewish community and the Greek community there loathed one another, there were race riots, racist murders, widespread discimination, tensions and hostility. I suspect that from the days that the first tribe met the second tribe and saw they did things differently and looked different and believed in different gods and competed with them for water/hunting land etc there have been tensions and hostility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem comes in how you are defining "racism." Inter-ethnic tensions and hatred were of course quite real. In the ancient world, an Athenian might hate a Syrian or an Ethiopian might despise a Illyrian, regardless of their shades of skin color or nose shape. What seems to be a more recent innovation is the idea that people can be put into a small group of baskets, each labelled "White/Caucasian," "Black/Negroid," "Yellow/Mongoloid" and so on; and that these distinctions reveal something deep and profound about all the people sorted into each basket. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that this classifying / intrinsic-attribute labelling of racial groups only appears like a more modern thing due to well known (and now widely discredited) formal attempts by science over the last couple of centuries to classify people in these ways. I think it is likely however that throughout history whenever people have been classified - men/women, Athenians/Syrians etc. stereotypes have naturally followed that purport to reveal something deep and profound about all the people sorted into each group ('Redheads are naturally fiery and hot-tempered', 'Women are more emotional' for example in our own time). Many psychologists have attempted to explain this grouping --> stereotyping process as an attempt by the mind to impose some kind of certainty and order - and therefore give feelings of predictability and control - on what is in fact a much more complex and shifting reality. I find it very hard to imagine that such grouping/stereotyping wouldn't have occured in ancient times in relation to something so immediate and visually obvious as racial characteristics like skin colour / nose shape etc. - though admit I don't know of any examples from ancient times I could quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Section in Interminority Racism

During the Congo Civil War (1998-2003), Pygmies were hunted down like game animals and eaten. Both sides of the war regarded them as "subhuman" and some say their flesh can confer magical powers. UN human rights activists reported in 2003 that rebels had carried out acts of cannibalism. Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti pygmies, has asked the UN Security Council to recognise cannibalism as a crime against humanity and an act of genocide.[65]

I don't feel like this belongs in the section Interminority Racism. If it belongs in this particular article at all it should go under ethnic conflicts. It's true that both groups involved in the horrible activities mention above are dark skinned, but dark skinned people are not in the minority in the DRC. Therefore it's not really interminority racism. If no one objects I'm going to move it to the ethnic conflicts section. --Xaraphim (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism is to believe in races??

Why does Orangemike think it acceptable to keep an unsourced lead, just for being "longstanding"? In the case he serious, I quote this from the "longstanding" lead in order to ask an honest opinion:

Racism (...) being the belief that human beings are divided into more than one race

What it says here is that racism is: to believe that human beings are divided into more than one race?

Just compare this with the U.N. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (NY 7 March 1966), article 2:

States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races

The States Parties mention "all races", so according to Orangemike's definition the States Parties both condemn racial discrimination and are committing racism? Rokus01 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Convention is about practical politics; the clause you quote from the article is about the bogus biology behind "race" theories. If you feel the sentence can be better written, make a suggestion on the article's talk page. But don't substitute broken grammar for clear sentences; and don't insert the dogmatic and false statement that racism is always the same as racialism, since the lexicographic reality is much more complex than that. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is as complex as the personal point of view of somebody that does not bother to source his original research. You are not telling the truth about "longstanding", since the first change towards this direction was made just over a month ago, the 23th of december by SteveSims : [2] I can't see he or you or anybody else is discussing this on the talk page. Please don't create an incident by imposing your stance, that might be honest but anyway does not contribute to NPOV and NOR policy, and certainly not to the requirement to source. Rokus01 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain this mixup of definitions:

I moved this text from the lead and replaced it by the consensus lead of the 22nd of december, 2007:

Racism has many definitions, the most prevalent today being the belief that human beings are divided into more than one race, with members of some races believing they are superior or inferior to members of other races.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism in the following manner:

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

By this literal definition, "superiority" or "inferiority" are not implied (as opposed to racialism which the OED glosses as "belief in the superiority of a particular race"). However, in contemporary usage, the word has come to imply them, or readers or listeners may infer those aspects, which now makes the word almost synonymous with bigotry or prejudice. Like many other socio-political terms, it is not unusual for this word to have evolved or expanded from its original dictionary definition.

