Jump to content

Talk:Racism/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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 17


no such thing as anti black racism?

There are articles on racism against every type of racism you could think of but no article on afrophobia? That's systemic bias!YVNP (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean racism against all types of races? Movements against racism are not racism, usually. Eyedubya (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Aryan Invasion" nonsense

Stale
 – Bless sins (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the India part in this edit[1][2] as unencyclopedic per WP:FRINGE for the following reason: The edit makes the pseudohistorical claim that "light-skinned" "Aryans" invaded India and established the caste system. Such a narrative was coined by the British Empire in India during colonial times as a racial fantasy of the British to attempt a justification of their rule over the subcontinent. The references cited in the edit to "back up" such outdated and offensive ideas were carefully Synthesized based on partisan sources like Eric Margolis (who is known to make false and venomous accusations against Indians) and unreliable sources. The wikipedia articles Aryanism#British Raj and Indo-Aryan migration contain a vast plethora of scholarly material that dispute (and ultimately debunk) the notion of an "Aryan Invasion and caste establishment". The caste system existed in the region long prior to the Indo-Aryan migrations, and the Central Asians who migrated (not invaded) the subcontinent did so peacefully over the course of generations, and were integrated into the caste system over time.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asians not receiving much attention in article?

I don't think that racism against asians is getting enough attention in this article, especially compared to African-Americans and people of Middle-Eastern descent. Even in modern culture the Asain plays quite a backseat role in comparison to other "races" in society. I see Asains being treated worse than other minorities now. Bigotry now seems to be directed toward asians more than other people in the article. BTW I dunno how to sign the comment, so i'll just make a smily face, eh? {;-\> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.139.67 (talk)

You are basing your thoughts on the American view of Asians, which is what wikipedia is trying to avoid. In history, Asians have had relatively little connections with other races.99boy 15:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by these sentences, 99. --Orange Mike 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I notice most is the lack of attention to Asian-Asian racism. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Better sources needed

The article states: Racist opinions occurred in the works of some Arab historians and geographers. In the 14th century CE, the Tunisian Ibn Khaldun wrote...

The two sources given are this:

  • The Muqaddimah. Certainly Ibn Khaldun doesn't accuse himself of racism. And to interpret Ibn Khaldun's work (which is a primary source) as racist is a violation of WP:PSTS.
  • An article by an anonymous author. If you look carefully, the article also cites wikipedia as a source, showing how unreliable it is.

Better sources are needed for the claim.Bless sins (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there are currently many issues on the page, I'll assume the lack of response means consensus and close this issue.Bless sins (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary origin of racism

I noticed that this article does not go into depth about the reason why people are racist. Why is that? Does it require too much speculation? I am pretty sure that there is some genetic origin behind racism, ingrained into us by evolution. I think its the whole concept of "my kind" and "not my kind," but I really don't know. Fusion7 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unless there is reliable scientific materials that could be referenced then it wouldn't be appropriate for wikipedia to say those things. Especially because it's a controversial idea. I think if it were to be brought up on the page it would likely get removed unless there was some real solid data behind it that could be referenced. as for why there isn't much info on why I think that would go into the fact that there are a lot of reasons, and that it's really tough to put a definite objective answer to that question. I think many people have theories, some very intelligent and more likely than not pretty close to being accurate, but they would still be theories because it's a tough thing to prove Sykko (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence out of place

Section "Evolutionary theories about the origins of racism" now has a final sentence (and paragraph) which looks out of place:

Mainly dehumanization, but also racism, played a role in the American mutilation of Japanese war dead during World War II

Perhaps it was moved by mistake when the image was moved up? Philcha (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk page threads

