Talk:Racism/Archive1

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. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:38, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 * In other words Don't feed the Troll--Bobbing up 15:40, 2 December 2007 (EST)

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 Moore fiat 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. Генгис   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 Moore fiat 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. -- 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 Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 10:13, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Rome? What does that have to do with racism? -- 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 Moore fiat 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 Moore fiat 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 Moore fiat 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. &mdash; 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 Moore fiat 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 Moore fiat 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 Moore fiat 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. Генгис    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.

-- Rem  Beau  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".


 * -- Rem  Beau  14:21, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Whoever said that Europe wasn't as racist as the US hadn't been around Europe much. 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.  w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 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.


 * -- Rem  Beau  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 Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 23:19, 4 October 2008 (EDT)


 * So what is YOUR explanation why people are biased against other cultures?


 * -- Rem  Beau  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 Moore fiat 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". 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. &mdash; 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. 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

added some information about the ainu


 * decent points. I have lived for a long time in America, and also all around the world. Though everyone makes a big deal out of race in America, it is actually FAR AND AWAY the LEAST racist place I have ever been to. In my (admittedly limited to 30 countries or so) experience, every other place is somewhere between either about the same or slightly worse (Canada)... or extremely almost unimaginably worse (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, India). Racism exists all over the place, it's not something invented by "white" people or Americans.