I don't have a clou how the editor cocktailed all of this. It doesn't agree with readily available information on the meaning of racism [3], racial discrimination [4] and racialism [5]. These three denominations have a substantial overlap and I deem it unacceptable this important fact is being obfuscated. Rokus01 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First time I have visited this page, and I was immediately struck with how shoddy the opening paragraph is. I also checked OED and it gives two main definitions of racism, "A belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this" and also the one quoted above.

The intro here is fuzzy and inaccurate:

"Racism, by its perhaps simplest definition, is discrimination based on race." - is not accurate (and gramatically poor too). Discrimination may stem from racism but one is not equivalent to the other.

"One with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their race (i.e., bigotry)" - yes, they "might", and equally might not - and in any case, this doesn't define bigotry, so the "ie" is entirely inappropriate.

"in the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits" - yes they might, or they might not. Some would say institutional racism will often manifest as reluctance of institutions to nurture internal cultures whereby ethnic minorities freely move into positions of authority. This isn't "denial" of "rights or benefits".

"Racism inherently starts with the assumption that there are taxonomic differences between different groups of people" - says who? Many others would argue it starts with fear; or with sexual anxiety; or as an inherent defence mechanism; or with conditioning... and so on.

"Without this assumption, prejudices against different peoples would be categorized as being prejudices related to national or regional origin, religion, occupation, social status or some other distinction." All of these define forms of racism - so the text states that racism comes from assumption of taxonomic diffenernces - otherwise it would be racism. A circular and meaningless argument. 217.44.210.7 (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Difference between Racism and Racial Discrimination

The terms 'racial discrimination' and 'racial prejudice' should not be redirected to the Racism article; these concepts are presented in the more general articles 'Discrimination' and 'Prejudice' and need to be expanded (citing specific examples) in their own articles. Racism (or ethnicism) is the rationalization of social inequality on the basis of racial or ethnic categories and should be distinguished from racial discrimination (negative behavior directed toward a racial or ethnic group) and racial prejudice (negative attitudes about a racial or ethnic group). Niko481 (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Racial discrimination, "discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race" [6] is one synonym for racism, and only one certain kind of discrimination. Hence, the subject is covered better in this article and any redirect should be to this article only. I think you are confusing racism and racialism. Racialism is a special kind of racism, that involves an undue emphasis on race or racial considerations. Rokus01 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When Racism Works.

OK, so that's a terrible title... what I mean to ask is;

When CAN you reliably use someone's perceived race as a basis for a value judgement?

Qualifications being, of course, being that not everyone fits into any particular contruct - but in this world the mass inside the Bell Curve can and is applied often.

Can anyone ever credibly say something along the lines of;

He's a sub-Saharan African, therefore he is likely to have superior physical prowess in general, but be a limited swimmer?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating such a stance - but I am very interested in assessing the realities of race(read: genetic) based and biased strengths/weakneses.tactik (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In your example, there should be ample scientific evidence from varied cultural sources before any conclusions are drawn about those differences. But to suggest that differences don't exist? I don't believe that observations or 'judgments' of differing physical and cultural characteristics are racist. Racism occurs when said differences promote notions of superiority or inferiority. Differences between people(s) should not challenge the fundamental concept of inherent equal human value. Unfortunately that concept hasn't been written about much, or discussed on this page, though it is the idea which Racism and other challenges to Humanity are balanced against. Without a consensus that embraces human rights for all people and fundamental equality, this is all just a lot of intellectualizing that ultimately goes nowhere. [[7]] EyePhoenix (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say the example statement WAS racist, since it generalizes about an individual's future performance based on his or her ethnicity. There are plenty of sub-saharan Africans who do not have superior physical prowess, and even if there are not many great sub-saharan swimmers at the moment, there could be multiple factors bringing that situation about. It used to be said that women weren't good in business or in the visual or musical arts. 212.140.128.142 (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Members of marginalised and oppressed ethnicities/races/communities etc may on occasion find it politically useful to deploy a tactic known as 'strategic essentialism' to redress the effects of racism (i.e. as a form of 'affirmative action', similar to the way some feminists may deploy essentiliased notions of gender to achieve greater participation of women in positions of power, but this is pretty much the only example that comes to mind of a positive way to deploy racist viewpoints. Eyedubya (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - there you go, strategic essentialism has a page on WP ... Eyedubya (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

origin of the term racism

Where does the word racism come from? When was it introduced and by whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.230.124 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it's a fairly recent importation, coming into English from the French racisme. The first attested use is 1936, in a book titled The Coming American Fascism (which seems to be pro-fascism, from what I can tell of the excerpt quoted in the OED). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Portraits of White Racism

I would guess that in "Portraits of White Racism" David Wellman defines white racism to be "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities” rathern than racism in general. It is also likely that he is restricting his attention to countries where non white people form a minority. However I do not have access to the book to confirm this. Could someone who does look into this please. --Thehalfone (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

try Whiteness studies, I think you'll find what you're looking for. Eyedubya (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Too much US info...