This talk page is waaaay too huge. Would editors familiar with the material please tag talk sections with {{resolved}} and {{stale}} as appropriate and start archiving old talk threads? Thank you! Banjeboi 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've messaged a number of editors who have posted here over the past months to assist in tagging sections, I've also removed about forty duplicated threads that may have been re-added twice after being deleted or some other form of dealing with vandalism. Banjeboi 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question what type of guideline do we want to consider for deciding on stale tags? %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time while we either discuss it or I wait for a good link I will keep a very loose guideline of 7 and a half months... This is because it is easy. Any discussions that have had no new comments since from Dec 31 2007 and older I will mark as stale. I feel that this could be a bit tighter (perhaps something like 90 days) but until there is discussion on tightening it up I will work with that. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general I mark something "resolved" if the issue is either been addressed or fixed to be seen as resolved - offending item fixed, removed, reworked etc. Stale, I like less but can be used for talk so old that it's no longer applicable or possibly no longer an issue. It's better to having current issues discussed than weighted down by a lot of old material talk. It may also make sense to put this page on an autoarchive of 30 days or so, so anything that gets no attention for that time period is archived. Something can always be brought back but this keeps items from growing exponentially and simply lingering with no resolution. Banjeboi 01:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the thoughts with the stale tag (although it will slow things down for us) is that it gives the editors who have been watching the discussion a chance to review (and potentially remove the tag) if no one were to remove the tag within a specific amount of time I think it would be safe to say that it is worth archiving.
In my Non-WP:NPOVNPOV opinion, alot of these topics seem to be where someone was emotionally sparked and needed to get something off their chest but werent exactly looking for a conversation so much about it but just wanted to explain that they were offended in some way or another.
I like the idea of the bot, but since this is mainspace perhaps if we could request a longer time span in case some of the less-active editors would like to throw their opinions in on a talk subject that could be helpful. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree, resolved can prbably be archived asap. Maybe 7-? days for a stale section to be archived? And for auto-archiving how long is long enough? 45? 60? Banjeboi 02:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both sound good. 7 days should be long enough to give any editor who is conserned with this talk page to see a stale tag and to adjust and comment. I guess it depends on if there can be feedback to the bot later. I think if perhaps whoever runs the bot that would be archiving the page would be willing to adjust later if people disagree with the time frame that 45 days would be a good place to start. A few of us could keep a watch on the page and if it seems alot of subjects are getting pulled from the archives or if someone complains we would could ask the bot op to adjust the timeframe to whatever would seem more appropriate at the time.
By the way, after working on this for a while with you, I think you made a good call trying to clean this thing up. I am plenty willing to help you out with this :) %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is pretty basic and anyone can adjust it if 45 seems like it's not long enough. I suggest we clear off all the resolved items first, wait until the stale ones have each aged at least 7 days then clean those off as well. Then add an archiving bot. Banjeboi 09:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I would be very ahppy to help out. But I have not actively participated in a discussion here - or made any major edits to the article - in a long time so I don't think I am qualified to judge threads resolved or stale. But it is a good idea. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider helping anyway as you may be able to help quite a bit. Pick one of the sections towards the top that seems likely either stale, resolved or both. Read through what is there and check the article to see if whatever concerns have been addressed. If so tag the section as resolved, if the concern seems outdated stale may be appropriate. Banjeboi 12:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done****Yes, please go ahead and shrink it. Banjeboi 00:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! good call :) %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 02:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Benjiboi for fixing a counter problem, sorry about that. I also went ahead and manually archived a few threads that the bot didn't catch (probably because of odd date formats). Right now the current "max archive size" is set to 45K, which is a bit small. Normally archives are 100-200K, but if the folks here want smaller archives for ease of navigation, that's up to you. Per WP:SIZE, some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K, but anything up to 200K for an archive is usually fine. I've seen some archives as high as 350K, but that's rare, and usually only for extremely busy pages, or perhaps a page where the bot got "stuck" on an archive, and nobody caught it for awhile. --Elonka 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We were going to wait until those stale ones had aged at least a week but no worries. I set the size smaller for exactly the browser issue. When searching through an archive you have to edit an entire page instead of being able to edit one section so I feel a bit smaller is called for. Personally, I really can't edit, or even look at larger articles so have no doubt that those with even less than ideal systems than mine also face similar concerns. In the end however, thanks to everyone for helping with this housecleaning as we've cleaned off over 100 threads as well as laid plans to keep the talk page more uncluttered. hopefully this will also serve the article well. hard to believe it won't. Banjeboi 02:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of this article should improve another less edited article

White separatism. In its current level it reads like "THE NEXT BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD!". It's embarrassing really. Wikipedia is supposed to keep a NPOV, especially on subjects that may be borderline hate-group related. Wikipedians should work to stop certain individuals from censoring criticism in such articles. The trend is quite alarming sometimes, I recently had an editor (at least he was very young, but very active in editing articles) that was arguing publicly that the 'stormfront' website is not racism related. --Leladax (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is anti-black racism ignored?