 * It's a non-falsifiable cultural Marxist attack on the West. "Racists" are the new bourgeoisie. Mikemikev (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If race isn't a social construct, then it ought to be scientifically observable and testable. Please explain how this is possible, or give some examples.   09:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The differences in melanin levels are perhaps not observable enough? 01:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. In general, yes, but the extreme range out there...  03:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BONs are trying to get us drunk. Two shots! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Three shots!  03:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"irrational belief"
I thought that this was supposed to be rational wiki. Considering racism irrational is itself irrational.
 * Given that science has skewered every attempt to rationalize it (e.g., phrenology, polygenism), it is fairly safe to conclude that, given the current evidence, it is irrational. 01:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's irrational because when it comes to people you can't use statistics to judge. Let's say you somehow manage to prove that blacks are dumb (never mind that this has been disproved, and any disparities have been explained by sociological and historical factors): what then?  Will you prevent black people from going to school?  What will you do with the Kofi Anan's and Neil Degrasse Tyson's of the world?  Racism is irrational because racism is prejudice; and judging someone before you've even met them is undoubtedly irrational.--  01:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is proven that blacks in the U.S. have average IQ of 85. No one denies that there can be some exceptional individuals. The affirmative action is in fact racist. --90.177.208.162 (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 02:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bell Curve.
 * Now, let us leave aside for a minute any problems with those numbers (and they are many). There is certainly some white person in the U.S. with an I.Q. of 85. Most racists would have us treat this person differently from a black person with an I.Q. of 85. It would follow that when racists cite any mean I.Q. differences to justify their policies, they are quacking up bullshit. 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What I care about is average. Most of white persons certainly don't have IQ 85. 85.162.93.130 (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * generalizations are not rational. And as far as your statement that most whites don't have an IQ of 85, all I can say is that you'd be surprised--  02:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that whates have IQ 100. You are dumb and this is not a rational wiki.--85.162.93.130 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)You do realize that IQ tests have to be readjusted due to the Flynn effect, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ECX3) And you just misspelled whites. ТyUser_talk:Ty 02:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Flynn effect has no effect since the IQs of both blacks and whites increase at the same pace. --90.177.208.162 (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the effects are not always even. Try actually reading the research. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually they are. --90.177.208.162 (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually they are. --90.177.208.162 (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think racism is a set of attitudes, rather than beliefs. Certainly there are beliefs which are used to justify those attitudes, and those beliefs can be irrational. But I don't think the attitudes themselves can be rational or irrational, since I think only beliefs can be rational or irrational. They can be wrong or immoral, certainly; but not irrational. I also think it is wrong to focus too much on racist beliefs, since that approach can assume the beliefs came first and the attitudes come second; I think it more likely the attitudes come first, and then people go looking for beliefs they can use to justify them. You can disprove every single one of their beliefs, and it won't make any difference, because the beliefs are not the cause, just a symptom. I think the underlying attitudes can be cured, but the methods to do so aren't going to be rational, but rather social — e.g. opportunities to form friendships with members of other races. 10:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I don't think the attitudes themselves can be rational or irrational, since I think only beliefs can be rational or irrational". Why?  10:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two types of rationality — epistemic rationality, which governs whether beliefs are rational; instrumental or pragmatic rationality, which is concerned whether a course of action is rational given a certain objective. Clearly, if racism is an attitude rather than a belief, it can't be epistemically rational or irrational, since only beliefs can be epistemically rational or irrational.
 * Could racism be instrumentally irrational? Possibly; but instrumental to what? Instrumental rationality is relative to one's objectives; since people can adopt whatever objectives they want, racism may be rational, irrational or arational given those objectives. By picking the right objectives for one's self, one can arrive at whatever answer one wishes. 10:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Clearly, if racism is an attitude rather than a belief, it can't be epistemically rational or irrational, since only beliefs can be epistemically rational or irrational." So you're still just reiterating the same bald assertions.  As if there's even a solid distinction between attitudes & beliefs anyway.  Take an attitude like "I don't like darkies" and a belief like "blacks are inferior to whites".  Can we really say that it's only fair to assess the rationality of the second statement while the first is neither rational nor irrational?  I don't think so.  The attitude - a vague racist sentiment - is pretty much irrational by definition: a gut feeling which hasn't been rationalised.  The belief in racial superiority is really just a rationalisation of this attitude, usually backed up with some flawed show of evidence.  It comprises a more rational statement in the sense that it's a hypothesis not just an impulse, but whether it's truly rational is down to whether it's a sound conclusion drawn from reliable evidence (which it isn't) or just a way of justifying that irrational racist attitude.  10:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it comes down to how we define rationality. I have attempted to offer a definition of rationality (well, not a complete one, but I've identified parts of one). You don't have to agree with mine; but can you produce an alternative?
 * In terms of likes/dislikes, compare the following statements: "I hate broccoli" and "Broccoli causes cancer"; "I hate Fred" and "Fred is a child molester". In both these cases, the first statement is just a raw expression of emotion/feeling, it can't really be true or false, rational or irrational. (Well, I could lie and say "I hate broccoli" when I really love it.) The second statement certainly can be true/false/rational/irrational. Doesn't the same apply to "I don't like darkies" vs "blacks are inferior to whites"?
 * Yes, the belief could be a consequence or a cause of the attitude; but an attitude can exist independent of beliefs. I could hate Fred for no particular reason. Maybe Fred and I have known each other for many years, and the reasons why we hate each other are lost in the mysts of time, we just do... 11:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Attitudes don't come out of nowhere & people don't hates each other "for no particular reason". If Fred hates Norwegians, there must be reasons why, even if he isn't aware of them: maybe societal conditioning (e.g. attitudes/opinions of parents or peers) or culture clash, backed up by some false positives, confirmation bias, etc.  These reasons are all very subjective & that's what makes it an irrational attitude, in the same way that a phobia of insects is an irrational fear.  If you hate Fred, there must be reasons for it, even if you can't remember them or are not fully aware of them.  Whether it's a rational hatred kindof depends on what those reasons are.  11:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's say Fred went to visit Norway and had a really bad experience there, and as a result he hates all Norwegians. Need he have any irrational beliefs as a result? Can't his Norway-hating just be purely "visceral", i.e. existing at the level of emotions, but not at the level of beliefs? 11:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it can, but it's unclear why you don't find that irrational. He's forming an attitude about all Norwegians based arbitrarily on whatever bad experience he had.  How is that not irrational?  This brings us back to my original point: the difference between "I hate all Norwegians" (an attitude) and "the Norwegians are a bunch of bastards" (a belief) is negligible.   11:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to leave the belief-attitude distinction to one side for the moment, and look at things in another way. Let me sketch my argument as follows: Now, I think the conclusion follows from the premises, so if you reject the conclusion, you'd have to reject one of my premises. But which premise do you reject, (1), (2) or (3)? Right now you seem to be focusing on rejection of (2), but maybe you should consider rejecting my premise (1) instead? I believe that there are only two types of rationality, epistemic and instrumental; but maybe I am wrong and there are other types too? My reason for believing in only two types of rationality, is that I feel I have a reasonably clear (if not perfect) idea about how epistemic and instrumental rationality work, but really have no idea how any other kind of rationality would work (or even what to call it). But, if you can describe another type of rationality, other than epistemic and instrumental, and give me some idea of its principles of operation, you might convince me to reject my premise (1). 12:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Rationality is either epistemic or instrumental
 * 2) Fred's Norwegian-hating could be epistemically arational (arational = neither rational nor irrational)
 * 3) Fred's Norwegian-hating could be instrumentally arational
 * 4) Therefore, Fred's Norwegian-hating could be arational
 * I reject #2, #3 & possibly #1, but I'm really not interested in what the dictionary of philosophy says.
 * 2 - that Norwegian-hating could be epistemically arational - seems to suggest that it could just be a hatred he has for no reason whatsoever, a possibility you implied further up in this debate. I don't accept that; an impulse like hatred has some origin & its basis could be rational or irrational.  In the example you've given, Fred went to visit Norway and had a really bad experience there, and as a result he hates all Norwegians.  That's not rational; he's making a judgement about all Norwegians, based on one incident, maybe on one or a few individuals.  It doesn't matter whether that hatred takes the form of an attitude ("I hate all Norwegians") or a belief ("the Norwegians are a bunch of bastards"); the outcome is equally irrational.
 * 3 - that Norwegian-hating could be instrumentally arational - suggests that the attitude could be held without influencing either his beliefs or his attitudes, both of which you agree can be rational/irrational. I don't accept this.  It is unlikely that his belief will be "there's nothing wrong with most Norwegians, yet I hate all Norwegians".  No, if he starts out hating Norwegians, he will probably rationalise this in some way & end up with an irrational belief ("the Norwegians are a bunch of bastards").  Even if he doesn't think about it that much, the fact that he hates Norwegians is certain to influence his future interactions with Norwegians & decisions about whether to visit Norway again etc.  13:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me give a different example (which is actually based on my personal experience, but the names have been changed). Sarah was abused as a child by a man named Fred. As a result, she viscerally dislikes all men named Fred, because their name reminds her of the abuse. Now, does she have any irrational beliefs? She doesn't believe anything like "all men called Fred are child abusers". This doesn't operate at the level of belief. It is purely visceral, pure attitude without belief. You may or may not call her emotions irrational, but her beliefs aren't, because she doesn't have any. A less emotive example - I like the colour green. That is an attitude of mine, but there is no belief that goes with it (except for the purely reflexive belief that the attitude exists). So, why can't Fred hate all Norwegians, without having any irrational beliefs about them? 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "she viscerally dislikes all men named Fred" - that would seem a pretty obvious case of instrumental irrationality, since it's going to adversely affect any interactions she has with any other Freds. I would also argue that it's epistemically irrational.  The conclusion (viscerally dislike all men named Fred) does not logically follow from the premise (abused as a child by a man named Fred).  It's logical/rational in terms of cause & effect (a traumatic childhood experience creates a long-term psychological effect) but not in terms of rational thinking, regardless of whether she attaches any belief to it or not.   13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Instrumental rationality isn't absolute, it is relative to one's objectives. You are quite right that her visceral dislike of all Fred's could be instrumentally irrational, but whether it actually is entirely depends on what objectives she choooses for herself. In terms of epistemic rationality, "viscerally dislike all men named Fred" is not a conclusion, and "abused as a child by a man named Fred" is not a premise. You seem to be confusing logical inference with causation. Her visceral dislike of all men named Fred is not a belief, it is not a proposition, it is not a claim about how the world is, it is simply an attitude towards the world. Arguments, inferences (A is true, therefore B must be true), can be epistemically rational or irrational; but cause-and-effect and logical inference are different things. 19:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe User:ListenerX is correct above. In many cases it seems as if "racism" is an attempt to extend what is observed statistically and generally to specific cases. It may well be the case that some ethnic groups have lower IQ scores but I believe that the phrase there is "Correlation Does Not Equal Causation". So at least basing your racist tendencies on this sort of reasoning is irrational, because it breaks basic logic and how you use evidence to come to a conclusion. In fact there are suggestions that the lower IQ score is because of racism. IE- racism and persecution against some groups have prevented them from achieving the same IQ scores as more dominant ethnic groups. In which case it is also irrational because it then becomes quite circular. Valjean (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that, if one is a racist primarily because one believes that some races have lower IQs, then one would be irrational. However, if one hates all members of race X for no discernable reason, I am not sure how that is irrational - arational, yes, but not irrational. 12:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If one has no justification for a belief then it must, by definition, be irrational. Rational belief systems must have a coherent train of evidence and though leading to them. I do not think this supposed "artaional" really exists. But this is a mere distraction as attempting to judge something as irrational or rational is just an attempt to slur it one way or another. As the original poster seems to suggest when pondering why this site claims to be rational. It would be more apt to consider, perhaps, whether it is "justifiable" to hold such a belief, rather than consider the rationality of it. Valjean (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But, if one hates all members of race X for no discernible reason, is that a belief? Or just a feeling, an emotion, an attitude? Is it justifiable to have a feeling, an emotion, an attitude? I think it is, but I think "justification" here operates in two very different senses. "Is it justifiable for you to believe that the CIA killed JFK?" and "Is it justifiable for you to hate your father?", the word justifiable here is rather equivocal. 13:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)I don't see why it's that complicated. It's just wrong to judge someone's ability by the colour of their skin because theyre completely unrelated. Right?? Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 12:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's wrong, but is it ethically wrong or rationally wrong or both? I would suggest it is near always ethically wrong, but not necessarily always rationally wrong. 13:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean that Black people, being closer to the beginning of human evolution are not intrinsically either more or less advanced than other races ? do they not have inate sports skills, a natural sense of rythym and mad tapdancing skills with a love of watermelons :) Hamster (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