Sorry, but the whole section on the US Presidential election has POV issues. Additionally, I don't see why the United States is discussed at length. The US is about average in terms of race/culture issues amongst nations that have diverse people groups. Has its problems, but the article doesn't explain why or how it is unique... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article?

i am disturbed by how many times barrack obama's name shows up on this article.. why is he linked everytime his name appears why not only once? i see political agenda here 72.77.241.100 (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also convinced that this "Owen Shahada" person is inserted in the article in a way that's also self promoting. Of all of the Black or African intellectuals to go to, this one seems to be virtually unknown. Yet he is introduced, name first, and outside of a few very recent publications, has not been a contribution to the discourse of academic racism. In fact, he is the only black reference in that section and it's the first one and the quote isn't very powerful. Where are the references to black intellectuals that published during the period in question? You got four white ones, where are the criticisms that really matter? --71.238.121.147 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

People think racism only happens to black..but actually it happens to asian, muslumans , jews and many more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.106 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does and when it does, those asians, muslims, jews, and many more will also speak up about it in those articles that affect them. We will not wait for all of these others to have their concerns addressed before addressing the concerns here. --71.238.121.147 (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary origins of racism

I've found sources that suggest racism is not genetically hard-coded in the way that sexual stereotyping appears to be, but is instead a proxy for another genetically-driven behaviour, coalition-building ("whose side is he on?"). What I've found is NPOV and well-sourced. I'm prepared to edit it in, but only if I'm reasonably confident that no politically-motivated person will revert it, or that politically-motivated reverts will themselves be reverted promptly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 June 2008

I have no political views on this one way or the other but these kinds of explanations are always speculative and when it comes to humans the scientific credibility is generally highly contested; the scientist would have to prove two things, first that coalition-building as defined in the model has a genetic basis, and second that it is demonstrably the mechanism behind all or some forms of racism (if it is claimed to be the mechanism behind all forms of racism, then the scientist has to prove another claim, that all forms of racism have the same cause - this too would be highly contested by scientists). Is this even a testable hypothesis? Maybe you can add it but you would have to add it as the speculations of one or several scientists, not as an established scientific conclusion. By the way, I am not sure there is any hard evidence that sexual stereotyping is genetically coded; this is certainly contested by scientists as well. Included, it but do not present it as being any more robust than it is. I doubt as many anthropologists would support this claim as, say, ohysicists support Einstein's theory of relativity. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, I'd be interested in seeing something like this in the article, but under a title such as: 'evolutionary theories and racism' to keep the essentialists at bay. And since its likely to have been contested, you'll need to present it in a NPOV way - i.e. both sides of the argument, from sources. You might find something in Bateson's work on schismogenesis useful in this regard, but it'd have to be from another source. Eyedubya (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, what I have in mind was actually tested, although one might view the experiment as persuasive rather than conclusive - and I appreciate your comments about what would be required to constitute a proof in any sense that would be accepted by Popper. For now I'll just report what I've read, but you may have motivated me to look for who cites / supports / opposes what. Thanks!

Eyedubya, thanks for making me think about the title. The trouble is that if we start worrying about -ists, almost any title will be a red rag to some bull. At worst we might find someone claiming that "evolutionary theories and racism" implies that the theory of Evolution justifies racism, and then we'd be beset by evolutionists, anti-evolutionsts, hyper-sensitive anti-racists, etc. (IIRC scala naturae arguments for racism were fairly common in the early 20th century). IMO "Evolutionary origins of racism" is reasonably defensible, starting with the point that it is not the same as and does not imply "Evolutionary basis of racism".