The only article on anti-black racism is the article on stereotypes. There is a lot of anti-black racism which not at all stereptypical.YVNP (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of racism according to UN is cited incorrectly

{{editsemiprotected}} The 'International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination' is quoted in the definition section, but it is done incorrectly. The convention states '1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." (see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm)

In the Wiki article 'religion' is added in this quote. I can't find any source for this addition. Quite an important addition without any reference and hidden away in an official looking quote. Please adjust to the original convention text. 87.111.73.185 (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - great catch there. Thanks ~ mazca t | c 00:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the rogue word slipped in about two months ago [3], prior to the semi-protection this article was receiving such a torrent of blatant vandalism that it was disturbingly easy for minor factual errors to slip past. ~ mazca t | c 00:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki after looking at the UN definition says "great catch". Yet Wiki has not yet caught the problem as stated in the entry "Editors need to examine definition of racism". Wiki's definition, even 37 days after "Editors need to examine . . ." was entered, still is one where belief is racism. Look at the UN definition again. Racism is an action! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Racism Towards Indians

i know it may sound funny, but making fun of the way indian people talk, or saying things about how they smell are very offense. there are many ignorant people out there. don't become one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.245.106 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC) If a comedian makes fun of all races then that's alright, everyone can laugh. If a comedian makes fun of only certain races then we have a very big problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.27.21 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't racism also a form of looking down on someone because of race?

see above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkymonkey987 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When is criticism racist?

If a person criticizes one particular individual for having an obnoxious trait, which is held to be typical of his race, is the critique necessarily racist?

  • Yes: any reference to race, coupled with a critique is by definition racist
  • No: criticizing an individual for an actual trait he possesses is not prejudice; the definition of prejudice is "pre-judging". Judging a person on an individual basis, and then noting that he happens to be part of a particular race, is not racist.

Does it depend on the direction of the inference? That is, if I criticize a person for being simple-minded and clumsy (and he just happens to be purple), does this mean I "hate" the purple race? Or is it more like, if I see a purple person and I assume he will turn out to be simple-minded and clumsy upon acquaintance that I am racist?

Note: I am not asking for an objective definition here. I'm sure there is some dispute regarding this matter. I am asking who the various sides are, and hoping to discover what those various sides think. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?

The opening definition of this article is lifted with tiny modification from Webster's Dictionary. I'm not familiar enough with the Wikipedia conventions to know if that's OK, but it seems fishy to me. Manyanswer (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy)

Hi, is the Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy) concept as practiced in Malaysia considered racist? The term is listed under wikipedia's article on Institutional Racism. If yes, can an editor pls add Ketuanan Melayu to the 'See Also' section of the racism article. Thanks, nat Natthehat (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differing definitions of racism

The belief that race(that is, genes) determines the traits and capacities of people is NOT racism. By that definition, thousands of scientists would be racist. Genes DO primarily determine how we are as people and each sub-race(caucasian, african, asian etc.) have some genes that are specific to them. There are many diseases that primarily affect only one sub-race or the other. For instance, cystic fibrosis is most common in western european people. How we metabolize drugs is also very dependent on which sub-race we belong too, there is nothing racist about that.

I believe the correct definion of a racist is a person who regardless of facts believes his own race to be superior to others. For instance, Hitler believed the Nordic race to be superior based on some very pseudo-scientific claims. But I don't think it's racist to say that Nordic people are better metabolizers of drug X if it's based on facts. T.R. 87.59.78.120 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our core policies, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Thank you. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Racist???

Just wondering if anyone knows what the term is when a person is racist against their own race? I know this kind of racism exists however what i can't find is a the name for it nor can i find much information about it through search engines. If anyone could let me know that would be great and might make an interesting addition to this wikipedia entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.18.1 (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This type of person is typically referred to as "self hating." 216.78.60.196 (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in France: POV

In France, home to Europe’s largest population of Muslims — about 6 million — as well as the continent’s largest community of Jews, about 600,000, anti-Jewish violence, property destruction, and racist language has been wildly increasing over the last several years and French-Jews are worried more every month that it will spiral even higher. Jewish leaders perceive as intensifying anti-Semitism in France, mainly among Muslims of Arab or African heritage, but also growing among Caribbean islanders from former colonies.[84][85]

That's the only few lines about racism in France. It may remain as short as this in such a general article, but the content is not representative at all.

