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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
That different races have different genetic characteristics is NOT racism and it most certainly is NOT propaganda. It's FACT. It's SCIENCE. Otherwise, please explain why blacks have a higher chance of developing diabetes and high blood pressure than whites and asians. Also please explain why the texture of their hair is different than whites and asians. And not to mention the color of our skin - which is determined SOLELY by genetics. I guess albinos don't have any different DNA than the rest of us either then.
www.blackhealthcare.com That site has some good facts about things that African Americans need to be aware of regarding their health.
Racism is:
1) To believe/state that your ethnicity is superior to another, based on your skintone and the generalizing stereotypes associated with different ethnicities (asians are short, blacks are all crack-addicts, jews are greedy and control everything, gingers are scary, mexicans are lazy, and the white man marches on or some bullshit like that).
2) To state hateful remarks associated with someone's ethnicity
Neither of those appear anywhere in the research that's being done on racial genetic differences. At all. So how the hell is it racist? Is stating that we have different races what makes it racist? We have three: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasian (debatable also "mulatto"). Somehow "caucasian" is frequently used (I use the word "white", similar to how I use the word "black"), but the other two are banned - most likely because there are negative feelings and a lot of awful history associated with those words. "Negroid" just means "black". That's all it means. But it has negative associations, so using it would be inappropriate.
Are there actually any people of color who think this is racist? Should we close down all african american hair salons? I doubt that any black person would feel comfortable with a white hair stylist; I know lots of white stylists who have managed to use a relaxer on african hair. That was... less than successful. Is it racist when makeup and beauty supplies are marketed to specific ethnicities? Or would blacks and asians prefer using makeup designed for white people? I'm sure "Ivory" is a beautiful tone for a Nubian princess. Should I be offended when I see hair- and skin products marketed for scandinavian skin/hair? Or should I go "Thank god!" since other types of skin/haircare products don't cut it?
Also, check out this site: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2271134
-- Theatheama ( talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
1 gene's mutation bears a baby with down syndrome. Would you have us ignore down syndrome b/c it's a small percentage of DNA changed? The % is irrelevant, the differences are. There are physical differences between people. Some correlate to physical features and so may be grouped into races.
Read about Haplogroups and work it out from there, but dont become a Nazi!...-- 86.29.242.75 ( talk) 15:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article linked up to the "Creationism" wikipedia article when nearly all racial theories were derived from alternative theories of Evolution? I'm removing this article from the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.177 ( talk) 05:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
On August 1 I moved the 1857 photograph showing skulls. I WAS NOT DELETING it. My reason for moving it is this: The photo is dated 1857. It was located in the Earliest Examples of Scientific Racism section. That section only gives examples up to 1774. I moved the photo down one page to the !9th Century Examples page because that page covers the 1800's. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THE PHOTO SHOULD STAY IN THIS ARTICLE! I AM NOT TRYING TO DELETE IT!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.171.138 ( talk) 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
' works such as J. Philippe Rushton's book Race, Evolution and Behavior, IQ and the Wealth of Nations and The bell curve, many volumes by Darwin and his contemporaries and many more. '
? Sam [ Spade] 15:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I took on the specific references to works though their authors, and a few others, are all in there, just moved down a bit. Darwin is not generally listed as "scientific racism" though certain volumes of "The Descent of Man" are often looked at critically (especially by certain creationists) as being racist but generally Darwin's work lacks the sort of statistical arguments that are generally what "scientific racism" pertains to. That's just my take on it, though.
Basically when I thought about it further I figured there should be a distinct drawing between people in the 19th and early 20th century who were labeled as "scientific racism" and those people who are sometimes accused of it today. I see the latter as being a reference to the former, which is generally unchallenged as actually being "scientific racism." I tried to draw that out a bit more clearly but I may have not communicated it well. That is, when Herrnstein is accused of "scientific racism," he's being accused in part of being like, say, Madison Grant, who nobody really questions was more of a racist than a scientist. So, I wouldn't put, say, Darwin and Herrnstein in the same category; in part because nobody accused Darwin in his time of being a "scientific racist," if that makes any sense. -- Fastfission 16:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
actually I merged it into racialism. Sam [ Spade] 16:58, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is the "individual differences" linked to there the same thing as individual differences psychology or is it something else? -- Fastfission 15:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Because the history of science contains many such works -- even some of the work by Charles Darwin himself on the evolution of man looks especially colored by pre-held conceptions of race -- the question of whether a current work is an example of "scientific racism" or not is often a question of whether it is like these past works which are widely accepted to be very short in science and very heavy in racism." In the past these racial beliefs were part of the entire mindset of society and the idea of 'racism' in the modern sense didn't exist, so you can't say works that say the same things today are innocent by comparing them so. Today racism is a firm concept and comparison to a past time that held different ideas is incorrect. Also, it's nonsense to claim that Darwin's ideas were "short in science and very heavy in racism" because it's simply not true. -- ArcticFrog 14:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog
OK, I see your point; that's kinda what I meant about the mindset. We can compare them, but what I meant is that the differences between the outlook of that day and the modern outlook should be taken into account. Basically, you can't really call Darwin a racist because much (but not necessarily all) of his writing that is seen in modern terms as 'racist' consists in ideas that were taken for granted in his time; it was practically unconscious, or at least there was little awareness of it actually or as a concept. In the same light, you can't say modern racist writings are innocent because of what was written in Darwin's time, or back-condemn him for it. A writing of today containing sentiments that were essentially benign in Darwin's time can't really be said to exist on the same plane. "whether it is like these past works" just caught my eye. Perhaps the statement is just worded badly; reading it again, I'm not really sure what is being said, so I may have been wrong in my interpretation. If I am please replace the statement and work on the wording. Thanks for the response; I'm glad to offer input.-- ArcticFrog 17:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Anachronism may be a better term than ahistoricism; but yea, that sounds much better.-- ArcticFrog 17:19, 17 June 2004 (UTC)
Wait a minute I don't think Jefferson viewed blacks as inferior, see the Sally Hemmings Article.
The article seems to imply that "Scientific racism" is a primarily a "pejorative", only secondarily an actual historical thing. On the contrary, the reason people find it pejorative is because they oppose the older scientific racism and don't like to see modern things connected to it. In any event, an NPOV page would point out that this term is still used to refer to things like Sara Baartman and that some people think race and intelligence research falls in this vein. AaronSw 23:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Under "History: Early scientific studies of race and racial differences," last sentence of section reads: "...physically inadequate to reproduce or enter the country."