intermission resulting from edit conflict
'Rational' means different things in different contexts and is not necessarily equivalent to ethical. In economics it gets used as being what is being of most benefit to the individual, in which case racism or any other form of bigotry that might bind a group together may be 'rational' for the economic well-being of the group, but not ethical if one believes in the principles of equality and fair play. There may even be evolutionary pressures which favour bigotry. Dawkins is a committed evolutionist but even he doesn't believe that human society should conduct itself on a pure 'survival of the fittest' doctrine. Paradoxically it is often those who oppose biological evolution endorse it in the setting of capitalism.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think racism is always immoral, even though I think it is not always irrational. "Rational" is a word that gets used in such a mess of different ways, the philosopher in me wants to impose some order on it... the result of doing so though, is I may end up rejecting a fair chunk of how the word is actually used in practice, as simply being beyond redemption. 12:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being accused of trolling racism does have rational roots. Consider when mankind lived in small tribal comunities; For millenia those from 'our' tribe were good, beneficial to my gene's survival. Those from other tribes were 'bad' a threat to my tribes resources and thence a threat to my gene's survival. The my tribe/not my tribe thing is easy when the 'others' have distinctive markings; different clothign or, specifically, different skin tones.
 * As we have moved from a purely tribal society we have kept the remants of these my tribe/not my tribe instincts an turned them into a fear of 'other races'.
 * Now, let me be quite clear. I am not saying that racism is right, or good, or in any way moral. Just that the racist instinct has rational roots. Hey, we Lancastrians can't stand Yorkshire men. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd add, there are certainly scenarios in today's world where racist beliefs are entirely rational. For example, suppose you are a small child, and your parents are Neo-Nazis. They raise you with their racist beliefs, and you believe them. Is it irrational for you to believe them? I don't think so - I think it is rational for small children to believe everything their parents tell them. Of course, as the child gets older, if the belief stays the same, there will come a point when it is no longer rational (when the child is old enough to think independently of its parents.) 13:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I think it is rational for small children to believe everything their parents tell them". Epistemically or instrumentally?   13:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In that sentence, I meant epistemically. Although, it would likely be instrumentally rational too. 13:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

God and racism
God (allegedly) created humans in (gender pronouns to taste) image.

Therefore racism is blasphemy.

