I don't have a whole lot of free time, but I'm going to do what I can to help the people in here who are trying to get this article back on track. This article doesn't need peer review or nomination for "good article" status. It needs for those of us who aren't using this as a soapbox to fight back.
I excised the 'Racism by Country' section into a separate article which can deal with its POV problems on its own. It's absolutely riddled with wildly POV and unsourced claims and it does not belong inside the "Racism" entry.
I hope everybody agrees that the outline is far more manageable than before. I have a few questions, though.
-- Wikitopian 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-- Wikitopian 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a pleasure to have a dialogue with you, Lapaz.
I did some researching and I think you'll agree with me that this article is going to be one of the most difficult articles in the history of "wiki" to protect from POV problems. Since I am just a mere mortal I think the best way that I can serve this article is to help enforce Wikipedia's style guide - in a constructive manner.
If we can stick behind this new outline and encourage people to keep the different sections proportional in size and within the 32k style limit then some of the sentences may, just may, sit there long enough to get sourced, spell-checked, and stylistically improved. We may even manage to get ourselves a readable article. Article Size -- Wikitopian 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I like Foucault enough to probably be called a Foucauldian most of the time. But he's not really the authoritative voice on the history of racism itself, and discourse analysis is hardly the most popular way for looking at the origins of racism. There are lots and lots and lots of authors who have written on the history of racism, and I think we should aim for an account less associated with a single author. (I am aware of the many ironies which could be observed here in terms of my trying to kill the author here.) The Stoler piece given in the references gives a good account of a number of different accounts of the origins of racism, whether it is a modern phenomena, etc. (Further irony: Stoler is explicitly Foucauldian in the piece.) I'm happy to forward a copy to anyone interested, but I'm going to (eventually) try and rewrite the "history of" section to take more into account the fact that there are quite a few different views on the subject. -- Fastfission 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Racism fires up a lot of emotion, and a lot of folks get indignant if they think others are "sweeping history under the rug" by prioritizing what must stay and what must go. I have a proposal that I want to see if I have any support with. It's a proposal for a guideline for the article, not something to stop people from improving the article but rather some much-needed structure to assure the article's gradual improvement.
The Wikipedia style guide states that the preferred size of an article is no larger than 32kb. I think given the relentless pressure on this article to expand in every direction, taking this rule seriously can do the article a lot of good. Here's how my numbers break down:
Current number of characters in article: 41708
Section | Current | Proposed |
History of Racism | 16,602 | 11,000 |
Types of Racism | 9,111 | 11,000 |
Everything Else | 15,995 | 11,000 |
Total(Characters) | 41,708 | 33,000 |
How about the cause of racism???
A lot of people will think this is a bit obsessive but this is a really prominent and important article and it had truly gotten out of control. Any thoughts? -- Wikitopian 13:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I acted on a hunch and Google, wikipedia, and everybody else agreed that "reverse racism" is _not_ defined as minority discriminating against majority and the example (South Africa) that was used is a great example of a nation in which reverse racism defies the population dominance pattern. I'll source this when I get the chance.
I've removed this phrase, at least temporarily, as it seems imprecise as currently formulated. Issues:
Obviously not all these issues can be addressed in a passing reference, but they are relevant to the exact phrasing. If indeed, it's worth keeping - there were certainly many instances of European, Christian anti-Semitism outside the deicide charges.-- Chris 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Wikitopian 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've heard different definitions of the word and some of them give me the impression that being racist isn't necessarily bad. Some of them are more strict than others, and the ones that loosely define racism classify a lot of people as racist, and not just the "whoops you're racist" racists. For example, one might say that racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability. I would not argue if someone called me racist under that definition, and I don't believe that is necessarily bad. I think race plays a much smaller role in deciding a person's traits than gender or the economic conditions into which they were born, but it still has a role. It's not wrong to make presumptions based on certain things, and while less things should be presumed on race than on gender and whatnot, it's not wrong to assume a few things. Think how long it would take to get to know someone if nothing was presumed. A black person in my part of the world is more likely to enjoy hip-hop than to not like hip-hop, so if I were getting acquainted with a black person, me assuming they like hip-hop before knowing for certain would not offend them, even though by the definition used earlier, it would make me racist because I noticed a difference in character based on someone's race. I don't think that makes me a bad person, and I don't believe segregation or oppression is a good thing. I've been accused of being racist by people before, and because the person calling me racist doesn't have enough of an attention span to enter into a conversation about what racism really is, I simply reply, "I'm racial; not racist," even though that is stupid to say. Is that correct? Am I racial or racist, or neither? If I'm "racial" should that actually be a term people use? There's a huge difference between saying "black people's lips are generally larger than whites" and "black people are all evil". If I am racist, is that inherently bad? 24.154.173.50 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's take another example: imagine I live in a racist country which practice racial discrimination between people with brown eyes & people with blue eyes (maybe someone said that blue-eyed people are Aryan and other African, whatever you wish!). So, people with brown eyes will be considered inferior (in much the same way that the aristocracy in the Middle Ages hardly thought of peasants as anything else than barbarians who couldn't read nor write, whereas they spoke Latin...) and therefore be forced in a lower social class position. In times of economic stress, the blue-eyed people will keep the food & money for them, and the brown-eyed people will have to survive with what they have. Because of this difficulty to survive, many will start relying on begging or stealing to find food. Some blue-eyed people, feeling guilty or just generous, will give them some money or food; others will say : "f... brown-eyed people, all thieves!". They have just transformed a social difference into a racial difference. What's the distinction between both? One is permanent while the other is an effect of society and politics. Take another example: let's say you're an American and you travel to South America, Bolivia or somewhere. Everybody says "hey! you're a gringo", and then poor village-people might say: "hey! gringo! that means he might beat me up; or, now, most probably that's he's a wealthy tourist, I can borrow him a dollar or two that won't mean much for him although it'll be a month-work for me..." Then he will say "all gringos are arrogant, they feel superior, they never want to learn foreign languages, expect everybody to understand them, etc." Suppose you're a poor gringo