This paragraph may be true, and may take part of a bigger article, but writting it alone makes the reader think racism in France is only about Arab people over Jewish people, which is totally wrong. With such an isolated paragraph, I felt like reading a standard right-wing anti-French Israeli newspaper. I don't want to put an opposite POV neither, but there's a few basic and objective things to say about racism in France in some lines:

  • quite widespread racism among popular French against African people (See Front National)
  • as the current article says, racism among African and Caribean people against the Jews (mostly in Paris)
  • some very isolated and rare extremist groups (Neo Nazis: hate everyones but themselves)


I'm not a specialist about this question, neither a good writter, so I won't correct it on my own. The current content is just chocking to a "Caucasian" French, as my personnal experience in my "real life" is very different from what's described here.

Sylvain --81.202.203.92 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Write up a paragraph with a couple of sentences for each bullet-point, and provide complete and appropriate sources (see our WP:V, WP:RS, and [[WP:CS] and just make sure you comply with it. Put it here, and I will happily fix up the prose so it reads well and put it in.Slrubenstein | Talk 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedic

"Academic racism was pushed by white supremacists during the period when white people garnered great profits from slavery and colonialism"

And indeed discovered the obvious differences between themselves and the negroid peoples.De percy (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White people? All white people enjoyed profits from slavery and colonialism? please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.42.150 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As did the colored people! De percy (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery and colonialism has indeed been prevelant all throughout human history. There is nothing new here. Europeans at the time were merely interested in the survival and prevalence of the fittest, and doing the best that they could for their particular group of people in an extremely competetive New World atmosphere. If the Negro in Africa had been as capable, he too would have done precisely the same, as he himself practiced tribal forms of slavery throughout Africa.216.78.60.196 (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tribalism

Perhaps a paragraph about the relationship between tribalism and racism would be useful. G.D. Clayton Bigsby (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

scottish - english racism?

over the years scots have peformed raceism against english people living in scotland, similar things happen in wales to the english. 84.64.14.35 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism - An ever growing problem

I have seen more and more news articles showing the growing problem of racism. In an attempt to educate the world on the harms of racism I have started a forum. The forum is named Racism Awareness Forum and is open to all around the world to gather and give their stories and input into this subject. Please join and submit topics to try and bring this to the attention of the world.

There is also a chat room for the use of forum members. Lets educate the world on the harms of racism.

The website can be found at [4] .

Thanks Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyfrank67 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-White Racism

Why is there a section of this article devoted to this? Most racism is perpetuated by whites, and as far as Whites being the second largest group of victims of racist attacks would seem to have more to do with their proportion of the population. It just seems as if this is some sympathetic getsure to show "look we (Whites)are victims too." I personally have not had any white friend discuss experiencing racism to me to but I am only one person.: – — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Jaesi25 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most rascism in the western world is purpetuated by whites, yes, but that does not mean whites do not experience quite a bit of rascism themselves. It needs discussing in the article becuase it's not well known about yet it is present.--Patton123 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, if it is not well known about, that means we need more research. But Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. Any discussion of racism against Whites has to be based on significant views from notable, Verifiable, and reliable sources. And if such views do exist, by all means, they have to be included in this article, NPOV demands it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a well-referenced section on anti-white rascism in the article. He just wants it removed.--Patton123 17:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-white racism section needs to be ENLARGED not removed. This is a very common phenomenon. T.R. 87.59.78.120 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yess de president is barwak obama!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.68.57 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Anti-white racism is prevalent all around the world, asianracism.blogspot.com documents some cases of racism between different ethnic groups, and against 'whites'. That's just one little blog that posts up articles from other places. However, the broader picture is that 'white' people do indeed face racism and discrimination on a daily basis - this is well documented, even if under-researched due to various political factors in western countries. That said, it's real, it exists and there is no reason not to document it and reference it. The section should remain and be enlarged with relevant cited material. 121.79.19.4 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should a section dedicated to the subject of anti-White racism. However why is it on the general page of racism? There is no other dedicated section on this general page to any other forms of racism directed to any particular group. The anti-White section should be moved onto its own page, consistent with the current system as other ethnicities have their own pages as well. Transcendence (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. No other "race-group" has its own sub section on this page. The paragraph, in its current form, is grasping and irrelevant. It lists five random incidents of discrimination or racist-inspired abuse on white people but fails to define what "Anti-White Racism" is as a phenomenon or establish why it is important enough for its own section. There is already an Anti-Europeanism article which could be expanded or someone could start "Anti-White racism" or perhaps more accurately "Anti-white discrimination." For now I will remove the section. Am86 (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Racism article be semi-protected?