The article suggests that the country in question the USA, but the paragraph / section is unclear if this is so. Can this be confirmed?-- Pariah 04:58, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
It can be observed that, as it is now, the article contains no reference to ignoracism. - hitssquad 17:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
In September 2005, Charles Murray said:
If this is true, it would explain the reluctance of scientists to publish research which defies the status quo. Elabro 17:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I probably don't even need to describe this change but the proposed intro by User:Lindosland of "Scientific racism refers to research which promotes or appears to promote a racialist ideology..." (swapping "racialist" for "racist") is just factually and logically false. Scientific racism refers to accusations of racism, not racialism. Hence the name. -- Fastfission 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I would agree that there is work deliberately done to promote racialist theories. I would say though that in general those doing the work see (or saw in non-PC times) nothing wrong in promoting racialist theories. They believed race mattered, to varying extents in varying ways, which an encylopedia has a duty to report. I don't think many people wasted their time making up theories to upset people, to create conflict, which I would call truly racist. On the contrary they often tried to explain conflict (which certainly happens, like it or not) in terms of racial theory. Modern evolutionary psychology is taking some scientists back there but in terms of genetic subsets, recognising, as even Stoddard did, that Races are not 'pure'. Its not for anyone to say that this is wrong (value judgement); science looks for what is true, and must be taboo-free. Lindosland 12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Correct me if Im wrong. People are against the concept of race because they want everyone to think they are the same and fit smoothly into a new world order. Right right?
It doesn't make sense to merge this article with the racism article, scientific racism is a separate subject with lots of significant and relevant detail that would likely get lost in any merge. zen master T 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important to say very clearly that scientific racism is a term, and that it is almost always applied without controversy retroactively (that is, we now call 19th-century and early 20th-century works which were considered legitimate science in their day "scientific racism", to indicate that we now no longer think their work is actually "science"), and that whenever applied today it is almost always controversial (that is, whether one thinks research into the differences in, say, intelligence between different "races" is "scientific racism" or not depends largely on how one feels about the issues ahead of time).
I think some of the "history" edits were simply incorrect, or removed very important things (such as Civil War physiological studies, which were not only very popular among scientists and physicians but are the direct precursors to work being done today on "racial differences").
Obviously I am not in support of works of scientific racism and I do happen to think some (not all) of modern work on "racial differences" falls into this category as well (the methodology often seems purposefully sloppy), but I think it is important to get a very good NPOV balance here. It is not completely appropriate to just deride works of the past as "propaganda" -- many of them were done by top scientists of their day with top methodologies of the time. Simply deriding them as propaganda not only is incorrect in a basic sense, but it underemphasizes the fact that these were not done by cranks or fringe characters but by major biologists and anthropologists -- a lesson worth keeping in mind for the present. We have a much better sensitivity to these things since the 1930s, when a lot of work was done to show how "scientific" studies of race were often highly flawed. -- Fastfission 14:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
How someone feels about the issues ahead of time is not how the term is being used by research critics in the present day, critics of "intelligence" research directly or indirectly accuse it of being propaganda disguised as science. zen master T 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Fastfission, I totally agree with you that those "scientifical" studies were not just the work of some cranks... Until at least the 1930s (I'll try to find if you wish this reference of a French medical study that really amazed me...) racism was commonly scientifically justified. However, this simply means that racism has been tightly tied to Occidental's (but we should'nt even reduced it to an Occidental story, since Japan is also like this...) "civilization". And this led to various genocides, which, if you believe Sven Lindqvist's Exterminate all the brutes (a book that reads lot better than its title taken from Joseph Conrad), started with 19th century's colonialism. Human zoos are a particular good examples of this quasi-unconscious racism. Lapaz
I'm having a hard time understanding what the term "Scientific Racism" means and/or how the term might be properly employed. Is "Scientific Racism" merely racist acts and/or statements by those who are also scientists? If so, than why the term "scientific?" Or is it science as it relates to race? If this, than why the term "racism?" After these concerns there is the additional problem created when this category is assigned to the work of some scientists who are involved in such controversial areas as mental testing, where, frankly, it appears to be a vehicle used to attack ideas ad hominem.
The Chris Brand Affair appears twice in this article. Should we have it in the Self-consciousness section or the Modern Usage section? -- hitssquad 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I am curious about the reference here: "To this day, the 1950 UNESCO Statement is controversial among some scientists because of its message (some, such as R. A. Fisher, vehemently disagreed with it)..." Where does this come from? I have scoured Fisher's Biography "Life of a Scientist" and haven't found any reference to it. There is nothing in his bibliography so far as I can see, so it appears not to have been published. Unless there is a reference, it should be removed, I think. And who were the other scientists referred to? DonSiano 11:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I also looked through the biography of Darlington, which has an extended treatment of the controversy over the UNESCO statement, and there is no mention of Fisher there either. DonSiano 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I am changing the reference about Fisher to Darlington and Muller, which I know to be accurate from Darlington's biography, p 236, 237. DonSiano 12:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The quote "However, modern studies on race and intelligence have overcome many of these concerns, and the subject remains one of intense interest because they continue to show differences between races. In fact so called 'culture-fair' tests of abstract visual skills tend to show even higher racial differences than verbal tests" contradicts the main points in this section. Has someone retroactively added it? It doesn't belong.Kemet 02:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "scientific racism". Not much more to say. This Wiki seems to have been constructed by a bunch of people that have no understanding of science or the scientific method, and definitely not the nuances of concepts such inductive and deductive reasoning. Ernham 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose to merge Racial groups in India (historical definitions), per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:Naming conflicts, etc. The latter article is complete non-sense, based on totally unreliable sources which carries on old racist stereotypes. In other words, it has nothing to do on wikipedia, and any interesting content, if there is some, should be moved here. The only interest of it might reside in historical archive aspects, but it is not Wikipedia's aims to present such irrelevant theories as "true". Tazmaniacs 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
POV forks. Tazmaniacs 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: to Dave Souza's last comment (above): although some chronological ordering might be a good thing, I don't really know if it's absolutely the best way. Thematic organization seems a good way to proceed as different people in different times really had the same concerns. I don't know how you see it? Tazmaniacs 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has proved my theory that Darwinism is rooted in a philosophy that resembles Nazism. When I thought about evolution, I realized that if it is true, then I should be sterile, as a hybrid of two species, like a mule. I haven't found out whether I am sterile yet, but I don't think that I am. I think that all races are the same species.-- 69.234.206.177 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)J
-- 69.234.206.177 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)J
"Rockwell's use of these statistics is a textbook example of a statistical fallacy used to propagate scientific racism." It would be nice if which fallacy was specified. Afabbro 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've reversed a recent
change to the introduction. Although some new additions were welcome, I disagree in removing parts on
phrenology, etc. Furthermore, I question the definition of "scientific racism" as being simply "racist propaganda disguised as science".