traveling without a dime, and that you learnt how to speak Spanish. But before you get a chance to present yourself, as an individual, the others say: "ah! a gringo!" and identify you with this stereotype. You have no chance to speak for yourself: this is racism. Lapaz 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently moved a short paragraph on DuBois' definitions of racialism and racism because his definitions are probably widely (though not universally) held and the distinction he makes, whether applicable to the words he seeks to define or not, is the one the previous paragraph is trying to make. Furthermore, adding that comment to the scientific racism section seems out of place because DuBois specifically denies that racialism as he defines it is racism and therefore it has little bearing on other definitions of racialism, ie scientific racism. Also, by placing so high up in the article, the pertinent link to racialism—and its myriad definitions—is provided early on. Srnec 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but did you read what I wrote above? I think that DuBois makes a distinction that is very important to differentiating between racism and making racial distinctions. A while back, this article defined racism in the opening line as "various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes." Clearly this is not the commonest definition (if it is used at all). I can separate people into groups based on hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, skin colour, shoe size, and many other things. Such groupings may be meaningless, but they are possible. I tried to fix the intro a while ago and I originally added the DuBois quote because his distinction between simply recognising differences, even more severe and meaningful differences, is not what most people call racism, because racism is an axiological (usually pejorative and relatively nondescript) term. I linked to racialism to provide an understanding on the ways the word is used contra DuBois's usage, but DuBois's distinction (not his terminology) was the key. I understand that DuBois does not have some innate importance such that his comments deserve to be in the intro, but because they were clarifying to the points made in the first paragraph, I thought they were pertinent. Can they be readded? Srnec 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Racism is stored in Category:Racism. Category:Racism is a subcategory of Category:Prejudices. But, Racism not a Prejudice! The word "Prejudice" appears only once in the text, in the item Related_concepts. -- Injinera 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about the article on Racism with its current content, not about Racism itself.-- Injinera 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article is bad enough to turn me off already: "Racism refers to various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine or influence cultural or individual achievement or the essential value of human beings. "
Racism is not about separating people, it is a lot more than that. That opening totally undermines the concept of racism.
I've been trying to get the definition improved for so long... This is a much better intro now. Srnec 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Asians are like the main target for racism, many Asian Students that go to another country and educate there get discriminated. What is wrong with being an Asian. I'm and Asian student myself and everyday I'm teased bullied, name calling and more , it gets worst and worst. Sometimes I even feel ashamed of being and Asian...
I don't know what's wrong with being Asian, I hope you have a better time at your school. --r0m
Seriously... Chinese, Vietnamese and Some others are targets. jackietang33 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
??????? what about Lucy Liu ???? and Sandra Oh ....
and of course Bruce Lee the only fat I know in movies is Chackie Chan but in holywood there are some fat white actors too or I am wrong?
I have a vague impression that several Budweiser-Light commercials released this month, or this week, seem racist,... In addition to whatever about this industry.
Does anyone know of any articles thereof?
Thank You.
Hopiakuta 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This article focuses pretty my only on White-on-(your race goes here) racism. It COMPLETELY ignores racism practised by other nationalities. There is extreme racism that exists Yellow countries such as China, Korea, Japan, etc. North Africans completely look down on Black Africans, etc. This article should be here to describe racism and some key points in history. Not label Whites as racist in a hundred different stories.
In the Chinese language, the terms "Yellow coloured people" (Huang Se Ren); "White coloured people" (Bai Se Ren); and "Black People" (Hai Ren) are standard, and only perjorative if the predjudice of the speaker or listener is against that race anyway.
However, it is believed by some that the absense of "Se" (= coloured) in "Hai Ren" is perjorative against black people, and "Hai Se Ren" may be used as an attempt to redress this. ~~ADM 19th Oct 2006
This article is way too Eurocentric. It has only a brief mention of racism not involving whites, this needs to be expanded. So I agree that this article is biased. People with a knowledge of Asian, African, etc history should add sections. --rom
Yes, I am starting to agree with you SnakeSeries after what you just said made me realise that We(chinese People) can be racist ... But we chinese people do not always use the phrase Hai Ren, we mostly refer them as the nationalities, not their colour. jackietang33 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed this entry from the list of racist organisations:
"Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) - leader of the party, Jorg Haider made a lot of Anti-Slovenian statements and is very similar to Adolf Hitler."
Out of various reasons.
Firstly, the FPÖ is more actively racist in the present day than the BZÖ. If you'll list the BZÖ, you'd need to list ALL similarily far-right parties. FPÖ, BNP, NPD, DVU, et cetera, just for concistency.
Secondly .. as much as I dislike Haider, and as racist as some of his statements have been, saying that he is "very similar" to Adolf Hitler just doesn't make sense.
ChiLlBeserker 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
A claim recently made (in an editing comment for this article) that a Google search for "crypto-racism" returns over half a million "google results". FYI: a Google search of web pages with the argument "crypto-racism" returned only about 1,240 hits. BTW, a search of web pages for "racism is a" returns about 304,000 results, while a search for "crypto-racism is a" claims about 71 hits (although only 1 is displayed). Regardless of popularity, an editor needs to show reliable published source(s) for content that they add. -- Wiley 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
User: Anonymous Wikipedian and I ( User:Arbor) are having an edit war over his new section on crypto-racism. Here is the current format:
Crypto-Racism
Hidden racial bias is often termed "crypto-racism". It is used to describe both open racism in which code words and phrases are used in place of blatant epithets, and individual racism in which self-denial of ones own racist attitudes is a major element. Crypto-racism is most prevalent in nations in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict, but open racism is not socially acceptable. It is often passive aggressive in character.
The hallmark of crypto-racism is strong self-denial of the term by those accused of it. Still, some behaviors are widely acknowledged in popular culture as being crypto-racist, including, 1] intense focus on non-association (for example, "white-flight" in housing developments, racially exclusive golf associations, silent discrimination in hiring), 2] the use of tokens (lone members of the minority in an attempt to disprove racial bias), 3] stated views that racism does not exist and/or accusations of oversensitivity to "jokes", and the phrase: "I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are <racial designation>".
