Talk:Racism

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(I thought this was supposed to be RATIONAL wiki.)
(I thought this was supposed to be RATIONAL wiki.)
Line 112: Line 112:
  
 
This is all a bunch of subjective claptrap, it makes use of the same arguments creationists use. I guess it's expected considering this is a left-oriented wiki. Completely ignores cluster theory, etc. Race is NOT a social construct. [[Special:Contributions/174.54.34.187|174.54.34.187]] ([[User talk:174.54.34.187|talk]]) 09:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 
This is all a bunch of subjective claptrap, it makes use of the same arguments creationists use. I guess it's expected considering this is a left-oriented wiki. Completely ignores cluster theory, etc. Race is NOT a social construct. [[Special:Contributions/174.54.34.187|174.54.34.187]] ([[User talk:174.54.34.187|talk]]) 09:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
:{{DMorris}} {{User:Reckless Noise Symphony/sig2}} 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
+
:{{DMorris}}{{User:Reckless Noise Symphony/sig2}} 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:08, 29 May 2011

Why can't you accept the scientific evidence that white people are superior to black people? 81.169.151.105 15:29, 2 December 2007 (EST)

God SINGULARITY and the academic taught singularity constitute great evils in the Cubic World of opposites - opposites hemispheres and Opposite sexes of humanity. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:38, 2 December 2007 (EST)
In other words Don't feed the Troll--Bobbing up 15:40, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Contents

Recent anthropology, however, have suggested an alternate theory based on geography.

Got some cites? PFoster 08:49, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Its a copyvio silly. NEED PERCOCET NOW
From where? I checked several phrases from the text and nothing shows up on Google. You've got an accusation, make your case. --Kels 08:59, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
I just wrote it, and hadn't organized or anything or added cites yet. I'll do it right now ;).--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 09:45, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

History

This section seems very Euro-centric. After all both the Chinese and Japanese have thought themselves as superior to other "races". It seems to be an inherent trait of humans to think that their group is superior to those who are different (racially, politically and religiously). Just look at those people who claim that their religion is the one true faith (and therefore all the others are wrong), isn't that also a kind of racism? Europeans just happened to develop technologies that enabled them to impose their views on the rest. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:57, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