I think we need to distinguish two uses of this term: the first, proper one, refering to
obsolete scientific theories. The second one, refering to contemporary discourses which claim to ground racism in science. While the latter is obvious propaganda and, to be blunt, is restricted to far-right discourses, it is a bit easy to qualify the first one as simple propaganda. Doubtlessly these theories (phrenology, etc.) were racists. But there's a step from asserting this truth and from claiming they were only a form of propaganda — which would imply that the 19th century scholars who worked on these themes were cynical racists attempting to give a legitimate formulation to their racist POV. The issue is much more complex, and is related to the birth of
physical anthropology, the discovery of other ethnic groups starting with the
Age of Discovery, etc. To dismiss all of these researches as simple "racist propaganda" is, to my eyes, a simplist short-cut. It is all too easy to dismiss what yesterday was considered truth and scientifical as ideology and propaganda ; but that would be claiming that all obsolete scientific theories were, in fact, only ideology. Which is, according to various
philosophers of science and others (
Michel Foucault,
Louis Althusser, etc.) a retrospective and teleological view which does not convey the reality of the past and of historical change.
Tazmaniacs 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As an example: in discussing the belief of Elias
Auerbach, a Berlin physician of the early twentieth century who believed that Jews had maintained their racial purity, Efron states that "his zeal in defense of that theory shows that his Zionism impinged on his science" (p. 139). In Foucauldian terms, it is hard to see this as at all surprising. Indeed, it is difficult to argue that any scientific work would be untainted by contemporary
discourses. [2]
The introduction should be a short self contained definition and summary of the article, I think all historical information should be moved out of the introduction. zen master T 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this recent addition here, mainly because of its anachronical nature and misunderstanding of the term of "scientific racism".
Critics of the concept "scientific racism" argue that science has rarely had racist motives. In their view this is evidenced by the treatment of native Indian peoples. According to Frank Miele and Vincent Sarich if race was essentially a convenient ideological device to justify slavery, the European ruling classes of the sixteenth century should have eagerly embraced the theory of polygenism (multiple origins of races). Yet in 1537, in Sublimis Deus, Pope Paul III upheld monogenism and the capacity of native Indians to receive Christianity. Similarly, in 1550, at a council convened by Emperor Charles V to consider colonization, the rights of native peoples were upheld.<ref>Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele: Race, Reason, and Reality, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004</ref>
Although racism certainly existed in the 16th century, this article makes clear that "scientific racism" is posterior to the 16th century. SR refers to a set of sciences, phrenology, etc., which were used to classify humanity into different races, and is intrinsically related to the birth of biology — see scientific revolution. I hoped this article made it clear, but maybe not enough... As the introduction states, SR has also been used in the 20th century to refer to racist theories attempting to disguise themselves as science ("race & intelligence" issues, etc.). There is a lot to say about racism in the 16th century, especially racism, slavery and colonialism, but it belongs to Racism#Racism in the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance and not here. Tazmaniacs 12:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This is total Original research. A synthesis of primary sources is not acceptable (see WP:PSTS). Tazmaniacs 12:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What is misrepresented? If anything is misrepresented, correct it. Anyone can go on Amazon.com, click on "see inside the book", go through the very exact pages and see for themselves... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 ( talk) 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Then change what you think is misrepresented, while keeping the previous citations. There is no conspiracy here. All of the cited text is non-fraudulent. The two main concepts in Isaac's account of Hellenistic proto-scientific racism are 1) the importance of winter and seasonal variation (Hippocrates, etc.) and 2) the importance of climate for character traits, with bias against extreme climes in favor of the temperate, slightly northern middle parts for the evolution of civilized instincts; in other words, Central and Mediterranean Europe and the corresponding stretch of land across the globe. So what is misrepresented? Supplement your own understanding then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 ( talk) 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"Taz," you are constructing an arbitrary, possibly quasi-Foucaultian obscure definition of scientific racism, and then pretending reality has to conform to this construction. The seeds of scientific racism existed long before the so-called "scientific revolution." Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Archimedes, etc. have inspired scientists for generations; Leucippus and Democratis succesffully anticipated the contemporary understanding of atoms, etc.; you are engaging in the fallacy of pretending there is some sort of ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE between the naturalistic students of the ancient world and our own... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.46.69 ( talk) 06:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching this denote with interest uncertain about what side I should weigh in in favor of. The important tie breaker is the following: Do the sources for this section explicitly mention "scientific racism" in those exact words? futurebird 12:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure what the statement of a 16th century pope on monogenism has to do with the sort of 19th and 20th century scientific racism that this article focuses on. There must be more relevant criticisms to be made of the notion of scientific racism. In any case, whoever put the citation there didn't get the title of the text right--it's actually called Race: The Reality of Human Differences. -- Proper tea is theft 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The 1950 UNESCO Statement was a failure and it was withdrawn by UNESCO after it was strongly criticised in scientific journals. It was compared to the pseudoscientific doctrines of the Nazis.
According to the 1951 statement "the concept of race is unanimously regarded by anthropologists as a classificatory device providing a zoological frame within which the various groups of mankind may be arranged and by means of which studies of evolutionary processes can be facilitated". (p. 11)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf
It no longer recommended that instead of race the term "ethnic group" should be used. Also, according to the 1951 statement it is possible, though not proved, that some types of innate capacity for intellectual and emotional responses are commoner in one human group than in another, but it is certain that, within a single group, innate capacities. vary as much as, if not more than, they do between different groups". (p. 13)
The 1951 statement was also accompanied by (perhaps) "scientifically racist" critical commentaries. According to an expert UNESCO interviewed blacks and whites did not belong to the same species: "If an unprejudiced scientist were confronted with a West-African Negro, an Eskimo and a North-West European, he could hardly consider them to belong to the same ‘species’.
According to some other experts blacks were intellectually inferior to whites and miscegenation possibly harmful. (See the articles about R.A. Fisher and C.D. Darlington for information about their views)
The current information about the 1950 UNESCO statement is misleading as after one year a larger body of experts wrote a new statement and the authors of the original statement agreed with the new statement titled “The Race Concept: Results of an Inquiry”. MoritzB 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf~
The 1951 document included a critical comment by prof. Fritz Lenz: “In my opinion, the Linnaen theory that all men belong to a single species is inaccurate. Moreover, it is by no means true that this theory is accepted by scientists in general. In his well-known Lehrbuch der Anthropologie (Manual of Physical Anthropology), Rudolf Martin speaks of the ‘Sub-groups of the Hominids’; ‘Opinions are divided on the question whether these sub-groups are to be regarded as species or simply varieties of species in the zoological sense of the term.’ (2nd Ed., Vol. I, Jena, 1928, p. 7. ... “If an unprejudiced scientist were confronted with a West-African Negro, an Eskimo and a North-West European, he could hardly consider them to belong to the same ‘species’. Numerous ‘good’ species by no means reveal such considerable differences. Only one thing is certain: all men belong to the same genus. The possibility of fertile crossing is not a conclusive criterion of a common stock. Many species of plants and animals produce, through artificial crossbreeding, fertile and readily mendelizing hybrid offspring and are nevertheless true species. “As far as I am aware, neither African pygmies nor Bushmen interbreed with Negroes or with Europeans; thus, owing to their natural instincts and their habits, they are physiologically isolated. It would no doubt be possible to crossbreed them artificially with other races, but that would be no proof that they belong to a common stock."