While instances of real crypto-racism are difficult to cite, parodies of crypto-racist attitudes do exist. One of the recurring elements on the Colbert Report is Stephen Colbert talking about his "new black friend" and claiming to be "color blind". blackpeopleloveus.com is a website with similar humor. [3]
My problems with this section are numerous. The last paragraph is simply non-notable and cannot be defended on any means. The middle paragraph aims to identify behaviour that is termed crypto-racist. The problem is to make this verifiable. I can see no way to do that. The term is an ill-defined neologism or insult which seems to have the same semantics as racist but for the lack of self-admission. Since I know very few instances where racist behaviour is self-identified as such, the meanings of racist and crypto-racist seem to coincide in almost all cases. I might be wrong, but WP is not the place to arbitrate such debates over word usage. So, the second paragraph needs verification. It also needs to be precise about who uses the term crypto-racist in that way. Finally, the first paragraph begins with a word definition. First two sentences are fine by me, but don't need their own section. We could simply state somewhere else that "many attitudes, while not overtly racist, are sometimes labeled crypto-racist because they display blabla". The third and fourth sentence of para 1 are unsalvageable. ("most prevalent in natioos in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict"—I'd like to see a reference for that. Also, I fear there is no way to verify the claim that crypto-racism, ill defined in the first place, is often passive agressive.)
In short, there are two sentences here that are worth of inclusion. That does not a section make. The rest is some combination of essay, opinion, wild guesses, and soapboxing that violates WP:V and/or WP:NOR. This article needs the opposite: a cool, detached, helful, edifying description of racism. Preferably the best on the planet. Which is why I just removed AW's section. I won't do it thrice, so it's time for other editors to chip in. At least give us give us a one-liner (remove, festoon with references, 'expand, encrypt or whatever). Arbor 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In conformance with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, I've removed the unsourced material (which could be added back as time allows in later edits if published reliable sources are cited).
- - I withdraw the accusation, Arbor. I created a Crypto-Racism entry on this talk page, wrote several paragraphs describing my position, saved - and just assumed wikipedia was heathy enough to absorb what I wrote. The servers seem to be dying a lot more often than they used to, there's not a day that goes by that I don't get the wiki-unavailable page, so I doubt it has anything to do with my end.
Insofar as the crypto-racism entry is concerned, this is not original research by any reasonable definition of the term. Or, if you wish to apply an inane and pedandic standard to this page, the entire page is "original research" because it contains dozens of assertions that are not strictly sourced, even when the statement appears obvious.
I really don't have time to work on this page now, but come the weekend, I will regularize this page to eliminate all unsourced material.
Anonymous Wikipedian 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
A "Quebec bashing" section was added without references and with weasel wording (example; "It has been argued that ...") -- Wiley 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
A paragraph in "Racism as official government policy" has been added. this paragraph, as with the "Quebec Bashing" one above is without references at all and with weasel wording. This seems like an attempt to bring the Quebec/Canada bickering (which can be seen elsewhere on wikipedia) to this page. I have removed this paragraph altogether. Should someone wish to re-instate it, please cite references. Furthermore, study of this issue will probably result in a non-involved person (unlike me) to conclude to a long standing, hard to solve dispute and not present day governmental racism on either side. In which case it probably doesn't belong in a page about racism. -- Pixx 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Racism#Allegedly racist groups: "Al-Queda, Islamist militant group vowed to destroy Westerners, Jews, and Christians. [5]" ...the source is from National Vanguard.
But...
Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites: "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia [...]"
And the reference isn't even pertinent to the subject. -- Liberlogos 18:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the above mentioned link- most links under the heading "Allegedly Racist Groups" seem to be dubious and non reliable links. I will look into making it more 'encyclopedia-like' later but would appreciate some help. --
khello
08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-- 71.192.88.79 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)==Allegedly racist groups section== Is it really appropriate to have radical fundamentalist muslim groups in this section, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc? Much of the muslim world is anti-jewish/anti-israel, but are they against jews as a race, or as a religion? I would think that they would accept the conversion of jewish people to islam, who would then be acceptable to these groups... but that's just my impression. Do we have any sources on this? -- Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If the title is Allegedly Racist Groups that any group alleged to be racist can be listed. A source isn't even warranted because listing that group alleges racism by atleast one person. Finally, I allege that the UNCF and NAACP are racist groups.-- 71.192.88.79 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the use of Caucasian as a term for white people because it is inaccurate, out of date, and was almost only used in the United States. Wikipedia is supposed to use accurate and universal terms. The proper meaning of Caucasian is people from the Caucasus or people who speak the Languages of the Caucasus. Also, if you click on Caucasian, it goes to a disambiguation page, not an article. Spylab 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The term Caucasian is not out of date, and is also used by forensic anthropologists. You are correct that it is not a technically correct term for white people because it is also used to refer to middle easterners, Indians etc who have a similar skull shape. These people (at least middle easterners) are classified by the US government as white. In popular usage Caucasian refers to people of European descent.
I believe that the term Caucasian is not out of date, it just doesn't technically refer to whites. Whites in America should not be known as whites, but as European Americans, like African Americans. Blacks get their special name, so should whites.