It is pretty Eurocentric, I agree. But I was addressing what I felt was the most dominant form of racism and the one that has had the greatest impact: pro-white. I do start off by saying that it is everywhere, but when I tried to add more explication about that I felt like I was wandering from my point. I encourage you to add more. It truly is omnipresent. Japanese and Ainu, Mexicans and Nahuatl, and so on.
I don't happen to think religious centrism is racism. Because, um, it's not. There's a definition.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 09:48, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Japanese are pretty racist towards a lot of groups, actually. Look at how they traditionally treat Koreans. I like Japan a lot, but they've got some serious faults in that regard. --Kels 09:51, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
My primary criticism of that section is that it tries to draw conclusions much too far back in time. Especially: "For a thousand years, most people believed that the immensely disproportionate power and wealth of Europeans (and later Americans) was palpable proof that the white race was superior. After all, how could England have carved out an empire that spanned the continents from their tiny island, if their native intelligence or courage were not naturally superior?" The Europeans didn't have "immensely disproportionate power and wealth" and England didn't carve out an empire until the 17th-18th century. If anything, it was the Chinese who were disproportionately wealthy before that time. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 10:07, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
England specifically didn't carve out an empire until that time, but there was some "Rome" deal and a few successors before that. If anything, I didn't go anywhere near far enough back.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 10:13, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Rome? What does that have to do with racism? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 10:20, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
You said The Europeans didn't have "immensely disproportionate power and wealth" previous to England. But most people who view things in racial terms consider Rome to be "white." It's often among examples of people who are trying prove the superiority of white people.
The section could probably use some rewriting, so feel free to fix problems you see, honest.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 10:28, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
However, between the end of Rome and the "rise of the West" (talking maybe 1500 CE), the West was most definitely NOT running things. This is why, out of 3 main Crusades in the "Holy Land", the first worked for awhile, and the other two were disasters. (And then the 4th Crusade gave the Turks an opening into Europe.) Even Rome, at its height, never came close to "running things." China was just as powerful, the various empires in subSaharan Africa were never even thought about...even known parts of the world (like India and Ethiopia) ignored the Romans. Researcher 10:20, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
It is perhaps due to the technological advances that later empires like the British had more influence over a geographically greater area; it seems fair to me to say that Rome was as influential and dominant as England would later be, even if from a cultural standpoint. There's good reason I hear Latin phrases used in modern Korea, after all.
There were immense empires in the Americas and Africa, sure. But because of the lack of some of the grains and other items that the Mediterranean-dwelling peoples possessed, they were never able to raise their per-capita production sufficiently. The number of people farming per city dweller starts very high, and only declines with advances, leading to much denser cities and correspondingly greater technology and diseases. Thus, even though Tenochtitlan was immense, it had to have virtually the entire country supporting it for the whole of its existence and still never progressed much compared to an empire like Rome.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 10:28, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Picking up on Japan again, a number of English teachers I have spoken to have told me that that there is significant prejudice against Europeans there. For example, they have been refused rented accommodation because it is apparently "not available" - when they know for a fact that it is. On the other hand this may be because of the deserved (?) reputation for drunken brawling and womanising that young male English teachers seem to have gained.
With regard to the "Racism in Religion section" I'm not quite sure what it's doing there. While races have differences (skin colour being the most evident), any suggestion of "racial superiority" is little more than insanity. Meanwhile, most religions are automatically exclusive - if one is right then others have to be wrong. Some members these take great (or sometimes violent) exception to other views. Others do not. But that's got nothing to do with racism.--Bobbing up 10:29, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Japan is extremely West-friendly for the most part, regardless of whatever anecdotes you hear. Certainly there is some racism and a lot of stereotypes (throughout Asia, many people consider westerners to be sex-obsessed), but there's a reason your friends were brought overseas to teach. Predominant racism would tend to argue that they wouldn't be shipping people in through JET as fast as they can bring them over.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 10:33, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

you wish. Im a white japanophile from Brazil and I look pretty western, theres always this feeling that the inhabitants hate you. Also I've heard some rather hateful things that Japanese people like to say about western people and even white peole in general. — Unsigned, by: 204.246.66.78 / talk / contribs

