Jump to content

Talk:Racism in the United States/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Jews as middle eastern

Jews are not a "middle eastern" they have lived in Europe and Africa for two thousand years. If we were to use this method of classifying people then all ethnic groups would be African.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, that's not how identity works. The human species originated in Africa, but not all humans are ethnically "of" that place. Only if they belonged to an indigenous African tribe or nation (for example, the Bantu) would they be able to claim an African identity. Likewise, Jewish identity and ethnicity is from the Middle East (Jew being derived from Judean which, last I checked, is not in Europe or Africa). Jews lived outside of Israel for a long time, but that doesn't make them "native" to those places. Otherwise, I would be a Native American since my family have been here for at least a few hundred years.

Second, what kind of sources are you looking for? Genetics, archaeology, history, what? I provided a source and it was arbitrarily deleted.

Third, there's no need for rudeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4502:61EA:5056:CCA6:D581:D45D (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your idea of "how identity works" does not seem to be one that most scholars of identity or ethnicity would accept. It only works within a a universe where identity and ethnicity is formulated in racial terms. That is not how most scholars of Judaism or Jewries think of identity. (note for example how people talk about European Jewry, about the Ashkenazi origin in northern Europe etc.) So whichever sources you choose they would have to be sufficiently weighty to actually show that there is a wide consensus among scholars of Judaism who consider Jews to be "a middle eastern ethnic group".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
They're not my ideas. It is the UN's own criteria for determining indigenous status (Google Jose R Martinez Cobo). I think that's weighty enough, no?

And I don't know of any other ethnic group that is expected to jump through flaming hoops just to prove that their identity and ethnic attachment to their ancestral land is "real". Ordinarily, we simply take them at their word, but Jewish claims are, for some reason, seen as inherently suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4502:61EA:5056:CCA6:D581:D45D (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That is NOT the Unesco definition of indigeneity, no. Jews are not generally considered an "indigenous people" under that definition (except maybe the Negev desert Jews) - and if were so considered did most would be considered indigenous to Europe (since the UNESCO definition stresses habitation prior to the formation of nation states). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Per UNESCO's definition below, Jews are indigenous to the southern Levant, not Europe.

  • Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. (This is more or less a matter of individual identification with an indigenous tribe; in this case, Jews/Israelites).
  • Historical continuity with pre-colonial or pre-settler societies. (Jews are a monotheistic outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites, so unless one believes in the discredited Khazar theory, Jews do meet this criteria).
  • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources. (See below)
  • Distinct social, economic, or political systems. (See below)
  • Distinct language, culture, and beliefs. (Addressing all three of these together. Jewish identity, language, alphabet, root culture, holidays, beliefs, etc all stem from the Levant).
  • Form non-dominant groups of society. (Considering that Israel is less than 1 percent of the land mass of the Middle East, surrounded on at least three sides by a colonial population, they meet this criteria as well)
  • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities. (This one is a given, obviously) 2601:84:4502:61EA:5056:CCA6:D581:D45D (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
That is not UNESCOs definition of "indigeneity", which is a political not a geographical definition - you should read our article on indigenous peoples because you do not seem to understand the concept. Originating in a place and being indigenous is not the same thing. Jews are indeed the dominant group in the Israeli nation state, so they also cannot be indigenous there for that reason alone.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You can find the definition right here. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf. I copied it straight from their pamphlet. Moreover, I have yet to see you contribute anything (beyond personal attacks and a snotty attitude). I have read the indigenous peoples article, and I see nothing in there that explicitly excludes Jews from the Middle East (and plenty to the contrary). If there's anything I'm missing, point it out. I'm open to being wrong.
As for your second point, Jews are the demographic and cultural majority in Israel, but given its circumstances, surroundings, and size, calling it "dominant" seems to be a major stretch. Do indigenous peoples stop being indigenous once they achieve self-determination?2601:84:4502:61EA:5056:CCA6:D581:D45D (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, the UN is not a valid authority in defining who is indigenous and who is not. Its decisions are based primarily on political considerations, rather than on anthropology and actual scholarship, and the document brought by D45D is a clear example of this. It shows that they have no official definition, and the UN does whatever the hell they want with no oversight.
To quote them, "an official definition of 'indigenous' has not been adopted by any UN-system body.[...] According to the UN the most fruitful approach is to identify, rather than define indigenous peoples."
This opaque, arbitrary approach is completely contrary to the scholarly method appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Even worse, they bring in a completely unprecedented and unrelated criterion to restrict indigeneity to native peoples who "Form non-dominant groups of society." Hmm. Who is the native people forming a "dominant group" that they are trying to exclude? And is this exclusion, prima facie, valid? I challenge any of you to find a dictionary or anthropology textbook that defines indigenousness this way.
Furthermore, as far back as archaeology permits us to verify, Jews were in the Middle East since the beginning of recorded history in the region, about 3000 years ago. Their alphabet, shared with the Phoenicians who lived just to their north along the coast of the Mediterranean, has become the basis of all major European writing systems, including Russian. That's how old they are. There actually exist 3000-year old pottery shards covered completely with words you can look up in a modern Hebrew dictionary. (I've done this myself -- it was an incredible experience. The language is literally Hebrew.) Even Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions from the era testify to the existence of "Israel" and "the House of David." That's us, plain and simple.Musashiaharon (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"UN is not a valid authority" ... now that's a ridiculous statement. The UN is an authority on international issues. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Kindly do not quote me out of context. This is in the context of identifying indigenous peoples. I identified key failings in their modus operandi that show how they are un-scholarly and biased, and hence non-authoritative on Wikipedia. If you have an argument with actual content, I'd be interested to hear it.Musashiaharon (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll point you to WP:BIASED. We do not exclude notable or reliable sources because of what we perceive as bias. We report what they say in a neutral manner (NPOV). The exception is FRINGE, which I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone of vis-a-vis the UN. The UN is an authority and their stance on Indigenous matters is noteworthy. You cannot just toss them aside wholesale. Perhaps suggesting other groups/orgs have a better approach or definition... but dismissing the UN is ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
In case you missed it, the issue here is not whether to include the UN's opinion. The problem is relying on this peculiar non-definition, which conflicts with the consensus of definitions from the world of anthropological scholarship, to exclude a group from indigeneity entirely. Even if the issue were whether to mention the UN's idea about indigeneity, in this particular context, the UN is actually holds a WP:FRINGE opinion, since it is not "broadly supported by scholarship in its field." (emphasis added) As such, it must not be given undue weight, e.g. using it to re-categorize, let alone expunge information.
What is ridiculous here is to exclude an indigenous people from indigeneity simply because they got their own nation, as pointed out in detail by D45D. At that rate, no indigenous people would be allowed their own state, and we have that the UN's opinion is actually self-contradictory to their stated goal of protecting indigenous peoples' "right to traditional lands, territories and natural resources."Musashiaharon (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Jut show me a UNESCO document that counts Jews among the worlds 370 million indigenous peoples. And yes, the definition specifically excludes those ethnic groups that have formed nation states basd on their ethnic identities - English or Danish people are not indigenous to their nation states for that reason. Under the UNESCO definition the only indigenous peoples in Israel would be the palestinians and the negev jews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You're moving the goal posts, not to mention selectively reading the UN's criteria.
Nevertheless, Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel. They are Arabs, and the presence of Arabs in the Levant is mainly the result of colonial conquest. They do not have continuity with pre-colonial societies (any more so than white Americans do, at least), their culture, language, beliefs, etc are primarily Arabian in origin, and they are not distinct in any meaningful way from neighboring Arab states (there are even quotes from the PLO agreeing with this, like Zuheir Mohsen). Even going by your interpretation of the "dominant groups" criteria, the Palestinians still fall short, as they make up at least half of the overall population in the land and are dominant in the West Bank and Gaza.2601:84:4502:61EA:5056:CCA6:D581:D45D (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
One last thing, there's no such thing as "Negev Jews".2601:84:4502:61EA:5056:CCA6:D581:D45D (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There's really no need for us to have this discussion again, which has already been done to death. And personally, I'm not aware of any scholarship (beyond politically motivated and obviously biased works like Edward Said's "Orientalism") that expressly denies the Middle Eastern ethnicity of the Jewish people.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Middle eastern ethnicity" ethnicities are not geographical, you do not seem to have a clue about what the words you use actually mean.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Jews have carried their ethnocultural (ethnoreligious) heritage through both genetics http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html and culture (e.g. keeping the Hebrew language, the Torah, music, Kashrut (foods and dietary laws), dance, etc. since the beginning of Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite existence.
Do not erase primary sources, especially when they relate to the definitions of Jews.
Also, here is a consensus about Jews' origins/current identity here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:American_people_of_Jewish_descent#Americans_of_Southwest_Asian_Descent
Finally, Armenia is located in Western Asia. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"carried their ethnocultural heritage through genetics" what the hell are you even talking about here? Also yo may want to read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOCKPUPPET.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there is a rule about assuming good faith towards other editors, so your premature accusations of sockpuppetry are out of line.2601:84:4502:61EA:5056:CCA6:D581:D45D (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Here, is this better? "Jews have carried their ethnocultural (ethnoreligious) heritage through both genetics and culture (e.g. keeping the Hebrew language, the Torah, music, Kashrut (foods and dietary laws), dance, etc. since the beginning of Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite existence."
And yes, primary sources definition agrees with usage of the context of the quotation (the Asiatic Exclusion League's findings, with laws written and passed by Congress.)
But no, I am not any of the other users on this page. Just Jeffgr9. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