European Americans doesn't cut it either. Could a black man who emmigrated from england be considered a european american? Theres really no term that could be considered NPOV. It's all drawing lines in the sand -- 71.192.88.79 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
'The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown.' - H.L. Mencken
This is an amzaing contribution, i mean if that isnt racism then i dont know. But they will say "he was a man of his time" so it was not racist just natural.-- Halaqah 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Halaqah, I think when people use the "he was a man of his time" line, they do not mean "therefore he was not racist," because they mean that at that "time" so-called good people were often racists; their point is that despite his being racist we should value those things he did or said that continue to be of worth by present-day standards. Let me give you an example closer to home: Wagner was an anti-Semite, but many Jewish music-lovers understand that he was a creature of his times. If we stopped listening to all music made by anti-Semities, we would stop listening to a great deal of mustic from the 19th century. In other words, I think the goal is not to excuse anti-Semites, but to excuse Jews who want to enjoy music written by an anti-Semite even as they reject his anti-Semtiic statements. I am sure there is much music and literature by whites that Blacks today enjoy and appreciate, despite the fact that for a very long time in American history even seemingly progressive Whites were held beliefs about Blacks most people would today find abhorent. The question is, do we through the baby out with the bathwater? I have a feeling Lincoln said some things about Blacks that would upset most of us today, but I don't fault anyone Black, White, or any other American, who appreciates his role in ending slavery in the US. I bet many GIs who fought in WWII were anti-Semitic, being "men of their times." But if they killed Nazis, man, that is just fine with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
My best quote ( black man some years ago - maybe on c-span ) "Don't hate me because I am black. Get to know me first - you'll find plenty of other reasons."
You judge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_african_type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_type Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I started re-ordering the topics so they will be better organized. I tried to put similar topics together in appropriate sub-sections. I put the Racist Quotes section near the end, because that's more of a trivia section than a main topic. I deleted a paragraph on Affirmative Action because it duplicated a paragraph that's already in the Reverse Racism section. There are probably more cases of repetitive content, or topics that should be merged together under one heading. Spylab 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
So why cant i find racist quotes, i think you put it so far at the end it fell right off the page/.-- Halaqah 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph from the Racism in Mexico, Central America and South America section. It was oddly written and questionable and unsourced: "With respect to racism, the "Mestizos" term by adoption gives Spaniards and Portuguese decedents in Latin America a claim to racial purity that in fact does not exist. A Spaniard or Portuguese is actually a Mediterranean amalgamation, created by rape, plunder, and conquest, consisting of Celtic, Greek, Roman, German, Arab, (Moors and Berbers) Black Africans, Jewish, and Gypsy bloodlines. Were a "Mestizo" in Mexico can trace his ancestry neatly and relatively purely to the Aztecs and a Siberian land bridge; a Spaniard is a truly complete Mestizo mystery". -- Xyzzyplugh 13:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic. The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.
According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.” [6] Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.” [7] Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” [8]
It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here. Thanks-- Samuel Luo oli 12 November 2006 (UTC) the end
Something that's been bothering me about: The people who have "White" skin and call themselves American are absolutely wrong. Well, they're actually from the British Decent (Mostly) as their ancestors are from England or Europe. The Native Americans are the true Americans.
Also, a classmate once told my teacher that he hate Germans. Not good. Just because they, in total, killed eleven million people in the Second World War does not mean that all Germans are bad.
But, I heard that there are these Germans who shave off their hair and kill Aisans.
The world is getting sicker than I thought.
I have changed Anti-Semitism to Racism against Jewish people, as i think the title is a POV, this is about Racism and it should be consistent, I know people say anti-Semitism is racism but i think it is a very subjective argument, as anti-Semitism today has a very political slant, i.e. for me writing like this can be considered "anti-Semitic". Also i have deleted the box as the full article has the anti-Semitism box and is of no use here when it is only suppose to be a brief discussion. It is all of these things that make the article a mess. Also there needs to be a fluid theme and not things dropped in all over the place. If one group is being discussed then Arab racism needs a cat, African American needs a separate cat etc etc. -- Halaqah 11:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Everytime i come back to this page some smarty has removed racist quotes, the topic is about racism yet they delete the racist quotes. How are people suppose to appreciate the toungue of racism? the best way is to snatch it from the mouth of those racist that said what they said. DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION AGAIN!--- Halaqah 11:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
the below is not a racist quote, i am sorry: -- Halaqah 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) "When you look at the black race, black people are very gifted in what we call worship and celebration. A lot of us like to dance, and if you go to black churches, you see people jumping up and down, because they really get into it. White people were blessed with the gift of structure and organization. You guys do a good job of building businesses and things of that nature and you know how to tap into money pretty much better than a lot of people do around the world. Hispanics are gifted in family structure. You can see a Hispanic person and they can put 20 or 30 people in one home. They were gifted in the family structure. When you look at the Asians, the Asian is very gifted in creation, creativity and inventions. If you go to Japan or any Asian country, they can turn a television into a watch. They're very creative. And you look at the Indians, they have been very gifted in the spirituality." - Reggie White
That's an awful lot of See Also links. Would anyone care to help build a Template:Discrimination sidebar to condense some of that? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I was interested to read who is more likely to be racist, but couldn't find it. I was expecting things like "studies have shown that upper clase white families are more likely to be racist than lower to mid class white families" or summat like that, you know? Racism is largley conditioning I should think, in this day and age the fear and hatred of other races can only be taught, it wouldn't come natural. So what societies and groups are breeding racism? What societies are more likely to not be racist, poor people? Educated people? What, what is it? This article wont tell me, that makes me a sad panda JayKeaton 07:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This seems the ideal place to expose the racist attitudes of some WP members, including admins, who have allowed a racist user Ecemaml to poison the Gibraltar pages with fascist inspired, racist, anti-Gibraltar propaganda, and then had the cheek to ban a Gibraltar user "Gibraltarian" for taking a stand. The situation is scandalous. It MUST be overturned. WP cannot continue to claim it runs on an NPOV basis otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.120.224.143 ( talk) 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
The racism is against the people of Gibraltar, who are a distinct cultural and political entity. Racism & discrimination is not only about skin colour. That a user can abuse WP to peddle his poison, and the response of WP is to unjustly ban another for making a stand against this is quite frankly repugnant. And none of the admins seem to give a damn. User "Gibraltarian" should have his ban lifted immediately, as its initial imposition was totally unacceptable and unjustifiable.