Discuss. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting argument. I suppose I agree. 02:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But what if some humans are more imagey than others? :P 184.15.115.165 (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So, if race is a social costruct because all humans share 99.5% of DNA...
Then consider that chimpanzees are also the same because we share over 98% DNA with them. Cherry-picking sure is fun! In other animals, subspecies are determined on the smallest superficial features. Yet of course whites, blacks and the others are considered the same subspecies despite blatant differences seen by a naked eye. You claim to be not sheep, yet you just repeat what TV says. In the end it all boils down to emotional arguments because you don't want to believe that humans are not equal. --109.206.212.64 (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that this was a pretty good point. So I went to fix the article.  But I can't find what you're criticizing, even though I read it over three times.  Is this a reference to the quote from Not in Our Genes?  Because if so, I would suggest you're reading what you want to read, not what is actually there.-- 09:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm sorry. I'm really short-tempered. Yeah, that's what I was criticizing - I don't want to say that I'm fully right, but that it's not something that everyone has a full consensus on (I mean, the latest hot debate is whether CERN really broke the speed of light or not) . I didn't mean to insult anyone - I believe in all this race, subspecies etc. but I don't really hate anyone - I see the diversity of the human species as a wonderful thing.--109.206.212.64 (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well don't worry, you didn't insult anyone. You just seemed bizarre.
 * The problem here just seems to be one of information. To the best of my knowledge there is a very broad consensus that "black people" and "white people" are not any sort of coherent division biologically, be it subspecies or "race" (as understood in biology).  Rather, there is instead a recognition that the limited physical variability, such as differing tendency towards sickle-cell anemia or lactose intolerance, is a regional variability that occurs in different ethnicities - a very different sort of thing, very limited in scope, and very different from racism.  We're not saying everyone is the same, just that judging people based on their perceived group orientation with an eye to origin is a stupid way to do things that doesn't match up well either in reality or on a moral basis.-- 11:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfounded pessimism on early history and prehistory.
The claim that "Racism has existed in all areas and at all times where different races or cultures of humans have encountered each other. It is an unfortunate legacy of ancient days as hunter-gatherers that humans are inclined to judge groups by surface appearances. While this trait presumably was very useful in a day in which clan cohesion and recognition were of paramount importance, as society evolved into agrarian and then urban forms the habit has proven to be a problem." should be deleted. The primary effect of agriculture (or quasi-agriculture in the case of pre-Columbian America) was more work, not surplus or leisure. That increase in work necessiated large families to breed workforce, and that created the overpopulation that created rivalry that created xenophobia. Extant hunter-gatherers are not an accurate time capsule of early humans at all, since their culture has been shaped by conflict with other cultures in recent, overpopulated millennia. The vast geographical distribution of identical art from the paleolithic provides palpable archaeological evidence that xenophobia was nonexistent back then. Xenophobia is a construct made in recent, globally overpopulated millennia. It is true that there is more genetic variability within groups than fixed group genetic identifiers, but modern research on diversity reducing selection suggests that the degree of individual genetic diversity is a sign of group evolution, the more individual genetic diversity the more archaic retentions. However, it would be unfounded to think of it as justification for oppression, especially since early humans lived without rivalry or oppression and the geographical distribution of diversity agrees with the model that the first proto-human populations to successfully avoid competition under migration models have evolved the most diversity reducing selection on their way to their modern descendants. 79.138.199.224 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg
 * This is an interesting second perspective. Maybe you could add it into the article without deleting the present material - sort, "on the other hand, the argument can be made that racism is anything but the natural condition of man..." etc.-- 20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of the concept
I think it'd be a good idea to have a section listing some of the really, really stupid accusations of racism made over the years. For example, we had a discussion a while back about someone accusing Jesus and Mo of racism because it made fun of Mohammed (although that example was from halfway through an audio file, so it'd be awkward to cite). Then there's this guy in Yorkshire who's facing charges of "racially aggravated public order offences" for insulting soldiers. Anyone got any other examples at hand? Balaam (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Atheoi's edit removed.
The fact that one black person has risen to high office does not undo the relative powerlessness of racialized minorities. We do not live in a post-racial anything. Segregation of the sexes is by no means a necessary component of sexism. Moreover, all of these facile comparisons between sexism and racism are largely unproductive and irrelevant. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 18:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you say so. But that does not imply that black people cannot be racist, c.f. NOI, BHI, etc., that racism lies in the recognizing of race, desire for segregation, or criticism of culture, but racial collectivism as given by the dictionary definition, much like how sexism is sexual collectivism. Gotcha? Atheoi 18:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Explain the problem
with this edit. Mikemikev (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My vote is that the major issue is that it is poorly written. It took me a few reads to figure out what you were getting at - that athletes of certain races to do well in certain sports irrespective of which country they live in.  That point is fair enough, but you haven't made it very well here.  --DamoHi 07:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So how would you put it? It seemed clear enough to me. Mikemikev (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you be happy with "This is contradicted by the fact that athletes of certain races to do well in certain sports irrespective of which country they live in."? Actually I think I put it better. Mikemikev (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to others. What was the point of bringing up Cambodia?  That looks out of place.  --DamoHi 09:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an example of a poor country that doesn't produce top sprinters. Seriously, I feel a bit silly even discussing this. Does anyone really think West Africans do not have natural sprinting ability? Nevertheless, I will address the bizarre ad hoc environmental explanations if I must. Mikemikev (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it. DamoHi 09:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are also examples of poor W.African - and other predominantly black - countries which don't produce top sprinters (Liberia, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Haiti, etc.) 13:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Race is not in our genes"
The section is referenced to the book "Not in our genes" by Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Steven Rose.

"Dawkins wrote that the book practices reductionism by distorting arguments in terms of genetics to "an idiotic travesty (that the properties of a complex whole are simply the sum of those same properties in the parts)", and accused the authors of giving "ideology priority over truth".[3] He also accused the authors of having a "bizarre conspiracy theory of science", accusing them of lies and idiocy, and concluding that it is a "silly, pretentious, obscurantist and mendacious book"."