Bob--I think what the "religion" section is getting at is the question of how conflicts over religious beliefs can foster other types of hatred--like racismPFoster 10:38, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
OK, but in that case why not "Racism in politics", "Racism in gender differences" or "Racism in economics" - I don't really see the point of a special "Racism in religion" section. Anything can exacerbate anything if you let it.--Bobbing up 11:18, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
I agree, and would support the removal of those sections to the respective religion pages.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 11:23, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
However, between the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of colonization, the Europeans were an insignificant backwater. To pretend that "for a thousand years" Europeans "ran things" is a gross oversimplification. (Latin phrases are known in Korea because the Western colonizers used them; not because Rome was THAT influential in its own time.) Researcher 10:44, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, researcher--by the late Medieval/Early Renaissance the Euros were making their presence felt--still a ways off before colonisation. PFoster 10:48, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
It is an oversimplification, yes (although perhaps not a gross one). I was trying to state cogently and succinctly what I thought the general attitude was among proponents of white superiority, as gathered from personal experience and research in places like Stormfront. Latin phrases are used because Rome spread its influence over an enormous area (especially considering the time) and with such intensity that their culture - while gone for a millenium - is still evident.
I'm trying to compromise between pedantic historical accuracy about the broad strokes I am painting, which is admirable but rather long for a wiki article on racism, and being short and effective. I invite you to please improve on my efforts; I'm not a terribly clever guy, and am just fumbling out my best efforts.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 10:51, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
OK...misunderstanding then. I really thought you were trying to say that Europeans ran everything the whole time. Gotcha. And PFoster, while yes, Europe stopped being a complete backwater by the late Medieval, they still didn't start to run things until the Age of Exploration. So, yeah, I also over-simplified things to be pedantic. Feel free to do whatever with that, now that we all understand each other better. Researcher 10:54, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
You have a good point, it's just not one I could fit into the scope of what I was saying. I mean, China developed into an immense empire, but remained rather primitive considering its size and population. That would be an immediate and obvious objection to my own argument. But Diamond points out that with relatively few natural barriers, this very rapid empire-building that occurred actually hindered technology; it was too easy and stable compared to the balkanized areas of Europe naturally divided with rivers and mountains (of which there are comparably much fewer in the main area of China). While Castile was still fighting with Aragon, China had an immense and stable empire with a big damn wall along a lot of it to help repel bandits.
There's just too much to put in and keep it readable. I was really just trying to take a basic topic that was right in line with RW goals and whose article really sucked, and provide a cogent response to the most common pro-racism argument I know.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 11:04, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
"Racism" usually depends on some distinguishing visual characteristics such as colour of skin, type of hair, shape of various facial features, while nations or ethnic groups often adopt specific modes of dress Organised religion adds to these distinguishing features with badges of allegiance or some sort of physical mutilation. Race is just a sub-set of how groups of humans differentiate and assert their superiority over other groups. I don't think you should separate race from other forms of discrimination it's just easier to identify.
As for native Americans they were basically at a technological disadvantage to Europeans because they had not invented the wheel or domesticated the horse. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:10, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Natural tendencies

Altho there is in humans a natural tendency to categorize things (a useful trait), we sometimes create false categories. Race is one such example -- there is very little science (pseudoscience mostly) to back up racial theory. Hence the term "racism" is poorly named. Ethnocentrism is closer to the mark.

And people do tend to be ethnocentric, not necessarily because of a feeling of superiority, but just a personal preference for one's own kind. A Black person, for example, can be just as "racist" as a White, even while not feeling his "race" to be superior. (This may be typical in a White culture.)

A white supremicist may emphasize the achievement of the "white race" as a basis for superiority, but that is a value judgment based on his view of what human traits are superior. A Black man may consider beauty to be a more important criterion, and may believe Black to be beautiful.

Until i thumbed around Western Europe one summer, i believed skin color to be the determiner of prejudice -- i no longer do. The clash of cultures is the root of bias, NOT skin color. Skin color in some cultures may help to identify groups against which you are prejudiced, but it is not the color alone.

I'm of Irish (mostly) and Italian descent (my grandparents married against prejudice in Boston), and if i cut off somebody while driving, nearly causing him to crash -- and if i had recognizable traits (physical or otherwise) he may very well call me a Mick. Would that make him a racist?

By the by, i was amused by the European notion that America is more "racist" than they, something i myself believed upon first setting foot on European soil. That probably derives from news media slant. Some of the things i saw and heard in public surprised me, a lot. Once i witnessed a clash based on nothing but a different accent -- facial features of the participants were indistinguishable.