I have just notice Uganda, that little African country got a nice place in racism, can someone please discuss the possiblity of adding Israel and South Africa.-- Halaqah 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a whole lot of free time, but I'm going to do what I can to help the people in here who are trying to get this article back on track. This article doesn't need peer review or nomination for "good article" status. It needs for those of us who aren't using this as a soapbox to fight back.
I excised the 'Racism by Country' section into a separate article which can deal with its POV problems on its own. It's absolutely riddled with wildly POV and unsourced claims and it does not belong inside the "Racism" entry.
I hope everybody agrees that the outline is far more manageable than before. I have a few questions, though.
-- Wikitopian 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-- Wikitopian 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a pleasure to have a dialogue with you, Lapaz.
I did some researching and I think you'll agree with me that this article is going to be one of the most difficult articles in the history of "wiki" to protect from POV problems. Since I am just a mere mortal I think the best way that I can serve this article is to help enforce Wikipedia's style guide - in a constructive manner.
If we can stick behind this new outline and encourage people to keep the different sections proportional in size and within the 32k style limit then some of the sentences may, just may, sit there long enough to get sourced, spell-checked, and stylistically improved. We may even manage to get ourselves a readable article. Article Size -- Wikitopian 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I like Foucault enough to probably be called a Foucauldian most of the time. But he's not really the authoritative voice on the history of racism itself, and discourse analysis is hardly the most popular way for looking at the origins of racism. There are lots and lots and lots of authors who have written on the history of racism, and I think we should aim for an account less associated with a single author. (I am aware of the many ironies which could be observed here in terms of my trying to kill the author here.) The Stoler piece given in the references gives a good account of a number of different accounts of the origins of racism, whether it is a modern phenomena, etc. (Further irony: Stoler is explicitly Foucauldian in the piece.) I'm happy to forward a copy to anyone interested, but I'm going to (eventually) try and rewrite the "history of" section to take more into account the fact that there are quite a few different views on the subject. -- Fastfission 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Racism fires up a lot of emotion, and a lot of folks get indignant if they think others are "sweeping history under the rug" by prioritizing what must stay and what must go. I have a proposal that I want to see if I have any support with. It's a proposal for a guideline for the article, not something to stop people from improving the article but rather some much-needed structure to assure the article's gradual improvement.
The Wikipedia style guide states that the preferred size of an article is no larger than 32kb. I think given the relentless pressure on this article to expand in every direction, taking this rule seriously can do the article a lot of good. Here's how my numbers break down:
Current number of characters in article: 41708
Section | Current | Proposed |
History of Racism | 16,602 | 11,000 |
Types of Racism | 9,111 | 11,000 |
Everything Else | 15,995 | 11,000 |
Total(Characters) | 41,708 | 33,000 |
How about the cause of racism???
A lot of people will think this is a bit obsessive but this is a really prominent and important article and it had truly gotten out of control. Any thoughts? -- Wikitopian 13:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I acted on a hunch and Google, wikipedia, and everybody else agreed that "reverse racism" is _not_ defined as minority discriminating against majority and the example (South Africa) that was used is a great example of a nation in which reverse racism defies the population dominance pattern. I'll source this when I get the chance.
I've removed this phrase, at least temporarily, as it seems imprecise as currently formulated. Issues:
Obviously not all these issues can be addressed in a passing reference, but they are relevant to the exact phrasing. If indeed, it's worth keeping - there were certainly many instances of European, Christian anti-Semitism outside the deicide charges.-- Chris 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Wikitopian 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've heard different definitions of the word and some of them give me the impression that being racist isn't necessarily bad. Some of them are more strict than others, and the ones that loosely define racism classify a lot of people as racist, and not just the "whoops you're racist" racists. For example, one might say that racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability. I would not argue if someone called me racist under that definition, and I don't believe that is necessarily bad. I think race plays a much smaller role in deciding a person's traits than gender or the economic conditions into which they were born, but it still has a role. It's not wrong to make presumptions based on certain things, and while less things should be presumed on race than on gender and whatnot, it's not wrong to assume a few things. Think how long it would take to get to know someone if nothing was presumed. A black person in my part of the world is more likely to enjoy hip-hop than to not like hip-hop, so if I were getting acquainted with a black person, me assuming they like hip-hop before knowing for certain would not offend them, even though by the definition used earlier, it would make me racist because I noticed a difference in character based on someone's race. I don't think that makes me a bad person, and I don't believe segregation or oppression is a good thing. I've been accused of being racist by people before, and because the person calling me racist doesn't have enough of an attention span to enter into a conversation about what racism really is, I simply reply, "I'm racial; not racist," even though that is stupid to say. Is that correct? Am I racial or racist, or neither? If I'm "racial" should that actually be a term people use? There's a huge difference between saying "black people's lips are generally larger than whites" and "black people are all evil". If I am racist, is that inherently bad? 24.154.173.50 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's take another example: imagine I live in a racist country which practice racial discrimination between people with brown eyes & people with blue eyes (maybe someone said that blue-eyed people are Aryan and other African, whatever you wish!). So, people with brown eyes will be considered inferior (in much the same way that the aristocracy in the Middle Ages hardly thought of peasants as anything else than barbarians who couldn't read nor write, whereas they spoke Latin...) and therefore be forced in a lower social class position. In times of economic stress, the blue-eyed people will keep the food & money for them, and the brown-eyed people will have to survive with what they have. Because of this difficulty to survive, many will start relying on begging or stealing to find food. Some blue-eyed people, feeling guilty or just generous, will give them some money or food; others will say : "f... brown-eyed people, all thieves!". They have just transformed a social difference into a racial difference. What's the distinction between both? One is permanent while the other is an effect of society and politics. Take another example: let's say you're an American and you travel to South America, Bolivia or somewhere. Everybody says "hey! you're a gringo", and then poor village-people might say: "hey! gringo! that means he might beat me up; or, now, most probably that's he's a wealthy tourist, I can borrow him a dollar or two that won't mean much for him although it'll be a month-work for me..." Then he will say "all gringos are arrogant, they feel superior, they never want to learn