Source: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf
UNESCO noted that "by printing, with the text of the Statement, all the comments to which it has given rise, Unesco hopes to enable the general public to appreciate the fluctuations of scientitic thought on the problem of race." Some other scientists argued that miscegenation was biologically harmful and that races were inequal. MoritzB 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The section is off topic and needs to go. It's been some time since we requested a third-party source that calls all of these things "scientific racism" --The research is useful and well sourced in terms of being examples of racism but it will not do for scientific racism. futurebird ( talk) 04:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Scientific racism is a term that describes either obsolete scientific theories of the 19th century or historical and contemporary racist propaganda disguised as scientific research.
While I have no feeling for racism, this senteces does not read very encyclopaedic and should be changed to a more neutral tone. I have boldfaced the words I find problematic 80.61.183.71 ( talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
However, the Bible also sanctions slavery, and from the 1820s to the 1850s it was cited in the Southern States of the United States of America to support the idea that negroes had been created unequal, suited to slavery, by writers such as the Rev. Richard Furman, Joseph Smith Jr. and Thomas R. Cobb.
This addition does not seem very well referenced or informed. That it was 'cited in Southern States.. by writers such as..' Joseph Smith (who wrote largely in Ohio and Missouri) and Thomas Cobb, (an Indiana statesman) -- all from northern states, doesn't seem very consistent or coherent. Perhaps writers that are actually from the south would better illustrate the point? -- The reference for this section seems very POV anyway, and may not be in accord with WP:EXT. Brando130 ( talk) 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) – more specifically discussing the US situation. Work in progress......
dave souza,
talk 09:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Scientific racism played a role in justifying the segregation of schools in the US. I think we need a section on this. futurebird ( talk) 03:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is certainly not neutral, using the words "obsolete", "propoganda", etc. 71.141.89.135 ( talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The lead needs to reflect the article, and obsolete and propaganda accurately describe the uses and abuses of the research so related. On the other hand, it could be simpler. What if we replace the first sentence with the following:
Scientific racism is the use of science or scientific language in support of racist ideals.
The second paragraph of the lead needs at least some copyediting, and could also contain a brief mention that race is a current but deprecated variable in e.g. epidemiological research untainted (one hopes) by racist undertones. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I understand Phillips, and I agree with you that the article must be objective/NPOV. I do, however, believe that the use of the term propaganda in this case is an objective statement. The word "abuse" might cross the line, but propaganda is what scientific racism is.-- Pariah ( talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
talk:Pariah|talk]]) 05:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Almost every word in the English language has some negative or positive connotation to it. You are wasting your lives defending these amoral scientists who spent their lives intentionally blurring the lines of science and confusing the masses. You will never agree.
Lizfletcher (
talk) 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe the intro paragraph of this article should specifically note that the phrase "scientific racism" has 2+ potentially contradictory meanings. It can mean both racist publications and opinions from an ostensibly scientific viewpoint and/or it could mean alleged propaganda with the veneer of science which exists solely to trick people into being racist. Convergence Dude ( talk) 00:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines can not possibly prevent the use of the most accurate word being used in describing one possible definition for the phrase "scientific racism". I have sufficiently caveatted the use of "propaganda" by using "alleged". Convergence Dude ( talk) 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Something about James D. Watson Should probably be in this article. Either in the contemporary section or the race and intelligence section. -- 128.186.53.210 ( talk) 15:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Something about Samuel Cartwright should also be in this article. He is primarily known for the drapetomania, a definitively racist psychiatric diagnosis.
Lizfletcher (
talk) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hadding, your efforts to make the article more NPOV are fine; even encouraged, but if you plan to replace EliasAlucard as the article's resident racist you must remember that WP:UNDUE is a part of NPOV. The methods used to promote varying forms of 'Scientific racism' are widely criticized as flawed or invalid, and this article will reflect that "in proportion to the prominence" of that view. Brando130 ( talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed a sentence which insisted that Swedish-speakers and Finnish-speakers do not differ genetically. This is false. According to genome-wide SNP scans Finland Swedes genotype cluster with mainland Swedes, not with Finns (Hannelius, 2008).
Podomi ( talk) 14:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Kleine Rassenkunde cover.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This section may contain material
not related to the topic of the article. |
The article mentions at some point "male menstruation", which for anyone with basic biology knowledge, wouldn't make sense to be wikified as "male menstruation", as it cannot be simply menstruation occurring in males. I've recently changed the wikilink to the nonexistent article " male menstruation" , but it has been undone with the reasoning that there's no article for that. As far as I know, there's no such rule that we should avoid linking to articles that are yet to be created, when there's no extant suitable article. I won't, however, just redo the same edit in order to not start some silly "edition war", but I'll maintain that the link to the real "menstruation" article does not make sense at all in this context. We need either a some clarification on what it "is", either in the current, or in a new article. Or maybe, some section on the "menstruation" article dealing with male menstruation, but I think it would be rather odd. -- Extremophile ( talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest that this article be split into two articles. One would be something like Historical scientific racism and would be listed in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. The other would be Modern scientific racism, which would not be listed as a pseudoscience. This latter article would focus only upon modern issues such as Race and intelligence and similar issues which are scientific, but is simultaneously embroiled in passion and controversy regarding the motivations of researchers and the implications of the data. Bifurcation would be in keeping with subjects such as religion, where it would not be appropriate to besmirch certain modern religions as being inhumane because they can trace their roots back to the practices of the Roman Catholic Church and its inquisitions. Similarly, the Periodic table should not be listed as a pseudoscience just because at one time, there was thought to be only four elements, earth, wind, fire, and water. 67.185.247.179 ( talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
While I do not claim to have read everything that Joseph Smith Jr. has written or said, I am unaware of him ever claiming that "negroes had been created unequal" or that they are "suited to slavery." From what I have read, he preached and acted in a way contrary to those views. Inasmuch as Joseph Smith Jr. is the founder of a religion, it would be appropriate and professional to include primary sources providing evidence that support the claims made in this article. Until such sources can be found, I recommend that this reference to Joseph Smith Jr. be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.49.11 ( talk) 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've cut this paragraph from the end of the article as it (a) focusses on a single book and moreover (b) provides an entirely one-sided and hence POV view of it:
93.96.236.8 ( talk) 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
That different races have different genetic characteristics is NOT racism and it most certainly is NOT propaganda. It's FACT. It's SCIENCE. Otherwise, please explain why blacks have a higher chance of developing diabetes and high blood pressure than whites and asians. Also please explain why the texture of their hair is different than whites and asians. And not to mention the color of our skin - which is determined SOLELY by genetics. I guess albinos don't have any different DNA than the rest of us either then.
www.blackhealthcare.com That site has some good facts about things that African Americans need to be aware of regarding their health.