You get a lot fifteen-year old This Is England fans swarming over it with childish-radicalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm superpig (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism invented by Europeans a couple centuries ago?

While racism is most commonly accepted to be a product of European colonialism during the early modern period, several authors have put forward the idea that racism may have its roots in Classical Antiquity or the Middle Ages.

Who says this? As far as I know, hardly anyone thinks racism is something that was just invented by Europeans a couple centuries ago. Isn't it more commonly accepted that it has existed in all cultures, in all times? Maybe I'm countering original research with my own original research, but isn't racism a universal human flaw, based on our built-in fear of the unknown and human desire to categorize things? (ironically, isn't saying basically "racism was invented by Europeans" a racist statement in itself?) -kotra (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it as uncited original research. -kotra (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death trap for tha Jap

I refer the picture depicted in this article, found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alaskadeathtrapa.jpg. I do not believe this is a relevant image for the Racism article. There is nothing to suggest that the poster was some type of mid 20th century example of racism. Jap referred to the the nationality of the Japanese people who had attacked the American (also a nationality) people. This is similar to Yankee, Pommy, Kiwi, Aussie, Paki, Frog, etc. These terms are not racially specific. I am calling for the image to be removed from this article. Please discuss. I shall complete the removal in 14 days if no substantiated objections can be made. OzWoden (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Japanese people are an ethnic group, not just a nationality. See Racism#20th century for an example of racism distinguishing between Japanese people and other Asian ethnic groups. The image does depict racism, in that it shows a racist Japanese ethnic stereotype that was common back then. It is targeting the perceived physical appearance of "Japs" as well as their nationality. So I think it is a good example of racism (if any example of racism is "good"). That said, it doesn't belong in the "In Antiquity" section, so I've moved it. -kotra (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Racism

It's not simply a belief that your race is superior to other. Racism is a philosophy imposed by society; Racism is.. is a cycle created by the misinformation provided by the media, institutions, and society in general. This leads to "racist" views- the that the oppressed people are inferior, that they are somehow as a people not as "thoughtful" or as "pure" as whites ( I say white simply because I do not know of any society in which whites are not at the top of the "power pyramid".. or call it what you will) So yes, blacks can be racists, society can and does poison you against your own people. And no, reverse racism is a contradiction not because racism is racism, it's because you can not BE racist against whites, you can descriminate based on race, but that is not racist, racism must be discrimination that is based throughout society, not just within a certain portion of it.

Also...

Whites are members of society and are definitely victims of racism This should be discussed in depth and if not, that's discriminatory within itself.76.111.211.241 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Wyatt[reply]

I think what is coming out here is that (a) there are different definitions of racism, and (b) choice of a definition of racism is intimately tied to ideologies. I think just about everyone involved in the debate over definitions of racism actually wants to use their own definition to put themselves on the higher moral ground--i.e. people holding more overtly racists views will define racism so as to not make themselves racists or so in their own view, they are even be the victim of "reverse racism"...and yet, people ascribing to the broader view go around with this holier-than-thou attitude, tacitly implying "All white people are racist but because I know it and you're so staunchly refusing to admit it, this makes me better than you.", using their definition as much as possible as a way to shut down people who don't agree with them. Neither attitude is at all productive to addressing or changing any sort of institutionalized oppression. I think we need to be careful that, in writing this article, we don't somehow end up advocating one or both views.
The current article is already written to reflect the things I've said, somewhat, but I think this could be more transparent. This article is sensitive and difficult to be written in WP:NPOV. I also think the current article is extremely biased towards covering the United States at the expense of other parts of the world. Cazort (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in France