foreign languages, expect everybody to understand them, etc." Suppose you're a poor gringo traveling without a dime, and that you learnt how to speak Spanish. But before you get a chance to present yourself, as an individual, the others say: "ah! a gringo!" and identify you with this stereotype. You have no chance to speak for yourself: this is racism. Lapaz 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently moved a short paragraph on DuBois' definitions of racialism and racism because his definitions are probably widely (though not universally) held and the distinction he makes, whether applicable to the words he seeks to define or not, is the one the previous paragraph is trying to make. Furthermore, adding that comment to the scientific racism section seems out of place because DuBois specifically denies that racialism as he defines it is racism and therefore it has little bearing on other definitions of racialism, ie scientific racism. Also, by placing so high up in the article, the pertinent link to racialism—and its myriad definitions—is provided early on. Srnec 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but did you read what I wrote above? I think that DuBois makes a distinction that is very important to differentiating between racism and making racial distinctions. A while back, this article defined racism in the opening line as "various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes." Clearly this is not the commonest definition (if it is used at all). I can separate people into groups based on hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, skin colour, shoe size, and many other things. Such groupings may be meaningless, but they are possible. I tried to fix the intro a while ago and I originally added the DuBois quote because his distinction between simply recognising differences, even more severe and meaningful differences, is not what most people call racism, because racism is an axiological (usually pejorative and relatively nondescript) term. I linked to racialism to provide an understanding on the ways the word is used contra DuBois's usage, but DuBois's distinction (not his terminology) was the key. I understand that DuBois does not have some innate importance such that his comments deserve to be in the intro, but because they were clarifying to the points made in the first paragraph, I thought they were pertinent. Can they be readded? Srnec 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Racism is stored in Category:Racism. Category:Racism is a subcategory of Category:Prejudices. But, Racism not a Prejudice! The word "Prejudice" appears only once in the text, in the item Related_concepts. -- Injinera 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about the article on Racism with its current content, not about Racism itself.-- Injinera 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article is bad enough to turn me off already: "Racism refers to various belief systems maintaining that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine or influence cultural or individual achievement or the essential value of human beings. "
Racism is not about separating people, it is a lot more than that. That opening totally undermines the concept of racism.
I've been trying to get the definition improved for so long... This is a much better intro now. Srnec 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Asians are like the main target for racism, many Asian Students that go to another country and educate there get discriminated. What is wrong with being an Asian. I'm and Asian student myself and everyday I'm teased bullied, name calling and more , it gets worst and worst. Sometimes I even feel ashamed of being and Asian...
I don't know what's wrong with being Asian, I hope you have a better time at your school. --r0m
Seriously... Chinese, Vietnamese and Some others are targets. jackietang33 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
??????? what about Lucy Liu ???? and Sandra Oh ....
and of course Bruce Lee the only fat I know in movies is Chackie Chan but in holywood there are some fat white actors too or I am wrong?
I have a vague impression that several Budweiser-Light commercials released this month, or this week, seem racist,... In addition to whatever about this industry.
Does anyone know of any articles thereof?
Thank You.
Hopiakuta 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This article focuses pretty my only on White-on-(your race goes here) racism. It COMPLETELY ignores racism practised by other nationalities. There is extreme racism that exists Yellow countries such as China, Korea, Japan, etc. North Africans completely look down on Black Africans, etc. This article should be here to describe racism and some key points in history. Not label Whites as racist in a hundred different stories.
In the Chinese language, the terms "Yellow coloured people" (Huang Se Ren); "White coloured people" (Bai Se Ren); and "Black People" (Hai Ren) are standard, and only perjorative if the predjudice of the speaker or listener is against that race anyway.
However, it is believed by some that the absense of "Se" (= coloured) in "Hai Ren" is perjorative against black people, and "Hai Se Ren" may be used as an attempt to redress this. ~~ADM 19th Oct 2006
This article is way too Eurocentric. It has only a brief mention of racism not involving whites, this needs to be expanded. So I agree that this article is biased. People with a knowledge of Asian, African, etc history should add sections. --rom
Yes, I am starting to agree with you SnakeSeries after what you just said made me realise that We(chinese People) can be racist ... But we chinese people do not always use the phrase Hai Ren, we mostly refer them as the nationalities, not their colour. jackietang33 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed this entry from the list of racist organisations:
"Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) - leader of the party, Jorg Haider made a lot of Anti-Slovenian statements and is very similar to Adolf Hitler."
Out of various reasons.
Firstly, the FPÖ is more actively racist in the present day than the BZÖ. If you'll list the BZÖ, you'd need to list ALL similarily far-right parties. FPÖ, BNP, NPD, DVU, et cetera, just for concistency.
Secondly .. as much as I dislike Haider, and as racist as some of his statements have been, saying that he is "very similar" to Adolf Hitler just doesn't make sense.
ChiLlBeserker 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
A claim recently made (in an editing comment for this article) that a Google search for "crypto-racism" returns over half a million "google results". FYI: a Google search of web pages with the argument "crypto-racism" returned only about 1,240 hits. BTW, a search of web pages for "racism is a" returns about 304,000 results, while a search for "crypto-racism is a" claims about 71 hits (although only 1 is displayed). Regardless of popularity, an editor needs to show reliable published source(s) for content that they add. -- Wiley 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
User: Anonymous Wikipedian and I ( User:Arbor) are having an edit war over his new section on crypto-racism. Here is the current format:
Crypto-Racism
Hidden racial bias is often termed "crypto-racism". It is used to describe both open racism in which code words and phrases are used in place of blatant epithets, and individual racism in which self-denial of ones own racist attitudes is a major element. Crypto-racism is most prevalent in nations in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict, but open racism is not socially acceptable. It is often passive aggressive in character.
The hallmark of crypto-racism is strong self-denial of the term by those accused of it. Still, some behaviors are widely acknowledged in popular culture as being crypto-racist, including, 1] intense focus on non-association (for example, "white-flight" in housing developments, racially exclusive golf associations, silent discrimination in hiring), 2] the use of tokens (lone members of the minority in an attempt to disprove racial bias), 3] stated views that racism does not exist and/or accusations of oversensitivity to "jokes", and the phrase: "I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are <racial designation>".