Thanks also for mentioning schismogenesis. I suspect what I've found is a special case of that. Good heavens, what have I let myself in for? Philcha (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, if it is an evolutionary explanation, then the evidence has to come from either the location of a stable gene locus which means a y chromosome haplotype or MtDNA, or from fossil evidence of human antecedents prior to radiation around the world. This is not really stuff you can experiment on i.e. manipulate in a lab, you can only collect and analyze the data. How can fossilized remains of early humans indicate a coalition-building strategy that links to racism? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a genetic explanation for phenotypical traits - a bit hard to verify from the fossil record. Eyedubya (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you've outlined a possible program of follow-up research, but the fact that this research has not yet been done does not in itself undermine the hypothesis - Darwin's theory of evolution was not based on genetics but on observations of phenotypes (Gregor Mendel's first paper was published 6 years after Origin of species and then languished unread for 35 years). Philcha (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The research sounds interesting, though something so tentative should not be given undue weight. The titles 'Evolutionary origins of racism' and 'evolutionary theories and racism' both could lead to the common misconception, being propagated by a propaganda film, that evolution as a theory has led to racism. My suggestion would be on the lines of 'evolved traits leading to racism' or 'theories of racism arising from evolved behaviour'. Tricky, no doubt a good answer can be found. Perhaps 'evolutionary theories about the orgins of racism'. .. dave souza, talk 12:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I continue to have questions about how the word "science" is uesd here. Quite right that Darwin's theory was not based on genetics, but then again Darwin was not presenting any hypothesis, a theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is only a hypothesis if it can be tested experimentally. Very few evolutionary explanations take the form of falsifiable hypothesis subject to experiment. Instead they are based on evidence found in nature. The evidence for human evolution is fossilized osteological remains and fossilized tools. Much of Darwin's evidence, and that of paleobiologists and other evolutionary scientists, today is fossils. I am just wondering how one gets from this kind of data to the explanation you are suggesting. When I mentioned genetics that was not to limit anyone, it was to expand the sources of data one could use. Darwin did not know about genes or Mendel's rules, but Darwin most certainly relied on the principal of heredity; his theory only applies to inherited traits. This is highly problematic when applied to humans who, by virtue of culture, learn things from people. Skin color and eye color may be highly heritable. But there is no gene for Christianity or being socialist. Darwinian theory does not explain why some people are Christians and others not, just as Einstein's theory of relativity does not explain why some people are Christians. No scientific theory explains everything. Now, I can understadn how Darwin's theory could help us understand why a panda has an opposable thumb. I am just voicing my bewilderment as to how it could explain racism. You might as well be telling me that the theory of relativity explains racism. Yeah, I know Einstein didn't have a cyclotron, but that is not why I am dubious. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

dave souza, I like your suggested title "Evolutionary theories about the orgins of racism". Other titles may be suggested, but yours is enough of an improvement to be worth implementing right now.

Slrubenstein, I'm not sure I understand your last comment. There are some individual points in it with which I disagree:

• "A hypothesis is only a hypothesis if it can be tested experimentally" is not generally true. I was about to say, "There are some sciences in which experimental testing is impossible, e.g. paleontology," but then I realised that it's more complicated than that, e.g. the functions of Hox genes can be determined experimentally and the results can be used to support or oppose paleontological hypotheses, but more often in paleontology scientists either wait for new fossils to be found or re-examine existing ones.
• "But there is no gene for Christianity or being socialist" strikes me as being in some ways a straw man and in some ways as being very questionable. Social insects exhibit what could be described as a form of "socialism", and the genetic basis of their behaviour is well understood. Twin studies (although abused by rogues like Cyril Burt) have shown that heredity is a major component of many traits, including intelligence, personal tastes, criminal tendencies and schizophrenia. I don't actually know whether twin studies have ever looked at religiosity, but would not be surprised if someone cited a twin study that showed a strong hereditary element in religiosity. Since scientific study of genetic influences on behaviour is in its infancy (Polymerase chain reaction analysis was invented in 1983), "there is no gene for X" is premature. Philcha (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that the genetic process responsible for "socialist" behavior in ants is the same that is at work in humans? Nothin I have written denies that human behavior is not often caused by genes. But similar effects very often hafe dissimilar causes. One person can have blond hair for genetic reasons and another because they purchsed some chemicals made by Revlon. The fact that trait x in one situation is cased by a gene cannot be used to argue that trait x in another situation is also caused by a gene. You think the claim that there is no gene for Christianity is questionable? Well, okay, suit yourself! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)