Racism is:
1) To believe/state that your ethnicity is superior to another, based on your skintone and the generalizing stereotypes associated with different ethnicities (asians are short, blacks are all crack-addicts, jews are greedy and control everything, gingers are scary, mexicans are lazy, and the white man marches on or some bullshit like that).
2) To state hateful remarks associated with someone's ethnicity
Neither of those appear anywhere in the research that's being done on racial genetic differences. At all. So how the hell is it racist? Is stating that we have different races what makes it racist? We have three: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasian (debatable also "mulatto"). Somehow "caucasian" is frequently used (I use the word "white", similar to how I use the word "black"), but the other two are banned - most likely because there are negative feelings and a lot of awful history associated with those words. "Negroid" just means "black". That's all it means. But it has negative associations, so using it would be inappropriate.
Are there actually any people of color who think this is racist? Should we close down all african american hair salons? I doubt that any black person would feel comfortable with a white hair stylist; I know lots of white stylists who have managed to use a relaxer on african hair. That was... less than successful. Is it racist when makeup and beauty supplies are marketed to specific ethnicities? Or would blacks and asians prefer using makeup designed for white people? I'm sure "Ivory" is a beautiful tone for a Nubian princess. Should I be offended when I see hair- and skin products marketed for scandinavian skin/hair? Or should I go "Thank god!" since other types of skin/haircare products don't cut it?
Also, check out this site: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2271134
-- Theatheama ( talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
1 gene's mutation bears a baby with down syndrome. Would you have us ignore down syndrome b/c it's a small percentage of DNA changed? The % is irrelevant, the differences are. There are physical differences between people. Some correlate to physical features and so may be grouped into races.
Read about Haplogroups and work it out from there, but dont become a Nazi!...-- 86.29.242.75 ( talk) 15:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article linked up to the "Creationism" wikipedia article when nearly all racial theories were derived from alternative theories of Evolution? I'm removing this article from the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.177 ( talk) 05:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
On August 1 I moved the 1857 photograph showing skulls. I WAS NOT DELETING it. My reason for moving it is this: The photo is dated 1857. It was located in the Earliest Examples of Scientific Racism section. That section only gives examples up to 1774. I moved the photo down one page to the !9th Century Examples page because that page covers the 1800's. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THE PHOTO SHOULD STAY IN THIS ARTICLE! I AM NOT TRYING TO DELETE IT!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.171.138 ( talk) 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
' works such as J. Philippe Rushton's book Race, Evolution and Behavior, IQ and the Wealth of Nations and The bell curve, many volumes by Darwin and his contemporaries and many more. '
? Sam [ Spade] 15:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I took on the specific references to works though their authors, and a few others, are all in there, just moved down a bit. Darwin is not generally listed as "scientific racism" though certain volumes of "The Descent of Man" are often looked at critically (especially by certain creationists) as being racist but generally Darwin's work lacks the sort of statistical arguments that are generally what "scientific racism" pertains to. That's just my take on it, though.
Basically when I thought about it further I figured there should be a distinct drawing between people in the 19th and early 20th century who were labeled as "scientific racism" and those people who are sometimes accused of it today. I see the latter as being a reference to the former, which is generally unchallenged as actually being "scientific racism." I tried to draw that out a bit more clearly but I may have not communicated it well. That is, when Herrnstein is accused of "scientific racism," he's being accused in part of being like, say, Madison Grant, who nobody really questions was more of a racist than a scientist. So, I wouldn't put, say, Darwin and Herrnstein in the same category; in part because nobody accused Darwin in his time of being a "scientific racist," if that makes any sense. -- Fastfission 16:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
actually I merged it into racialism. Sam [ Spade] 16:58, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is the "individual differences" linked to there the same thing as individual differences psychology or is it something else? -- Fastfission 15:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Because the history of science contains many such works -- even some of the work by Charles Darwin himself on the evolution of man looks especially colored by pre-held conceptions of race -- the question of whether a current work is an example of "scientific racism" or not is often a question of whether it is like these past works which are widely accepted to be very short in science and very heavy in racism." In the past these racial beliefs were part of the entire mindset of society and the idea of 'racism' in the modern sense didn't exist, so you can't say works that say the same things today are innocent by comparing them so. Today racism is a firm concept and comparison to a past time that held different ideas is incorrect. Also, it's nonsense to claim that Darwin's ideas were "short in science and very heavy in racism" because it's simply not true. -- ArcticFrog 14:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog
OK, I see your point; that's kinda what I meant about the mindset. We can compare them, but what I meant is that the differences between the outlook of that day and the modern outlook should be taken into account. Basically, you can't really call Darwin a racist because much (but not necessarily all) of his writing that is seen in modern terms as 'racist' consists in ideas that were taken for granted in his time; it was practically unconscious, or at least there was little awareness of it actually or as a concept. In the same light, you can't say modern racist writings are innocent because of what was written in Darwin's time, or back-condemn him for it. A writing of today containing sentiments that were essentially benign in Darwin's time can't really be said to exist on the same plane. "whether it is like these past works" just caught my eye. Perhaps the statement is just worded badly; reading it again, I'm not really sure what is being said, so I may have been wrong in my interpretation. If I am please replace the statement and work on the wording. Thanks for the response; I'm glad to offer input.-- ArcticFrog 17:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Anachronism may be a better term than ahistoricism; but yea, that sounds much better.-- ArcticFrog 17:19, 17 June 2004 (UTC)
Wait a minute I don't think Jefferson viewed blacks as inferior, see the Sally Hemmings Article.
The article seems to imply that "Scientific racism" is a primarily a "pejorative", only secondarily an actual historical thing. On the contrary, the reason people find it pejorative is because they oppose the older scientific racism and don't like to see modern things connected to it. In any event, an NPOV page would point out that this term is still used to refer to things like Sara Baartman and that some people think race and intelligence research falls in this vein. AaronSw 23:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Under "History: Early scientific studies of race and racial differences," last sentence of section reads: "...physically inadequate to reproduce or enter the country."