While instances of real crypto-racism are difficult to cite, parodies of crypto-racist attitudes do exist. One of the recurring elements on the Colbert Report is Stephen Colbert talking about his "new black friend" and claiming to be "color blind". blackpeopleloveus.com is a website with similar humor. [3]
My problems with this section are numerous. The last paragraph is simply non-notable and cannot be defended on any means. The middle paragraph aims to identify behaviour that is termed crypto-racist. The problem is to make this verifiable. I can see no way to do that. The term is an ill-defined neologism or insult which seems to have the same semantics as racist but for the lack of self-admission. Since I know very few instances where racist behaviour is self-identified as such, the meanings of racist and crypto-racist seem to coincide in almost all cases. I might be wrong, but WP is not the place to arbitrate such debates over word usage. So, the second paragraph needs verification. It also needs to be precise about who uses the term crypto-racist in that way. Finally, the first paragraph begins with a word definition. First two sentences are fine by me, but don't need their own section. We could simply state somewhere else that "many attitudes, while not overtly racist, are sometimes labeled crypto-racist because they display blabla". The third and fourth sentence of para 1 are unsalvageable. ("most prevalent in natioos in which there is past or ongoing ethnic conflict"—I'd like to see a reference for that. Also, I fear there is no way to verify the claim that crypto-racism, ill defined in the first place, is often passive agressive.)
In short, there are two sentences here that are worth of inclusion. That does not a section make. The rest is some combination of essay, opinion, wild guesses, and soapboxing that violates WP:V and/or WP:NOR. This article needs the opposite: a cool, detached, helful, edifying description of racism. Preferably the best on the planet. Which is why I just removed AW's section. I won't do it thrice, so it's time for other editors to chip in. At least give us give us a one-liner (remove, festoon with references, 'expand, encrypt or whatever). Arbor 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In conformance with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, I've removed the unsourced material (which could be added back as time allows in later edits if published reliable sources are cited).
- - I withdraw the accusation, Arbor. I created a Crypto-Racism entry on this talk page, wrote several paragraphs describing my position, saved - and just assumed wikipedia was heathy enough to absorb what I wrote. The servers seem to be dying a lot more often than they used to, there's not a day that goes by that I don't get the wiki-unavailable page, so I doubt it has anything to do with my end.
Insofar as the crypto-racism entry is concerned, this is not original research by any reasonable definition of the term. Or, if you wish to apply an inane and pedandic standard to this page, the entire page is "original research" because it contains dozens of assertions that are not strictly sourced, even when the statement appears obvious.
I really don't have time to work on this page now, but come the weekend, I will regularize this page to eliminate all unsourced material.
Anonymous Wikipedian 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
A "Quebec bashing" section was added without references and with weasel wording (example; "It has been argued that ...") -- Wiley 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
A paragraph in "Racism as official government policy" has been added. this paragraph, as with the "Quebec Bashing" one above is without references at all and with weasel wording. This seems like an attempt to bring the Quebec/Canada bickering (which can be seen elsewhere on wikipedia) to this page. I have removed this paragraph altogether. Should someone wish to re-instate it, please cite references. Furthermore, study of this issue will probably result in a non-involved person (unlike me) to conclude to a long standing, hard to solve dispute and not present day governmental racism on either side. In which case it probably doesn't belong in a page about racism. -- Pixx 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Racism#Allegedly racist groups: "Al-Queda, Islamist militant group vowed to destroy Westerners, Jews, and Christians. [5]" ...the source is from National Vanguard.
But...
Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites: "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia [...]"
And the reference isn't even pertinent to the subject. -- Liberlogos 18:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the above mentioned link- most links under the heading "Allegedly Racist Groups" seem to be dubious and non reliable links. I will look into making it more 'encyclopedia-like' later but would appreciate some help. --
khello
08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-- 71.192.88.79 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)==Allegedly racist groups section== Is it really appropriate to have radical fundamentalist muslim groups in this section, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc? Much of the muslim world is anti-jewish/anti-israel, but are they against jews as a race, or as a religion? I would think that they would accept the conversion of jewish people to islam, who would then be acceptable to these groups... but that's just my impression. Do we have any sources on this? -- Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If the title is Allegedly Racist Groups that any group alleged to be racist can be listed. A source isn't even warranted because listing that group alleges racism by atleast one person. Finally, I allege that the UNCF and NAACP are racist groups.-- 71.192.88.79 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the use of Caucasian as a term for white people because it is inaccurate, out of date, and was almost only used in the United States. Wikipedia is supposed to use accurate and universal terms. The proper meaning of Caucasian is people from the Caucasus or people who speak the Languages of the Caucasus. Also, if you click on Caucasian, it goes to a disambiguation page, not an article. Spylab 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The term Caucasian is not out of date, and is also used by forensic anthropologists. You are correct that it is not a technically correct term for white people because it is also used to refer to middle easterners, Indians etc who have a similar skull shape. These people (at least middle easterners) are classified by the US government as white. In popular usage Caucasian refers to people of European descent.
I believe that the term Caucasian is not out of date, it just doesn't technically refer to whites. Whites in America should not be known as whites, but as European Americans, like African Americans. Blacks get their special name, so should whites.
