Talk:Racism in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Removed edits

I am the anon IP whose edits which is more on the lines of original research and a need for citations was added and removed from the article. I thought of sharing them about the phenomena of ethnic jokes ties in with American racism and prejudice felt in their society, to tell an ethnic joke makes one look racist and the nature of ethnic jokes or depicted images of minorities sometimes can be hurtful and damaging. I apologize and admitted to done those edits, and the administrators are free to make that decision. Thank you. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Racial discrimination in the USA also includes Ethnic jokes directed against racial minority groups, media-displayed portrayals or exaggerated cultural traits known as stereotypes and hate crimes or hate speech against persons of identified minorities.

Ethnic jokes remain a part of the American culture, although seen as impolite and unacceptable verbal conduct except in the realm of stand-up comedy. It includes jokes, epithets and comments about European ethnic groups like Irish, Italian, Pole (see also "Polish joke") and Jew jokes.

Certain negative depictions of white Southerners, Mormons (see also Mormonism the religion) and French Canadians are said to be present, but not as politically charged than racism or cultural intolerance directed at Blacks, Muslims and Latinos.''

Neutrality

Held by a substantial amount of people? I believe this article needs evidence of some of the claims; otherwise, it seems to be slanted anti-majority American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.172.120 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, needs evidence. And, there it is. I've enriched the footnotes for the "substantial number of Americans" quote in the lead, which always seems to get snipped shorter by editors along the way. Anyone who doesn't think that 10-34% of Americans by self-description is a substantial amount of people is welcome to discuss that here on Talk.--Carwil (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverse Racism

I think more attention should be paid to reverse racism...because that is way more prevalent than "traditional" racism. (to me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanForrest101 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof that slavery wasn't racist but economic

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

"Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves."

If slavery was racist, then why let so many be free?

"The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city."

I would suggest reading through that article. Only 4.8 percent of southern whites owned slaves. Slavery existed for economic reasons. There was racism of course, but you didn't keep people enslaved because of racism, you kept them because you made money off of them. Are there any reliable sources out there, that slavery was based on racism at all? Dream Focus 12:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it even worth attempting to answer such a facile comment? What proportion of the white population were slaves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Most indentured servants were white and died before earning their freedom. They had white children working in coal mines, beating with rods and whips when they got distracted, forced to work in harsh conditions. Whites were enslaved in sweatshops. Kidnapped children were used as slave labor. Was it racists for blacks to own slaves? Perhaps just mention the law was racist because it only allowed a certain ethnic group to be legally enslaved. Dream Focus 12:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a fringe theory. Furthermore, an institution can serve economic purposes and, at the same time, be racist. These things are not exclusive. No one doubts that slavery was often highly lucrative. futurebird (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that most folks who have looked at this issue with an open mind come to the conclusion that racism and economics are overlapping sets. Melzter in Slavery: A World History points out that that " in both Greece and Rome there was little racial prejudice against blacks" and that "a slave could be of any color." However in the United States (including pre-Revolutionary America) the racism and slavery sets overlapped to a large extent. Blacks no doubt (another word for "my opinion) owned slaves for the same reason whites did, for the economic return, but it is hardly likely that black slave owners felt that their slaves were sub-human or did not have souls. I don't see how the plight of white indentured servants, tragic as it was, belongs in a discussion of racism in the US. Carptrash (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If they owned them as slaves, they didn't see them as equal. And most didn't need to make up excuses about souls to justify enslaving others. At that time you had stations, rich folks considering people below their social class, poor people that is, to be inferior. Women were also seen as property of their husbands, who could legally rape and beat them as they saw fit. And me pointing out that everyone suffered, not just non-whites, I think is a valid way to balance the issue, and not give undue weight to any viewpoint. Dream Focus 17:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Groom's website is not WP:RS and, in fact, Groom appears to have only been published in the holocaust denying Barnes Review and cited primarily by such scholarly websites as the KKK and David Duke. See also Talk:Slavery in the United States#Add Black slave masters to section Free black men. Definitely WP:FRINGE. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Various news sites say the same thing, which are reliable. It gets quoted around a lot everywhere by everyone. [1] There should be a direct quote from the professor in question and others somewhere. A Google book search shows some results. [2] The national archives should list the census data somewhere. Dream Focus 17:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• John Hope Franklin has an article which says he is best known for "From Slavery to Freedom, first published in 1947, and continually updated. More than three million copies have been sold. In 1995, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor." Sounds like a reliable source to me. Dream Focus 17:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to cite to Franklin's work (as opposed to Groom's racist spin on it), particularly the part where Franklin concludes that because there were some free black slaveholders, this proves that slavery wasn't racially structured and was purely motivated by economic concerns. The point was well-made above that racial and economic motivations are not mutually exclusive categories. As someone else pointed out, if only economics were in play we would expect to see white slaves but, as history shows us, white indentured servants were not turned into perpetual slaves whose children were deemed to be the property of their masters. But this is all off-topic. Find some academics who have made your point in peer-reviewed journals or in well-reviewed books that are not WP:FRINGE. The mere existence of free blacks and free black slaveholders is already noted in Slavery in the United States#Free black people with proper sourcing. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble

with the 2008 Presidential elections coverage here and am tempted (but not giving in) to quashing the whole section and starting all over. For example, the sentence, "However, according to exit polls, over sixty percent of white Americans voted for McCain." suggests that racism was at play yet here [3] I discover this analysis, "Obama received 43% of the white vote, up from Kerry’s 41% of the white vote in 2004," suggesting that Obama received a higher percentage of white votes than did Kerry. This not, as we say, "Good feng shui." Carptrash (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

This page will be set up for talk page archiving in a week or so unless anyone has objections.--Carwil (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Racism in the Military

This article seems to be missing a section on the racism that occurs in the United States military. It is a subject that needs to be addressed as it is extremely relevant to the times we live in. I would like to contribute. Kaitlyn confer (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitlyn confer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Use of The Term 'Race'

One of the most disturbing aspects of any discussion of 'race' and/or 'racism' is the very use of the inaccurate term 'race' which is, I maintain in my 'Anti-Racism/Colorism Blog 101' www.caroltaylorword.blogspot.com a too-widespread euphemism which covers a whole lot of untreated racism/colorism. I've often called for a 'Liberation Semantics Forum' - even a series of fora, to eradicate confusing and misleading beliefs extant in the masses of people residing in the hostile-to-color U.S.A. (But don't celebrate yet: the untreated racism/colorism is, unfortunatley, worldwide and extremely counterproductive to hueman progress.

173.3.143.128 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Carol Taylor First Black U.S.A. Flight Attendant, 590 Flatbush Avenue, Ste.11A BK NY 11225 email: littleblackbook@juno.com, Tel. (718) 856 1271

Edit of 8/16/10 concerning JFK

Under "Anti-European Immigrant Racism," I deleted the reference to there being both anti-Irish and anti-Catholic prejudice during the election of JFK. Back at that time, in 1959 and 1960, there was a lot of talk about the possible drawbacks in having a Catholic president, but there was virtually no talk about whether or not to elect a President of Irish ancestry, which would have been rather pointless since his opponent, Richard Nixon, was a Quaker of Irish ancestry.

The concern that some people had at the time the time was that JFK, as a Catholic, would be under the control of the Vatican.

Only a short notice concerning the ADL ( Anti Defamation League ): which strangely is forgotten here.
Why is there no mention about it within "Current Hate group " forinstance , or in "Racism as a factor in U.S. foreign policy" . Anyway ; Criticizing it or not , this very powerfull racial power group had to be mentioned before other less active racial clubs . (Michel SERVET (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC))

On the copying of content from this article to Racism in North America

43?9enter (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Added paragraph on Asians and college admissions

Many reliable sources have written about anti-Asian discrimination in college applications, similar to Jews in past generations. I added one source, but there are many others which this paragraph can be expanded with.--Babank (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that a newspaper op-ed column is only a WP:RS to its writer's opinion. If you want to write about Thomas Espenshade, I recommend you find a news article that summarizes his research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Malik, how about I rephrase the paragraph to make clear that the view is that of Russel K Nieli and Ross Douthat and others, who have summarized Epenshade's research for the purpose of this argument. Here are two more reliable opinion sources, I believe that three reliable sources should be enough to state the view.[4][5] --Babank (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Crime against whites" section is misleading.

Those numbers are presented in a misleading way. Black Americans make up roughly 12.8% of the population, while "white" Americans account for about 80.2%. Census data: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html Those numbers alone greatly increase the chances of crime victims being white. This really borders on sophistry.

I imagine white Americans buy 80% more bread, buy 80% more pornography, and breathe 80% more air, too. (I bet they account for an even higher rate of taxi rides.)

Furthermore the final two paragraphs of this section don't seem to have anything to do with racism at all and I reccomend they be removed. So-called "interracial crime," a term of questionable significance, is not racism, nor is it on par with hate-crime, community lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow, redlining, etc etc etc.