The article suggests that the country in question the USA, but the paragraph / section is unclear if this is so. Can this be confirmed?-- Pariah 04:58, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
It can be observed that, as it is now, the article contains no reference to ignoracism. - hitssquad 17:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
In September 2005, Charles Murray said:
If this is true, it would explain the reluctance of scientists to publish research which defies the status quo. Elabro 17:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I probably don't even need to describe this change but the proposed intro by User:Lindosland of "Scientific racism refers to research which promotes or appears to promote a racialist ideology..." (swapping "racialist" for "racist") is just factually and logically false. Scientific racism refers to accusations of racism, not racialism. Hence the name. -- Fastfission 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I would agree that there is work deliberately done to promote racialist theories. I would say though that in general those doing the work see (or saw in non-PC times) nothing wrong in promoting racialist theories. They believed race mattered, to varying extents in varying ways, which an encylopedia has a duty to report. I don't think many people wasted their time making up theories to upset people, to create conflict, which I would call truly racist. On the contrary they often tried to explain conflict (which certainly happens, like it or not) in terms of racial theory. Modern evolutionary psychology is taking some scientists back there but in terms of genetic subsets, recognising, as even Stoddard did, that Races are not 'pure'. Its not for anyone to say that this is wrong (value judgement); science looks for what is true, and must be taboo-free. Lindosland 12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Correct me if Im wrong. People are against the concept of race because they want everyone to think they are the same and fit smoothly into a new world order. Right right?
It doesn't make sense to merge this article with the racism article, scientific racism is a separate subject with lots of significant and relevant detail that would likely get lost in any merge. zen master T 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important to say very clearly that scientific racism is a term, and that it is almost always applied without controversy retroactively (that is, we now call 19th-century and early 20th-century works which were considered legitimate science in their day "scientific racism", to indicate that we now no longer think their work is actually "science"), and that whenever applied today it is almost always controversial (that is, whether one thinks research into the differences in, say, intelligence between different "races" is "scientific racism" or not depends largely on how one feels about the issues ahead of time).
I think some of the "history" edits were simply incorrect, or removed very important things (such as Civil War physiological studies, which were not only very popular among scientists and physicians but are the direct precursors to work being done today on "racial differences").
Obviously I am not in support of works of scientific racism and I do happen to think some (not all) of modern work on "racial differences" falls into this category as well (the methodology often seems purposefully sloppy), but I think it is important to get a very good NPOV balance here. It is not completely appropriate to just deride works of the past as "propaganda" -- many of them were done by top scientists of their day with top methodologies of the time. Simply deriding them as propaganda not only is incorrect in a basic sense, but it underemphasizes the fact that these were not done by cranks or fringe characters but by major biologists and anthropologists -- a lesson worth keeping in mind for the present. We have a much better sensitivity to these things since the 1930s, when a lot of work was done to show how "scientific" studies of race were often highly flawed. -- Fastfission 14:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
How someone feels about the issues ahead of time is not how the term is being used by research critics in the present day, critics of "intelligence" research directly or indirectly accuse it of being propaganda disguised as science. zen master T 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Fastfission, I totally agree with you that those "scientifical" studies were not just the work of some cranks... Until at least the 1930s (I'll try to find if you wish this reference of a French medical study that really amazed me...) racism was commonly scientifically justified. However, this simply means that racism has been tightly tied to Occidental's (but we should'nt even reduced it to an Occidental story, since Japan is also like this...) "civilization". And this led to various genocides, which, if you believe Sven Lindqvist's Exterminate all the brutes (a book that reads lot better than its title taken from Joseph Conrad), started with 19th century's colonialism. Human zoos are a particular good examples of this quasi-unconscious racism. Lapaz
I'm having a hard time understanding what the term "Scientific Racism" means and/or how the term might be properly employed. Is "Scientific Racism" merely racist acts and/or statements by those who are also scientists? If so, than why the term "scientific?" Or is it science as it relates to race? If this, than why the term "racism?" After these concerns there is the additional problem created when this category is assigned to the work of some scientists who are involved in such controversial areas as mental testing, where, frankly, it appears to be a vehicle used to attack ideas ad hominem.
The Chris Brand Affair appears twice in this article. Should we have it in the Self-consciousness section or the Modern Usage section? -- hitssquad 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I am curious about the reference here: "To this day, the 1950 UNESCO Statement is controversial among some scientists because of its message (some, such as R. A. Fisher, vehemently disagreed with it)..." Where does this come from? I have scoured Fisher's Biography "Life of a Scientist" and haven't found any reference to it. There is nothing in his bibliography so far as I can see, so it appears not to have been published. Unless there is a reference, it should be removed, I think. And who were the other scientists referred to? DonSiano 11:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I also looked through the biography of Darlington, which has an extended treatment of the controversy over the UNESCO statement, and there is no mention of Fisher there either. DonSiano 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I am changing the reference about Fisher to Darlington and Muller, which I know to be accurate from Darlington's biography, p 236, 237. DonSiano 12:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The quote "However, modern studies on race and intelligence have overcome many of these concerns, and the subject remains one of intense interest because they continue to show differences between races. In fact so called 'culture-fair' tests of abstract visual skills tend to show even higher racial differences than verbal tests" contradicts the main points in this section. Has someone retroactively added it? It doesn't belong.Kemet 02:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "scientific racism". Not much more to say. This Wiki seems to have been constructed by a bunch of people that have no understanding of science or the scientific method, and definitely not the nuances of concepts such inductive and deductive reasoning. Ernham 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose to merge Racial groups in India (historical definitions), per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:Naming conflicts, etc. The latter article is complete non-sense, based on totally unreliable sources which carries on old racist stereotypes. In other words, it has nothing to do on wikipedia, and any interesting content, if there is some, should be moved here. The only interest of it might reside in historical archive aspects, but it is not Wikipedia's aims to present such irrelevant theories as "true". Tazmaniacs 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
POV forks. Tazmaniacs 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: to Dave Souza's last comment (above): although some chronological ordering might be a good thing, I don't really know if it's absolutely the best way. Thematic organization seems a good way to proceed as different people in different times really had the same concerns. I don't know how you see it? Tazmaniacs 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has proved my theory that Darwinism is rooted in a philosophy that resembles Nazism. When I thought about evolution, I realized that if it is true, then I should be sterile, as a hybrid of two species, like a mule. I haven't found out whether I am sterile yet, but I don't think that I am. I think that all races are the same species.-- 69.234.206.177 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)J
-- 69.234.206.177 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)J
"Rockwell's use of these statistics is a textbook example of a statistical fallacy used to propagate scientific racism." It would be nice if which fallacy was specified. Afabbro 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've reversed a recent
change to the introduction. Although some new additions were welcome, I disagree in removing parts on
phrenology, etc. Furthermore, I question the definition of "scientific racism" as being simply "racist propaganda disguised as science".