-- RemBeau 13:50, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

The most racist bastards I've ever met were either a pair of Dutch guys or a Chinese Political Science professor I met in Beijing. (The funny part was that the Chinese professor went on a tirade about how racist America was before he started saying horrible things about black people.) Researcher 14:10, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
The Dutch are STRONG believers that they aren't prejudiced, and can't be talked out of it. They will explain to you why their prejudice is not REALLY prejudice, but based on facts.
I love their art, tho, of their "Golden Period".
-- RemBeau 14:21, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Whoever said that Europe wasn't as racist as the US hadn't been around Europe much. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:32, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
As much as I hate to say this (because it might make me sound like CP), there is a certain amount of irrational Euro love in certain segments of the US, which think that Europe can do no wrong. (This was shaken by the French riots, though.) Researcher 14:34, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Rem, I disagree with you that culture rather than skin colour is the major determiner of prejudice. For example, white people's prejudices about black people are still very common, e.g. in Britain, Europe & America, although the cultural differences between white & black people in those societies are fairly minimal. Similarly, Hitler's racist ideology was all about racial strengths and weaknesses (as he saw them), and he really wasn't very interested in culture (e.g. his views on the 'Jews' were all about Jewish ethnicity rather than Judaism). Racism can be ethnic or cultural. In my opinion it springs from a fear of the unknown - people are instinctively uncomfortable when they see something they're not used to, whether it's a different skin colour, an unusual accent or clothing, or cultural didfferences of behaviour - and from ignorant myths and stereotypes which turn these misunderstandings into prejudice. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 14:37, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
First, you gotta be kiddin bringing Hitler into this. Power-hungry politicians commonly delve into race-hate, class-hate, occupation-hate, business-hate, partisan-hate ... whatever hate demagogues can gin up to increase their power. (Now the scapegoat is Wall Streeters. Two weeks ago it was oil companies.) Plus i thought it was pretty well-known Hitler had a grudge against Jews for personal reasons.
We're talking about societies and the prejudices of ordinary citizens, and there it is culture. The biggest sin America committed was slavery (mistake is a euphemism), and it left in its wake a culture that Whites want no part of, and skin-color and speech-pattern that is identified with that culture.
De jure segregation is long gone, but de facto segregation is still around, practiced by both Blacks and Whites. Attempts to force them together is useless, because a cultural wall is felt.
An American traveling in Europe will not feel that wall shoot up based on a skin color with which he has no cultural experience, and will be VERY surprised to find out the locals do. I know this for a FACT.
It has practically nothing to do with "fear of the unknown". I can't think how that even got started, nor how it makes sense. I will admit that phrase is pervasive, but not persuasive.
-- RemBeau 22:59, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Ethnicity and race are two entirely different things, sorry. Ethnocentrism is a word with an actual meaning, and the meaning is not "racism" (which surprisingly also has an actual meaning).--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:19, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
So what is YOUR explanation why people are biased against other cultures?
-- RemBeau 08:49, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
People are raised to consider their culture superior, in general. It's an implicit if not an explicit lesson. Then there's the group assignation tendency in humans that I spoke of in the big addition to the main article here.
I'm just pointing out that ethnocentrism and racism are very different things. And I think the dictionary will back me up. You can't just redefine things because it makes it more convenient to explain them. Ethnocentrism is being prejudiced towards one's own ethnicity, whereas racism is being prejudiced about race. Ethnicity is a socially-constructed group, whereas race is an arbitrary grouping based on physical characteristics. They're two different things, sorry.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 08:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
"The ability to form general concepts on the basis of particular examples is an essential ingredient of intelligent behavior." -Angluin & Laird, machine learning researchers.
--NoPetrol (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition

I see we're defining racism in terms of statements that one race is superior or inferior to another. Is this definition tight enough? This argument allows white nationalists to talk about racial preservation and disapprove of racial intermingling, while claiming that they're not racist because they don't explicitly say that other races are inferior. The BNP is a good example of this. I think that any kind of discrimination or prejudice based on race can be considered racist, irrespective of whether it actually states "this group is better than this group". ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:24, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

why so centred on the west?

Im ainu I know first hand how much discrimination and racsism I face in Japan ever though I am more native to Japan then most people. Or the hatred that most arabs fell towards persians and vice versa. seriosly wtf. — Unsigned, by: 204.169.48.246 / talk / contribs

We tend to be mostly western & write about what we know about. Please contribute if you will. I've only heard about the Ainu and know nothing about them - I would really like to know more. I am eating Toast& honeychat 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

added some information about the ainu

I thought this was supposed to be RATIONAL wiki.

This is all a bunch of subjective claptrap, it makes use of the same arguments creationists use. I guess it's expected considering this is a left-oriented wiki. Completely ignores cluster theory, etc. Race is NOT a social construct. 174.54.34.187 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support