I think the 20th century article needs to be massively expanded. I'll just give one example on France as I live there: the article mentions only the recent increase of anti-Jew racism from North Africans (in the 'Inter-minority variants' section), whereas the main racist trend in France these years has been the increase of xenophobia in general and the fear of immigration. In particular the resurection of the deeply rooted anti-Arab racism (which had been declining since 1962, with the de-facto nullification of the anti-Arab racist laws as the last Arab colony of France fought to its way to independence). Anti-Black racism is also on the rise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic v White

Not all "Hispanics" and Whites cannot have racial tension. Or at least Mexicans, since after all Mexicans are 40% white of their total pop in Mexico. I understand the Mexicans of color but this should be noted. When I say white, I dont just mean color of skin of "light-skinned" Mexicans because they are not light skinned their white, 40% are as white as Anglo Americans. White Mexicans and White Anglos both come from European colonists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.141.35 (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sociological

There is NO literature that covers Black race hatred toward White people. Why is that? This is particularly interesting when one considers that most interracial crime in America is committed by a Black person against a White person. (at about 100 to 1 btw) Should that be a secret? Is Wikipedia just to PC to relate the facts?

At the same time Black kids are being taught Grievance Entitlement thinking in the schools. That mode teaches kids White people are to blame for the troubles of Black people. This is not supported by the facts, but has been put into the curriculum by the Teachers' Union. This is not good and should be part of the article. If this article is anything but PC Propaganda then these issues should be covered. Robtmorris (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find reliable sources backing up your points (and not just that there is a 100-1 ratio, but that it's attributed to racism), and we will probably be able to include it somewhere (although it may be more appropriate in Racism in the United States or whichever nation you are describing).Wikipedia is not censored, but we do require reliable sources, especially for controversial facts like you are offering. -kotra (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That creates a catch-22 because there is no literature about racism by Blacks. The lack of studies does not mean there is nothing to study. It only means no one is willing to do it. Instead one finds full denial "John Hope Franklin, chair of President Clinton’s race panel, angrily insists that racism is something suffered, not dished out, by blacks. Many black professors, writers, polemicists, and politicians repeat the same mantra. What might appear to be black racism, writes syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts, actually boils down not to racism but to acts of crime and rudeness from the perpetrators, and tough luck for the recipients." ( http://www.tabunka.org/newsletter/black_racism.html) Robtmorris (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some statistics -(It appears my off the cuff ration was not correct, but ---)
Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa. For more check "Race, Crime and Justice in America, The Color of Crime New Century Foundation Oakton, VA 22124 Second, Expanded Edition"Robtmorris (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there have been plenty of studies of this issue. I would suggest that, if you want to add content about it, you use academic sources rather than New Century Foundation. Here are a few books from mainstream publishers that you may want to look at for information. And please don't dismiss them as being from the "liberal elite" - they do address the issues that you raised and at least one of them is very clearly written from an anti-liberal point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to Robtmorris) You may see this as a catch-22, but it could be you're misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Our policy on Wikipedia is to just compile and summarize existing published information, not put forth unpublished ideas (see our policy against original research). Another policy of ours is verifiability, which states that our threshold is "verifiability, not truth". Basically, this means that if there are no reliable sources about a subject, we can't write about it... even if it's true. You've probably seen a lot of stuff in Wikipedia where no sources are cited, but we're trying to reduce uncited statements to just common knowledge facts ("the sky is blue"). For controversial subjects like racism, it's even more important to have reliable sources than most subjects.
A bit of a side note... I don't want to get in a debate about racism, but there's one other possible explanation for the statistics you give: there are a lot more white people than black people in the US. According to the 2006 census, 76% of Americans are white, so it makes sense that, statistically, whites would most often be the victims of crimes. Racism, along with other factors, could also be in play here, but I think the bulk of the difference can be explained by the demographic situation.
Anyway, if we want to attribute any of these statistics to racism, we'll have to cite a source that makes that connection. -kotra (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism/Archive_17&oldid=1144307488"