While various sockpuppets argue that Jews are Middle Easterners—which they are not—may I encourage our new friend(s) to read a Wikipedia policy, WP:No original research, and its relevant subsection, Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The use of primary sources is discouraged because they are easily misinterpreted. Is the Proceedings of the Asiatic Exclusion League really one of the best sources of information about antisemitism in the United States? Hell, no. That's one reason it isn't cited in our article about Antisemitism in the United States. So who's fighting to push its use and why? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"While various sockpuppets argue that Jews are Middle Easterners—which they are not"
An assertion with absolutely nothing to back it up, coupled with a baseless (in all likelihood, since I can't speak for the other editors in here) accusation of sockpuppeting. Not very convincing. Some counter-arguments to what I've written would be more constructive, because otherwise this discussion is just a waste of everybody's time, especially if what the others above me have said is true (that this has already been discussed at length elsewhere). As for why I included that source, I thought it was relevant to the topic at hand (and still do). That's all.2601:84:4502:61EA:2889:2845:49A1:ED75 (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah... like I stated — my only account is Jeffgr9; so, as one of the above users stated, both Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk and ·maunus · snunɐɯ· are violating "assume good faith."
As I stated above, Jews are and have always been classified as Semitic, and thus Afro-Asiatic, and thus Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian. And there is cited consensus of such definitions on various articles and above.
Also, even if minor edits are needed to further explain the Asiatic Exclusion League and their directives, it does not mean that one should omit its source material, quotes, or any other sources regarding it altogether, especially when they relate to the content of the article.
And just because a source is not cited in another article (e.g. Antisemitism in the United States ) does not mean that the source is invalid, or that there is some order to when citations should occur — they occur when people find the sources. So, it seems there is more editing to more Wikipedia articles needed (including the Wikipedia article above mentioned), as per usual/why we are all here. Thank you for your time. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The article mentioned by Malik (Antisemitism in the United States) is quite flawed. I may tinker with it later.2601:84:4502:61EA:218B:72A0:13D3:AF01 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Swimming pools

Recent news got me thinking about a subset of racist practices common in the United States, that of swimming pool discrimination. This article] from Ebony (magazine) lays out a pretty good outline of it. I'm wondering if it merits a subsection here, or even it's own article? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Racism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

This should link to [[1]]

--

There should be a reference for the following text found in the article: " ... Jews and Arabs have faced continuous discrimination in the United States ... ". It is doubtful, when and how Jews have faced continuous discrimination, while this used to be and is still partially true for Arabs. Perhaps a few sources should be cited to support this. By XwpisONOMA(at)gMail(dot)com on 12/26/2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.3.157 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted is in the lead, or opening section, of the article. That section serves as a summary of the rest of the article and often footnotes are omitted because they are present elsewhere in the article. If you look at the section of the article titled "Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans", and its subsections on "Arab Americans" and "Antisemitism", I think you'll find the sources you're looking for. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Racism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Discrimination against Latin Americans

This section is not very detailed, especially in relation to the subject matter. I agree. The section only deals with Mexicans, as if they were the only Latin Americans. Nothing is mentioned about the Southern Cone of South America, where white people are an overwhelming majority -specially in Argentina, where Europeans account for 97% of the total population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.175.228.216 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre Crap

"However, non-Protestant immigrants from Europe; particularly Irish people, Poles, and Italians, suffered xenophobic exclusion and other forms of ethnicity-based discrimination in American society, and until the 1960s were not considered white." Give me a break. The first part that there was some discrimination, in the case of the Irish for example in the first half of the 19th century, Italians until the 1920s, is true. That these groups were not considered to be white people is just a super strange thing to say, what kind of mentality posted that? I could make some guesses. There's conflating race and class issues and then there's this which is burrowing down so deep into to the race problem as to be irretrievable.
The fact, which can be substantiated, that these groups may have been lumped with non-whites, contrasted with "white", in discriminatory practices (which btw would have been before the war, not up until the 1960s) in no way vitiates the point I'm making here. I suppose the person who put that in believes that race is entirely a social construct, a fiction which they can twist any way they like, ignorant of the actual history, to get this result. It's true that race is in part socially constructed, Jews for example were/are considered "white" but a distinct race, but to say the Irish and Poles (who, like the Italians, also were not generally protestant) were not considered white is laughable. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

corrected "However, non-" which was truncated in original cut and paste. Only affects the part about catholics. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_the_United_States/Archive_6&oldid=1087719255"