European Americans doesn't cut it either. Could a black man who emmigrated from england be considered a european american? Theres really no term that could be considered NPOV. It's all drawing lines in the sand -- 71.192.88.79 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
'The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown.' - H.L. Mencken
This is an amzaing contribution, i mean if that isnt racism then i dont know. But they will say "he was a man of his time" so it was not racist just natural.-- Halaqah 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Halaqah, I think when people use the "he was a man of his time" line, they do not mean "therefore he was not racist," because they mean that at that "time" so-called good people were often racists; their point is that despite his being racist we should value those things he did or said that continue to be of worth by present-day standards. Let me give you an example closer to home: Wagner was an anti-Semite, but many Jewish music-lovers understand that he was a creature of his times. If we stopped listening to all music made by anti-Semities, we would stop listening to a great deal of mustic from the 19th century. In other words, I think the goal is not to excuse anti-Semites, but to excuse Jews who want to enjoy music written by an anti-Semite even as they reject his anti-Semtiic statements. I am sure there is much music and literature by whites that Blacks today enjoy and appreciate, despite the fact that for a very long time in American history even seemingly progressive Whites were held beliefs about Blacks most people would today find abhorent. The question is, do we through the baby out with the bathwater? I have a feeling Lincoln said some things about Blacks that would upset most of us today, but I don't fault anyone Black, White, or any other American, who appreciates his role in ending slavery in the US. I bet many GIs who fought in WWII were anti-Semitic, being "men of their times." But if they killed Nazis, man, that is just fine with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
My best quote ( black man some years ago - maybe on c-span ) "Don't hate me because I am black. Get to know me first - you'll find plenty of other reasons."
You judge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_african_type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_type Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I started re-ordering the topics so they will be better organized. I tried to put similar topics together in appropriate sub-sections. I put the Racist Quotes section near the end, because that's more of a trivia section than a main topic. I deleted a paragraph on Affirmative Action because it duplicated a paragraph that's already in the Reverse Racism section. There are probably more cases of repetitive content, or topics that should be merged together under one heading. Spylab 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
So why cant i find racist quotes, i think you put it so far at the end it fell right off the page/.-- Halaqah 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph from the Racism in Mexico, Central America and South America section. It was oddly written and questionable and unsourced: "With respect to racism, the "Mestizos" term by adoption gives Spaniards and Portuguese decedents in Latin America a claim to racial purity that in fact does not exist. A Spaniard or Portuguese is actually a Mediterranean amalgamation, created by rape, plunder, and conquest, consisting of Celtic, Greek, Roman, German, Arab, (Moors and Berbers) Black Africans, Jewish, and Gypsy bloodlines. Were a "Mestizo" in Mexico can trace his ancestry neatly and relatively purely to the Aztecs and a Siberian land bridge; a Spaniard is a truly complete Mestizo mystery". -- Xyzzyplugh 13:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic. The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.
According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.” [6] Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.” [7] Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” [8]
It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here. Thanks-- Samuel Luo oli 12 November 2006 (UTC) the end
Something that's been bothering me about: The people who have "White" skin and call themselves American are absolutely wrong. Well, they're actually from the British Decent (Mostly) as their ancestors are from England or Europe. The Native Americans are the true Americans.
Also, a classmate once told my teacher that he hate Germans. Not good. Just because they, in total, killed eleven million people in the Second World War does not mean that all Germans are bad.
But, I heard that there are these Germans who shave off their hair and kill Aisans.
The world is getting sicker than I thought.
I have changed Anti-Semitism to Racism against Jewish people, as i think the title is a POV, this is about Racism and it should be consistent, I know people say anti-Semitism is racism but i think it is a very subjective argument, as anti-Semitism today has a very political slant, i.e. for me writing like this can be considered "anti-Semitic". Also i have deleted the box as the full article has the anti-Semitism box and is of no use here when it is only suppose to be a brief discussion. It is all of these things that make the article a mess. Also there needs to be a fluid theme and not things dropped in all over the place. If one group is being discussed then Arab racism needs a cat, African American needs a separate cat etc etc. -- Halaqah 11:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Everytime i come back to this page some smarty has removed racist quotes, the topic is about racism yet they delete the racist quotes. How are people suppose to appreciate the toungue of racism? the best way is to snatch it from the mouth of those racist that said what they said. DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION AGAIN!--- Halaqah 11:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
the below is not a racist quote, i am sorry: -- Halaqah 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) "When you look at the black race, black people are very gifted in what we call worship and celebration. A lot of us like to dance, and if you go to black churches, you see people jumping up and down, because they really get into it. White people were blessed with the gift of structure and organization. You guys do a good job of building businesses and things of that nature and you know how to tap into money pretty much better than a lot of people do around the world. Hispanics are gifted in family structure. You can see a Hispanic person and they can put 20 or 30 people in one home. They were gifted in the family structure. When you look at the Asians, the Asian is very gifted in creation, creativity and inventions. If you go to Japan or any Asian country, they can turn a television into a watch. They're very creative. And you look at the Indians, they have been very gifted in the spirituality." - Reggie White
That's an awful lot of See Also links. Would anyone care to help build a Template:Discrimination sidebar to condense some of that? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I was interested to read who is more likely to be racist, but couldn't find it. I was expecting things like "studies have shown that upper clase white families are more likely to be racist than lower to mid class white families" or summat like that, you know? Racism is largley conditioning I should think, in this day and age the fear and hatred of other races can only be taught, it wouldn't come natural. So what societies and groups are breeding racism? What societies are more likely to not be racist, poor people? Educated people? What, what is it? This article wont tell me, that makes me a sad panda JayKeaton 07:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This seems the ideal place to expose the racist attitudes of some WP members, including admins, who have allowed a racist user Ecemaml to poison the Gibraltar pages with fascist inspired, racist, anti-Gibraltar propaganda, and then had the cheek to ban a Gibraltar user "Gibraltarian" for taking a stand. The situation is scandalous. It MUST be overturned. WP cannot continue to claim it runs on an NPOV basis otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.120.224.143 ( talk) 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
The racism is against the people of Gibraltar, who are a distinct cultural and political entity. Racism & discrimination is not only about skin colour. That a user can abuse WP to peddle his poison, and the response of WP is to unjustly ban another for making a stand against this is quite frankly repugnant. And none of the admins seem to give a damn. User "Gibraltarian" should have his ban lifted immediately, as its initial imposition was totally unacceptable and unjustifiable.
I have just notice Uganda, that little African country got a nice place in racism, can someone please discuss the possiblity of adding Israel and South Africa.-- Halaqah 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)