Are we using the best sources? Mikemikev (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Steven Pinker writes that the book's authors use words such as "determinism" and "reductionism" as "vague terms of abuse", and misrepresent the views of scientists such as Wilson and Dawkins, falsely ascribing ridiculous beliefs to them." Mikemikev (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Athletes
It's a mistake to say that current athletic prowess proves anything about race. For instance, thirty years ago the best long- and middle-distance runners were all British. Now we're bloody useless in hat area, and not just because we're slower than the Kenyans and Ethiopians - we're slower than we used to be. There are massive cultural factors at work in sporting prowess. Sophie Wilder  10:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's a very controversial statement to be making (and one very much associated with racism) on a very flimsy anecdotal basis.   10:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking while making a cup of tea just now, there are loads of black boxers but few wrestlers. Sophie  Wilder  11:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't associated with racism in the slightest to suggest that certain races have certain physical characteristics. In fact it would only be associated with pig-headedness to deny it.  DamoHi 11:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is the use of the word "races" - it's easy to say that those with these genetically predisposed attributes have these genetically predisposed attributes but that's just circular reasoning. The added danger is that, while there is an obvious and evident mapping between region of origin and genetic markers, that this becomes the be all and end all. Sprinters come from Jamaica (at the moment) because track and field is their national sport, no because they're darkies. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Race is defined as an ancestral group so that's just a semantic quibble. It may be your opinion that West Africans make better sprinters because of their culture, although I think many would question that. Either way, the argument that living in a poor country explains proclivity to sprinting success is demonstrably false. Mikemikev (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now the article states as fact that the differences are purely cultural. I think this response I gave to an admin who vandal binned me recently for supposed procedural reasons while calling my edits "disgusting" (and who has a history of reverting "racist" scientific facts) is relevant.
 * "There is nothing disgusting about my edits, other than in your PC warped mind. What's disgusting is the transparent nonsense you support because it's "not racist", whether or not it's obviously false or speculative. Sure, West Africans do not dominate sprinting because of their demonstrable physiological differences. East Africans do not have a build suited to distance running. It's all "culture". Where is your evidence for that? Oh, you don't have any, but it's "not racist" so it must be true. Some scientist you are. I am trying to present both possibilities, you are just making shit up. The funny thing is that your website loses credibility by including this rubbish."
 * I think "anti-racism" may qualify as a new religion. They call it "liberal creationism" sometimes I think. The things these people believe (or pretend to) are far stranger than any traditional religion. Mikemikev (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. See you in half an hour. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, and I don't have any evidence other than a documentary about the hurdler Colin Jackson, but there is a genetic "abnormality" for a group of individuals from part of West Africa which confers an advantage for sprinting. Many slaves transported to the West Indies and southern US had this genetic trait. This is why so many of the good sprinters are from Jamaica and the US. This genetic trait is not shared bya lot other Africans so when you talk about race you need to be very careful how you use the word. However, the US and Jamaica do focus heavily on training in sprinting so separating the genetic from the cultural influences is difficult.  The main problem is that Mikemikev seems to be focussing so much on these "racial" differences without really specifying what he means by race. Too often it appears that the lowest common denominator being plugged for these differences is skin color and that is patently false.    Генгис silverbrain.png 15:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Whatever you say, Mr. Entine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly true that there are heritable physical traits. The problem, as Genghis notes, is that "race" is not a good label for these traits, because it's a culturally-constructed bundle of immediately perceptible differences rather than a meaningful descriptor.  Some peoples that originate from some parts of Africa also are more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia (presumably as a response to malaria), but "black people" are not, except in the crudest and least useful way of saying it.  And while such poor communication isn't ordinarily a problem, there is a long history and almost ubiquitous practice of nasty results from such sloppy speaking.  So, Mikemikev, let's work on clarity.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 15:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I am not talking about f*cking skin color. Race is defined by ancestry, in fact it essentially synonymous. Individuals can share ancestry and race group and have totally different skin color, such as Caucasoid Dravidians and Europeans. And top level races split into sub-races, such as in the same example. Mikemikev (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You should not be shocked that people understand your meaning to be the most-common one, rather than the special one in your head. This is why clear expression is important, and why avoiding loaded and silly terminology is a good idea.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 16:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now the use of the term European in this discussion makes me feel uncomfortable because if we were really talking about race as some narrow definition of ancestry then Scandinavia would not be lumped together with Mediterranean countries.  Генгис silverbrain.png 16:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I would dispute that Nords don't cluster with Meds vis a vis Turks, but if so you could think of European as one end of a continuum. Either way, this is something of a tangent. Do you agree we can meaningfully speak of West African ancestry (as I did in my original edit)? As an aside I think race was always defined by ancestry. The idea that anyone thinks it's "skin color" seems like a ridiculous strawman deployed by Leftists to throw a spanner in the works of honest discussion of human variation. Mikemikev (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should be mature enough to say that some people from some heritages have a slight genetic advantage when it comes to certain physical attributes. Getting away from sprinters for a moment, it is an undeniable fact that kids of polynesian extraction tend to develop a year or two quicker than their white counterparts.  It is a massive problem for age group rugby because the average Samoan 15 year old is 10kgs heavier than the average Pakeha 15 year old.  You cannot put that down to cultural factors no matter how much one would wish to.  Pakeha boys tend to catch up in the late teens/early 20's, but the affect is real.  I understand that people feel uncomfortable talking about this sort of stuff, but we really shouldn't.  --DamoHi 21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if you're right on this, and without a bunch of studies that take into account things like environmental factors, diet, levels of physical activity and a host of other things, I won't think you are, is this something really worth talking about? Some groups of people are a little heavier at a certain points in their life than other groups of people? People of African descent are more likely to get sickle-cell anemia. Jews are more likely to be lactose intolerant. Those are important things for epidemiologists, public health experts and nutritionists when they're doing their work. They have nothing to do with racism. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, as long as blacks in america (to give one handy example) have to contend with higher incarceration rates and lower incomes, your desire to talk about ideas that inform those sorts of outcomes as though they don't is worrisome. I fucking well should feel uncomfortable talking about racial difference as something with a scientific basis when I enjoy all of the benefits of being on the lucky side of the melanin sweepstakes. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Damo: Even if that were true, it doesn't have anything to do with the edit in question, which just repeats the claims made in Jon Entine's Taboo. Hence, my comment above. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nebu We are talking about this edit right?  --DamoHi 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC)I agree, nothing much to do with racism, though they are to do with what is rather crudely called 'race'. Here is an article I found that calls bullshit on the "cultural" theory of athletic traits.   I don't know what the motivation for MikeMikeV for putting this into the article, but in my opinion, it should be there because this "cultural effect" is being overplayed to the point of it being a form of liberal woo.  --DamoHi 22:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And... you post a link to a Jon Entine article after I provided one above refuting his claims. Thanks for reading my comments carefully. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you actually even read the article that you cited? The author of the article you cited indicates that it is likely true that they have genetic advantages which aid them in sport, but that it is inappropriate to draw attention to it.  He seems to think that the stereotype (which he does not deny) is damaging and so should be rejected.  Shabby, shabby stuff.  IMO Entine does not have "a special moral obligation to show how his conclusions do not contribute more to maintaining barriers of the past than to constructing a more open and just future" just because the author of that article feels that it is counter-productive.  DamoHi 22:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, he does not deny the stereotype but the genetic explanation for it. Specifically: "Entine points out that “All of the thirty-two finalists in the last four Olympic men’s 100 meter races are of West African descent”. But he offers no explanation as to why, if genes rather than training are the crucial variable, no West African’s were among the finalists." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that relatively obvious. Countries with more money/better programmes do better.  But that is not the point.  The point is that in those countries with more money the athletes that do the best are all of West African descent (or almost all with a few exceptions).  Athletes in the same programmes that are not of West African descent do badly by comparison.  Besides, there have been plenty of theories and studies about why this is so.  Better fast twitch muscles, higher centres of gravity, the prevalent of the ACTN3 gene amongst others no doubt.  I'm no evolutionary biologist so I won't pretend to understand that phenomena but I do think you are being more than a little naieve if you think that it all comes down to cultural factors.
 * The real heart of the issue, it seems to me is something PowderSmoke said above, which was seemingly the whole point of that dubious article you cited: "I fucking well should feel uncomfortable talking about racial difference as something with a scientific basis when I enjoy all of the benefits of being on the lucky side of the melanin sweepstakes." In my opinion, that is the issue at play here - people subconsciously don't want to admit that people who happen to have black skin might be good at a particular sport because they think it implies they are less worthy in other areas.  Like I said above, I think it is a rather "liberal" form of woo.  --DamoHi 03:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the article. The key word here is "descent." People of West African descent dominate sprinting, but not West Africans themselves. What happened to all those "sprinting genes" then? I'm not denying that genetics plays no role in athletics -- I'm not holding my breath on the NBA being overrun with Chinese superstars anytime soon. But speaking of basketball, it was once dominated by Jews in the 1930s, but obviously no one talks about Jews' innate superiority at basketball anymore. Perhaps the same thing will apply in this case, as it has in many others. As far as P-Foster's comment goes, we are sliding between "race" and "geographic ancestry" again, but that is beside my point. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You may not be denying that genetics plays no role in athletics, but the article as it stands is. And that is the point.  --DamoHi 06:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Back on the article
I wonder if we have gotten so far off track that we have forgotten what the section is about. The part of the article that I think is nonsense is this paragraph here:


 * Any perceived differences between races of people can be explained away by looking at culture and history. For example, nations such as Jamaica, with large black populations, have been successful at running sports. A racist would chalk this up to black skinned people being naturally good runners, when in fact the success is an outcome of the fact that poorer nations such as Jamaica have comparatively little money for elaborate training centers, which means their aspiring athletes are more likely to pursue sports such as running, which can be done with little equipment, then they are, say, golf, which requires acres of professionally-tended land. Moreover, success begets popularity. A Jamaican kid watching Usain Bolt set world records is likely to want to be the next Usain Bolt.

Now that paragraph is nonsense almost from start to finish.
 * "Any perceived differences can be explained by culture" Rubbish. Some can but some cannot - sports prowess being a classic example
 * "A racist would chalk this up to black skinned people..." Or someone who watches sprints and notices that people from a certain heritage do better than others, particularly against others with the same access to training. That isn't racism

and you could go on and on. We are bending so far over backwards to not appear racist due to the sentiments I quoted from PS above, that we have lost track of reality. You guys do what you want, but that paragraph is not good. --DamoHi 06:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be curious to know what differences between races - speaking of race specifically! - cannot be explained by culture. If black people are natural runners because of their race, then why have Kenya and Ethiopia dominated recent marathons, while other countries chock-full of people with black skin continue to do poorly?
 * Or perhaps you are again confusing the cultural concept of "race" with something meaningful, like specific genetic traits strongly associated with geography (i.e. the Sherpa peoples of the Himalyas and endurance of high altitudes, or East Africans with long-running)?
 * "Or someone who watches sprints and notices that people from a certain heritage do better than others, particularly against others with the same access to training. That isn't racism"
 * Actually, if you look at groups of people, segregate them by their most visible physical characteristic, and then assign traits to people according to that characteristic and your immediate perceptions, then... well, that's actually the very definition of racism. It is exactly the same as "observing" that several Asian women were driving too slowly on the road and deciding that their "heritage" makes them bad drivers, ergo "Asians are bad drivers."  "Black people are natural runners" is racist.  Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so AD. For a start, we are all aware that we are referring to a particular group of people (in this case people of Western African descent) and saying that for whatever reason they tend to produce better runners than others, whether it be the fast twitch muscles or whatever.  Now if you want to be like  the article and say that this is imaginary and that there are no genetic differences at all, I say that is a little silly.  On the other hand if one were to say that "look at the black man, he must be a fast runner" then that would be racist, obviously.  But nobody in this discussion is doing that.  That is obvious.  If you want to have a discussion about the evolutionary qualities of Kenyan runners, then fair enough, but we would then be talking about a different group of people.  What is wrong, and what the article should not say is that it all comes down to cultural factors like availability of sports grounds or heroes or whatever, with no genetic component at all which I think is poppy cock, and I understand is accepted to be poppy cock by sports scientists.  DamoHi 10:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have elegantly demonstrated the problem with discussing "race" in such terms - you think it's obvious that it isn't as crude as saying that "black people are better runners," but it's not. That's because "race" is a hugely inexact, heavily loaded, and absurdly useless term to use.  You are perhaps making an argument for increased clarity in this section of the article, but neither nor anyone else nor the article are saying that there is no such thing as hereditary physical traits.  That's because "race" doesn't mean that to most people: it means black people, white people, Asian people, and so on.  Or maybe Mexicans, white people, Chinese people, and so on.
 * To put it another way: you insist that "race" is as granular as you mean. But it's not, not to almost everyone.  As I said before to someone else: we have no access to your special meaning of the word, only to the way it's been used historically and currently by most folks.  If you want to indicate a different meaning, then you're not talking about race.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 16:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Damo, instead of focusing on using race as a way to explain why certain people do well do well at running, how about you focus on using race as a way to explain why certain people do well at winning chess championships or getting doctorates in math. Then we can see exactly what kind of argument you're trying to make. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 12:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Damo is making a case for race explaining how some people do well at running but rather how a certain genetic factor helps some people. The problem is that because a lot of people with this "fast-twitch muscle gene" trait also have another trait, i.e. greater eumelanin, many people immediately assume that the two are linked and make it Racial. Bringing in chess or maths is a Schlaflyesque red herring because I don't believe Damo is making any claims for race in those fields. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 13:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In a broader sense, the argument is that "race" is not a social construct but a biological fact that plays a role in shaping individual abilities. And that's an argument that shares a history with similar arguments.If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that for all the claims that the article doesn't say that genetic traits make no difference, that is exactly what it does say. As for winning tournaments in chess or mathemetics or whatever, that is pretty shabby stuff.  It is possible that a group of people that evolved in a particular environment might tend to be better at logic or spatial reasoning etc, but I am not aware of anyone who claims that this is true.  --DamoHi 21:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see a lot of "for whatever reason" "be that fast twitch muscles or whatever" and "I understand" that's what "sports scientists" say. If someone wants to make an argument about a scientific basis for understanding a certain group of people's skill set, I'd like to see some references to actual science that says that. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are Jamaicans so good at sprinting?
 * The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes (1)
 * The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes (2)
 * <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 14:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Slate article mentions genetics, and also talks about training and "cultural factors." The piece in the running blog (which I did not read closely) makes a lot of claims that aren't referenced, and spends a lot of its time cataloguing achievements and then using those numbers as a way to suggest that there "must" be something to this. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The least you could do is follow the references from the Slate article. Science and American Journal of Human Genetics, although the Science article is behind an academic paywall. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 15:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did. Even the one behind the paywall. But like I said, the Slate article is very careful to hedge its bets and frame the discussion as one that has to address factors beyond "race." Edit: but at the end of the day -- so what? Some groups may have a genetic predisposition to having certain types of muscular structures. Just like certain groups have a predisposition to have light-coloured skin or Tay-Sachs. What this has to do with an article on creating groups according to the construct of "race" and treating them differently as members of said "race" is beyond me. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 15:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose we just delete the offending section altogether. The existence of race is better dealt with in the race article itself. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is also what I've been thinking; we've veered off the subject of racism per se. Potentially, the real or perceived connection between race (or ethnicity, genetic heritage, however we define it) and sporting prowess is a suitable subject for an article in its own right.  But if we go down that road we should be citing quality research in this area, not just asserting that the connection is self-evident and undeniable, as the edits to this page by Mikmikev & Damo seemed to be suggesting.  18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes three of us. Lemme get my saw. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 19:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The first major paragraph in that section was OK. It was just the overstatement in the second paragraph that needed removing, or toning down.  DamoHi 22:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Race and genes
What is the truth about this? It seems to me that "race" is arbitary and based on appearance, but genes determine our appearance. I look like some of my cousins - genes obviously, but I've got so called mixed race cousins whose African heritage is obvious - genes again. So even if race is largely artificial, genes do come into it somewhere. A bushman, an Inuit, a native Swede, a Tamil and a native Australian and a Sicilian (from old roots) all look different, and it's down to genes.-Albannach (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody denies that there are phenological characteristics shared by different population groups that are passed on genetically. Race is the politicization of phenological characteristics. We attach significance to the fact that my skin is a different colour than that guy's skin, and we are very likely, both historically speaking and in the contemporary world, to live very different lives because of the significance attached to skin colour. We do not attach much significance to eye colour, and there is little chance that my blue eyes and your brown eyes, all other things being equal, will play much of a role in shaping our specific outcomes. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 17:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean phenotypic and not phenologic. Of course race is defined by ancestry and is a biological phenomenon, as it is in other species. Whether or not that is politicised in humans is a separate matter. In fact it often is politicised: many countries have jus sanguinis naturalisation laws. Mikemikev (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Race" is an indeterminate and variable grouping of a few immediately obvious physical characteristics. It is not very useful except in the crudest way - "Asian" as a race seems to embrace Nepalese, Uighur, Han Chinese, Korean, and Ainu Japanese.  That's because "Asian" means little or no epicanthal fold over the eyes, a broader face, black hair, and skin that is slightly darker than what would be typical for someone from northern Europe.  Yet those traits are not particularly meaningful, and don't correlate very well with anything meaningful.  In addition, they have the nastiest of histories and worst connotations.  If you want to chop vegetables, you don't use the huge, unwieldy, and bloody axe - you use a chef's knife: it's more useful and less ugly.  You only use the axe if you want to bludgeon your vegetables into a muck out of a contrarian insistence that axes do cut things.  Which is true, but we actually want useful statements - we want to eat.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 10:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to reply late, just off a block. Actually the East Asian ancestral group does not include Uyghurs or Nepalese, who are mixed, or the Japanese Ainu, whose ancestry is uncertain and possibly Caucasoid. Race is not defined by superficial characteristics but by ancestry. This is why Negritos, who look Negroid, are classified with East Asians. And yes, it correlates with a lot of things, at multiple levels. You use an axe when you don't have a knife. Similarly, we would love to know the specific genes which cause West African sprinting ability. We don't. So we can only say that West Africans are predisposed to sprinting, and genetic causality is possible. These are facts. Mikemikev (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that you are using your own specialized terminologies, and so when I say "Asian" you hear "East Asian." But surely that indicates the problem!  While to you, "race is not defined by superficial characteristics," that is not true for almost everyone else!
 * To me, it's as though someone is saying, "I didn't dream last night," and you are snapping off in reply, "Actually, you did dream. You just don't remember it."  But in neither case are you correcting someone, you're just willfully avoiding communication.  You actually know that the person means that they don't remember their dream and that the technical reality of REM-cycles is not to what they were referring, just as you know that saying "race" does not refer to delicately granulated ethnic groups to most people, but rather "black," "white," "Asian," etc.
 * So yes, you have listed some facts. My question is why you insist on willfully stating them in the least useful, most confusing, and nastiest way?--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 11:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually race was always defined by ancestry.
 * "For example, in 1822 Virginia, a person was considered legally white with up to one-fourth African ancestry (equivalent to one grandparent). Under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Virginia defined as black a person with any known African ancestry, no matter how many generations in the past."
 * You are attacking a strawman version of the race concept.
 * When you say "Asian" I hear "Asian", and I have no idea what you are talking about.
 * Rushton and Jensen also define race by ancestry:
 * "In Section 8, we discussed the DNA methods that can ascertain degree of White ancestry in Black populations. Many other DNA markers identify Black–White differences regardless of how divergent the African ancestry."
 * The great thing about terminology is that you get to define what you mean by it. 61.41.36.44 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So to argue that race isn't grossly simplified to large categories of physical appearance, you cite several incidents wherein enormous and complex populations are called "black" and "white."
 * Yeah. You sure got me.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 15:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to reply so late. Just off a multi day block for "lameness". I am glad that the dubious section was removed and that editors have tacitly admitted I was correct all along.
 * AD you are changing the subject. Yes, race is defined by ancestry. Whether that classification is informative is a separate question. And to put it simply: yes it is. It doesn't presume to capture all of the variation, neither does sex. It roughly describes some dimension of variation (ancestral/geographic). If you are going to describe geographically associated variation you have to draw some lines. Why object to an "East Asian" category but not a "Japanese" category? There is plenty of in group variation in the Japanese also, and overlap with other groups. Is the statement Negroes are 80 times more likely to develop sickle cell uninformative? If you were an MD could you distinguish African ethnic groups? Would you find it easier to distinguish Burmese, Thai and Chinese or to see that they are all East Asian? How would you describe geographic variation? What categories would you use? Is it so complex as to be impossible? Does that objection carry over to analogous cases such as the Larus gull or Xanthoptica? Or do you make a special exception for humans based on fear of being called "racist"? Mikemikev (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"When you say "Asian" I hear "Asian", and I have no idea what you are talking about." - When I hear "Asian", I think of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. It's not a good descriptor for that very reason. African isn't a good descriptor for blacks either, for a similar reason - Libyans and modern Egyptians are African...-Albannach (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent Reverts
Explain what is wrong with my additions.