It's not about number, but about motivation. If a criminal commits a violent crime on account of race, that's relevant here, regardless of whether it's the perpetrator or the victim who belongs to the majority.   Will Beback  talk  05:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Section review

The section Racism against European Americans is confusing. By European Americans here they mean white folks? If so, I think that section should be removed altogether as they are the majority of the country making any racism against them isolated events usually not systematic as opposed to the one against minorities. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Political correctness is always stupid and only tolerated for minorities with insecurity problems. White Americans is fine. Dream Focus 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I love the statement "Political correctness is always stupid", but this is not the place to discuss it. I disagree about removing that section, though tinkering with it is fine with me, The title of the article is not Systematic Racism in America, is it? Or are we saying racism by definition is systematic. That other occurrences, the isolated events, are not racism, by definition. Carptrash (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I assume this article refers to the systematic racism or bias in favor of European descendants over anyone else with more color on their skin. To the personal level most Americans if not all are racist to some degree (and I am not trolling, I am saying this because small levels of prejudice is just natural in most individuals), so yes, the context of this would be the systematic racism that has existed in the United States and as a consequence the concept of "Racism against the dominant race" in the United States is a paradox. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just cut this good faith section out and am moving it here to discuss

Black Poverty

Throughout the 20th Century, Black Americans were not given many opportunities to find work let alone high-paying jobs. As time went on, racism and material deprivation persisted and led to a growing economic gap between whites and blacks. This issue was written widely in the media yet employers along with policy makers failed to help blacks gain higher paying jobs or better opportunities. Eventually, when the civil rights movement occurred along with the writings published by Michael Harrington and Dwight MacDonald which emphasized the terrible conditions black faced in the workplace. The effects of the civil rights movement and published by prominent writers caused poverty to be defined and federal antipoverty policy was put into action.

Discussion

It seems to me that a section that begins with "Throughout the 20th Century," and then is footnoted from an article that only discusses up until 1969 is not a good thing. This sentence " As time went on, racism and material deprivation persisted and led to a growing economic gap between whites and blacks." seems to suggest that the economic gap between blacks and whites was less in 1900 than it was in 2000, that is to say, "throughout the 20th Century." I find that very hard to believe and would like to see a reference or citation if that is going to remain and am not inclined to accept one that only goes up until 1969. Though I have a difficult time believing that the gap had widened from 1900 to 1969. I am not sure that "Eventually, when the civil rights movement occurred along with the writings published by Michael Harrington and Dwight MacDonald which emphasized the terrible conditions black faced in the workplace." is even a complete sentence. I feel that this is a good faith edit, but it needs some work. This is the first edit from a new editor and hopefully we will get more from her /him. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Most blacks have no trouble finding work these days, nor did they in the 1990's, so you can't say the entire 20th century. The last problem they had was in the 1970's wasn't it? And it should be mentioned that people in poor areas with horrible education and other problems are poor, regardless of race, while those from elsewhere are not. Income level not race affects test scores, according to studies. Dream Focus 23:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Court Cases

It seems that the Court cases regarding race section is blank. Is this intentional, or is it a mistake? The list of United States Supreme Court cases page has some good examples that could be summarized here.Carnivorousfungi (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger with Discrimination in the United States

I'm going to go ahead and remove the proposed merge tag as a) no one is actually discussing it and b) I don't think a merger is appropriate, for reasons I shall outline below. If anyone objects, feel free to replace the tag and begin a discussion.

Oppose merger. Though "discrimination" and "racism" are closely related terms, they're not synonyms and thus they could spawn different articles. Racism is a type of discrimination, and thus the material on racism in the US could sit appropriately as a section of the discrimination article, but this article is far too long to include simply as a sub-section of the other. I think a much better option is to keep the two articles separate, and then completely re-write Discrimination in the United States, including a section on racism in the US linking to this article. I'm going to include this notice on the other talk page too. basalisk (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

someone (unregistered editor)

just removed this unsourced paragraph from the article. If you feel strongly about it, find a reference and put it back

"Notably, poor, predominantly Southern and rural, whites, particularly in Appalachia and the Ozarks, are referred to by a number of slurs, notably white trash, trailer trash, cracker, redneck, and hillbilly (this latter having more mixed usage), with connotations of being stupid, uncultured, uneducated and strange. Ethnically, these groups are largely referred to as Scotch-Irish American, though the ethnic groups of Appalachia are more accurately described as being primarily (90%) from the Anglo-Scottish border country, most, but not all, via the Plantation of Ulster in Northern Ireland; they are also of German, English and Welsh ancestry."

Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Blanking of "Native American owned slaves"

An ip editor has been blanking this section. Current text is:

Before removal and "under white influence", some Southern Native American tribes owned African American slaves. The Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw were known to have had slaves. However, unlike white slaveholders, they encouraged the young black slaves to attend the schools opened for the Indian children. The children they had with black women and men were raised in practical equality with their full blooded offspring." [20] Unlike the United States before Emancipation, African Americans (and European Americans) were allowed to become citizens of their respective Native American nations; however, it was rare for African Americans to become citizens of Native American nations. For example, a small number of "Free People of Color" lived in many Native American nations as Cherokee, Choctaw, or Creek citizens.[21]

This is useful, interesting and encyclopedic information. It fleshes out this complex topic, and is exactly the kind of non-intuitive information I look to wikipedia to provide. 204.107.53.153, please discuss your reasons for wanting to blank this section. Colonel Tom 02:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's great information, but wouldn't it be far better in the article on slavery in the US? It doesn't talk about racism---it talks about a lack of racism. In the context of an article on racism, it seems to be making a point, which isn't particularly encyclopaedic. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 09:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, CurlyTurkey. I saw it as an interesting counterpoint to the generally racist approach of white slaveowners. I did wonder if it might not be better placed at another point in the article, and I absolutely agree that it's relevant to Slavery in the United States, but I do think it belongs in this article.

I'm certainly no expert on the topic. Colonel Tom 10:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we want to spend any space (if it is not already there) explaining that slavery and racism are not synonymous? If so, then this section could be a part of that discussion. Carptrash (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The user blanked the section again, with the edit summary Please justify the relevence of this information before reverting this deletion. It does not have any direct bearing on racism against American Indians. Perhaps that's right. I don't think, for example, that the sections on racism against Latin Americans / Asian Americans need to have examples of their participation as protagonists in this or similar institutions. I

The 2nd paragraph of the lede starts with Major racially structured institutions included slavery, Indian Wars, Native American reservations, segregation, residential schools (for Native Americans), and internment camps. Given that, I still do think that this information is relevant to the article as a whole. Perhaps a short section on Slavery and racism or similar (per Carptrash's suggestion) could contain this interesting information? Colonel Tom 21:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold and added a new section with this text under Institutional racism / slavery by non-whites. This allows scope for expansion if other relevant info is suggested. If my phrasing has inadvertently caused any offense, I apologise in advance - none is intended. Again, I'm no expert in this topic. I've not yet considered how to best incorporate Carptrash's suggestion to explain that 'slavery and racism are not synonymous'. I invite comments/suggestions/amendments. Thanks, Colonel Tom 21:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Most hate crimes are black on white or black on hispanic

This article needs severe updating towards the end. Looking at any contemporary statistics shows directly contradicting evidence.

108.17.109.131 (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No asians?

So, besides that bit about the West Coast, I don't see anything about discrimination against asians. Every other racial group and some ethnic groups get their own sections, but asians don't. I thought asians report more racial discrimination than any other group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Prejudice and racism

Interesting article about the subject:

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.202.64 (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

"thousands of African slaves served whites, alongside other whites"

The term whites seems rather colloquial, perhaps it could be replaced with something more suitable for a formal encyclopedia. Anser 5 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest that for identifying people who are socially marked as belonging to a specific race group the standard would be to use the race as an adjective, not an adjectative noun. Whites (and more problematically, Blacks) makes a person's racial marking essential to their personhood. Instead, let's use White person, Black mother, Asian construction worker, etc... when describing people with respect to their race and social roles.Billy P 5 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

This is an article about racism in the U.S., and U.S. racism as it pertains to African-Americans and German/Dutch/English/Scots/Irish/Slavic/Semetic/French/Spanish/Portuguese/Belgian/Swiss/Scandanavian/Did-I-miss-anybody-Americans is a history of divisions along White/Black lines. This is how it was played out. In legal documents, "white" was the term. It was pseudo-science. Perhaps an authentic reproduction of the chart on the degrees of White/Blackness that was in official usage during the 1800s, or the 1890 census, would be helpful, with terms like mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon. The institutionalized racism that was enshrined in U.S. law, in terms of the wording of the 3/5ths compromise, the Fugitive Slave Laws and the later Jim Crow Laws, distinguished whites as being the class of privilege.