I think we need to distinguish two uses of this term: the first, proper one, refering to
obsolete scientific theories. The second one, refering to contemporary discourses which claim to ground racism in science. While the latter is obvious propaganda and, to be blunt, is restricted to far-right discourses, it is a bit easy to qualify the first one as simple propaganda. Doubtlessly these theories (phrenology, etc.) were racists. But there's a step from asserting this truth and from claiming they were only a form of propaganda — which would imply that the 19th century scholars who worked on these themes were cynical racists attempting to give a legitimate formulation to their racist POV. The issue is much more complex, and is related to the birth of
physical anthropology, the discovery of other ethnic groups starting with the
Age of Discovery, etc. To dismiss all of these researches as simple "racist propaganda" is, to my eyes, a simplist short-cut. It is all too easy to dismiss what yesterday was considered truth and scientifical as ideology and propaganda ; but that would be claiming that all obsolete scientific theories were, in fact, only ideology. Which is, according to various
philosophers of science and others (
Michel Foucault,
Louis Althusser, etc.) a retrospective and teleological view which does not convey the reality of the past and of historical change.
Tazmaniacs 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As an example: in discussing the belief of Elias
Auerbach, a Berlin physician of the early twentieth century who believed that Jews had maintained their racial purity, Efron states that "his zeal in defense of that theory shows that his Zionism impinged on his science" (p. 139). In Foucauldian terms, it is hard to see this as at all surprising. Indeed, it is difficult to argue that any scientific work would be untainted by contemporary
discourses. [2]
The introduction should be a short self contained definition and summary of the article, I think all historical information should be moved out of the introduction. zen master T 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this recent addition here, mainly because of its anachronical nature and misunderstanding of the term of "scientific racism".
Critics of the concept "scientific racism" argue that science has rarely had racist motives. In their view this is evidenced by the treatment of native Indian peoples. According to Frank Miele and Vincent Sarich if race was essentially a convenient ideological device to justify slavery, the European ruling classes of the sixteenth century should have eagerly embraced the theory of polygenism (multiple origins of races). Yet in 1537, in Sublimis Deus, Pope Paul III upheld monogenism and the capacity of native Indians to receive Christianity. Similarly, in 1550, at a council convened by Emperor Charles V to consider colonization, the rights of native peoples were upheld.<ref>Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele: Race, Reason, and Reality, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004</ref>
Although racism certainly existed in the 16th century, this article makes clear that "scientific racism" is posterior to the 16th century. SR refers to a set of sciences, phrenology, etc., which were used to classify humanity into different races, and is intrinsically related to the birth of biology — see scientific revolution. I hoped this article made it clear, but maybe not enough... As the introduction states, SR has also been used in the 20th century to refer to racist theories attempting to disguise themselves as science ("race & intelligence" issues, etc.). There is a lot to say about racism in the 16th century, especially racism, slavery and colonialism, but it belongs to Racism#Racism in the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance and not here. Tazmaniacs 12:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This is total Original research. A synthesis of primary sources is not acceptable (see WP:PSTS). Tazmaniacs 12:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What is misrepresented? If anything is misrepresented, correct it. Anyone can go on Amazon.com, click on "see inside the book", go through the very exact pages and see for themselves... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 ( talk) 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Then change what you think is misrepresented, while keeping the previous citations. There is no conspiracy here. All of the cited text is non-fraudulent. The two main concepts in Isaac's account of Hellenistic proto-scientific racism are 1) the importance of winter and seasonal variation (Hippocrates, etc.) and 2) the importance of climate for character traits, with bias against extreme climes in favor of the temperate, slightly northern middle parts for the evolution of civilized instincts; in other words, Central and Mediterranean Europe and the corresponding stretch of land across the globe. So what is misrepresented? Supplement your own understanding then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 ( talk) 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"Taz," you are constructing an arbitrary, possibly quasi-Foucaultian obscure definition of scientific racism, and then pretending reality has to conform to this construction. The seeds of scientific racism existed long before the so-called "scientific revolution." Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Archimedes, etc. have inspired scientists for generations; Leucippus and Democratis succesffully anticipated the contemporary understanding of atoms, etc.; you are engaging in the fallacy of pretending there is some sort of ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE between the naturalistic students of the ancient world and our own... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.46.69 ( talk) 06:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching this denote with interest uncertain about what side I should weigh in in favor of. The important tie breaker is the following: Do the sources for this section explicitly mention "scientific racism" in those exact words? futurebird 12:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure what the statement of a 16th century pope on monogenism has to do with the sort of 19th and 20th century scientific racism that this article focuses on. There must be more relevant criticisms to be made of the notion of scientific racism. In any case, whoever put the citation there didn't get the title of the text right--it's actually called Race: The Reality of Human Differences. -- Proper tea is theft 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The 1950 UNESCO Statement was a failure and it was withdrawn by UNESCO after it was strongly criticised in scientific journals. It was compared to the pseudoscientific doctrines of the Nazis.
According to the 1951 statement "the concept of race is unanimously regarded by anthropologists as a classificatory device providing a zoological frame within which the various groups of mankind may be arranged and by means of which studies of evolutionary processes can be facilitated". (p. 11)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf
It no longer recommended that instead of race the term "ethnic group" should be used. Also, according to the 1951 statement it is possible, though not proved, that some types of innate capacity for intellectual and emotional responses are commoner in one human group than in another, but it is certain that, within a single group, innate capacities. vary as much as, if not more than, they do between different groups". (p. 13)
The 1951 statement was also accompanied by (perhaps) "scientifically racist" critical commentaries. According to an expert UNESCO interviewed blacks and whites did not belong to the same species: "If an unprejudiced scientist were confronted with a West-African Negro, an Eskimo and a North-West European, he could hardly consider them to belong to the same ‘species’.
According to some other experts blacks were intellectually inferior to whites and miscegenation possibly harmful. (See the articles about R.A. Fisher and C.D. Darlington for information about their views)
The current information about the 1950 UNESCO statement is misleading as after one year a larger body of experts wrote a new statement and the authors of the original statement agreed with the new statement titled “The Race Concept: Results of an Inquiry”. MoritzB 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf~
The 1951 document included a critical comment by prof. Fritz Lenz: “In my opinion, the Linnaen theory that all men belong to a single species is inaccurate. Moreover, it is by no means true that this theory is accepted by scientists in general. In his well-known Lehrbuch der Anthropologie (Manual of Physical Anthropology), Rudolf Martin speaks of the ‘Sub-groups of the Hominids’; ‘Opinions are divided on the question whether these sub-groups are to be regarded as species or simply varieties of species in the zoological sense of the term.’ (2nd Ed., Vol. I, Jena, 1928, p. 7. ... “If an unprejudiced scientist were confronted with a West-African Negro, an Eskimo and a North-West European, he could hardly consider them to belong to the same ‘species’. Numerous ‘good’ species by no means reveal such considerable differences. Only one thing is certain: all men belong to the same genus. The possibility of fertile crossing is not a conclusive criterion of a common stock. Many species of plants and animals produce, through artificial crossbreeding, fertile and readily mendelizing hybrid offspring and are nevertheless true species. “As far as I am aware, neither African pygmies nor Bushmen interbreed with Negroes or with Europeans; thus, owing to their natural instincts and their habits, they are physiologically isolated. It would no doubt be possible to crossbreed them artificially with other races, but that would be no proof that they belong to a common stock."
Source: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf
UNESCO noted that "by printing, with the text of the Statement, all the comments to which it has given rise, Unesco hopes to enable the general public to appreciate the fluctuations of scientitic thought on the problem of race." Some other scientists argued that miscegenation was biologically harmful and that races were inequal. MoritzB 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The section is off topic and needs to go. It's been some time since we requested a third-party source that calls all of these things "scientific racism" --The research is useful and well sourced in terms of being examples of racism but it will not do for scientific racism. futurebird ( talk) 04:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Scientific racism is a term that describes either obsolete scientific theories of the 19th century or historical and contemporary racist propaganda disguised as scientific research.
While I have no feeling for racism, this senteces does not read very encyclopaedic and should be changed to a more neutral tone. I have boldfaced the words I find problematic 80.61.183.71 ( talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
However, the Bible also sanctions slavery, and from the 1820s to the 1850s it was cited in the Southern States of the United States of America to support the idea that negroes had been created unequal, suited to slavery, by writers such as the Rev. Richard Furman, Joseph Smith Jr. and Thomas R. Cobb.
This addition does not seem very well referenced or informed. That it was 'cited in Southern States.. by writers such as..' Joseph Smith (who wrote largely in Ohio and Missouri) and Thomas Cobb, (an Indiana statesman) -- all from northern states, doesn't seem very consistent or coherent. Perhaps writers that are actually from the south would better illustrate the point? -- The reference for this section seems very POV anyway, and may not be in accord with WP:EXT. Brando130 ( talk) 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) – more specifically discussing the US situation. Work in progress......
dave souza,
talk 09:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Scientific racism played a role in justifying the segregation of schools in the US. I think we need a section on this. futurebird ( talk) 03:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is certainly not neutral, using the words "obsolete", "propoganda", etc. 71.141.89.135 ( talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The lead needs to reflect the article, and obsolete and propaganda accurately describe the uses and abuses of the research so related. On the other hand, it could be simpler. What if we replace the first sentence with the following:
Scientific racism is the use of science or scientific language in support of racist ideals.
The second paragraph of the lead needs at least some copyediting, and could also contain a brief mention that race is a current but deprecated variable in e.g. epidemiological research untainted (one hopes) by racist undertones. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I understand Phillips, and I agree with you that the article must be objective/NPOV. I do, however, believe that the use of the term propaganda in this case is an objective statement. The word "abuse" might cross the line, but propaganda is what scientific racism is.-- Pariah ( talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
talk:Pariah|talk]]) 05:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Almost every word in the English language has some negative or positive connotation to it. You are wasting your lives defending these amoral scientists who spent their lives intentionally blurring the lines of science and confusing the masses. You will never agree.
Lizfletcher (
talk) 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe the intro paragraph of this article should specifically note that the phrase "scientific racism" has 2+ potentially contradictory meanings. It can mean both racist publications and opinions from an ostensibly scientific viewpoint and/or it could mean alleged propaganda with the veneer of science which exists solely to trick people into being racist. Convergence Dude ( talk) 00:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines can not possibly prevent the use of the most accurate word being used in describing one possible definition for the phrase "scientific racism". I have sufficiently caveatted the use of "propaganda" by using "alleged". Convergence Dude ( talk) 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Something about James D. Watson Should probably be in this article. Either in the contemporary section or the race and intelligence section. -- 128.186.53.210 ( talk) 15:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Something about Samuel Cartwright should also be in this article. He is primarily known for the drapetomania, a definitively racist psychiatric diagnosis.
Lizfletcher (
talk) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hadding, your efforts to make the article more NPOV are fine; even encouraged, but if you plan to replace EliasAlucard as the article's resident racist you must remember that WP:UNDUE is a part of NPOV. The methods used to promote varying forms of 'Scientific racism' are widely criticized as flawed or invalid, and this article will reflect that "in proportion to the prominence" of that view. Brando130 ( talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed a sentence which insisted that Swedish-speakers and Finnish-speakers do not differ genetically. This is false. According to genome-wide SNP scans Finland Swedes genotype cluster with mainland Swedes, not with Finns (Hannelius, 2008).
Podomi ( talk) 14:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Kleine Rassenkunde cover.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This section may contain material
not related to the topic of the article. |
The article mentions at some point "male menstruation", which for anyone with basic biology knowledge, wouldn't make sense to be wikified as "male menstruation", as it cannot be simply menstruation occurring in males. I've recently changed the wikilink to the nonexistent article " male menstruation" , but it has been undone with the reasoning that there's no article for that. As far as I know, there's no such rule that we should avoid linking to articles that are yet to be created, when there's no extant suitable article. I won't, however, just redo the same edit in order to not start some silly "edition war", but I'll maintain that the link to the real "menstruation" article does not make sense at all in this context. We need either a some clarification on what it "is", either in the current, or in a new article. Or maybe, some section on the "menstruation" article dealing with male menstruation, but I think it would be rather odd. -- Extremophile ( talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest that this article be split into two articles. One would be something like Historical scientific racism and would be listed in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. The other would be Modern scientific racism, which would not be listed as a pseudoscience. This latter article would focus only upon modern issues such as Race and intelligence and similar issues which are scientific, but is simultaneously embroiled in passion and controversy regarding the motivations of researchers and the implications of the data. Bifurcation would be in keeping with subjects such as religion, where it would not be appropriate to besmirch certain modern religions as being inhumane because they can trace their roots back to the practices of the Roman Catholic Church and its inquisitions. Similarly, the Periodic table should not be listed as a pseudoscience just because at one time, there was thought to be only four elements, earth, wind, fire, and water. 67.185.247.179 ( talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
While I do not claim to have read everything that Joseph Smith Jr. has written or said, I am unaware of him ever claiming that "negroes had been created unequal" or that they are "suited to slavery." From what I have read, he preached and acted in a way contrary to those views. Inasmuch as Joseph Smith Jr. is the founder of a religion, it would be appropriate and professional to include primary sources providing evidence that support the claims made in this article. Until such sources can be found, I recommend that this reference to Joseph Smith Jr. be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.49.11 ( talk) 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've cut this paragraph from the end of the article as it (a) focusses on a single book and moreover (b) provides an entirely one-sided and hence POV view of it:
93.96.236.8 ( talk) 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)