A) Where was it scientifically demonstrated that racial performance differences are entirely due to discrimination?

B) Why must we only list white racism and race concepts, and censor Chinese racism and race concepts, which are extensively documented and arose independently during European exploration?

Thanks. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My two year old daughter has this thing. Before we start bedtime, she tries to negotiate. My wife says "it's time to brush teeth," and instead of trying to fight that, she says "No bath!" Sometimes, it's not a bath night, so we trade "No bath" for brushing teeth. Other time we say "would you like to start with a bath, or start with brushing teeth."


 * She dosen't really have the ability to keep the "No bath!" demand in her head, but she knows that it's tooth brushing time, so she says "Bath!" because then she's won the negotiation.


 * So, to you, MikemikeV, let me say "would you like to start with a bath, or start with brushing teeth?" Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comments about Chinese racism weren't "censored", they were removed because we don't allow chunks of text that are just copypasted from Wikipedia. Balaam (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Balaam: OK I will rewrite it. The reference to Dikotter was my own.
 * Hipocrite: I guess you are making vague threats (I guess, I am really not sure what you are babbling about). I guess this is because you don't have the brainpower to bring anything to a debate other than screaming "racism". 175.193.212.64 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you are incapable of debate and have to resort to censorship.
 * Thanks for removing any doubt that you are nothing more than a liar. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you going to cry about it? That would be awesome. Could you send a video of you crying about it? Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm really not. Isn't this embarrassing for you? 175.193.212.64 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's anything to cry about, it's that you administer an encyclopedia with articles like this, while I administer one with articles like this. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt, that second article makes me want to cry. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Almost a year later
You do realize that the ever so "brilliant" approach of blame whitey, and only whitey, to supposedly end racism or at least subdue it is only going to cause more hatred and resentment, right? You're so fucking smart, you must realize that, right Einstein? So you must be trying to deliberately incite racial hatred. There's no other excuse for the bias and tone of this article. It oozes with the emotion of a college softmore home on Winter break telling his much more wise parents "how it really is." I mean, it's either that...or you're too fucking stupid to see what you're doing. And if that's the case, you should probably get off of that high horse. Just because the propaganda ministry is behind you doesn't make you right.

This entire wiki is filled with opinions presented as "fact." And with the tact of a sarcastic 15 year old. I'd be ashamed to look back on this article if I were you. And to top it all off, you're no better than the "racists" you despise. 67.1.187.193 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is this site called Rationalwiki?
When you actively deny race ?

The pathetic editors here can't even admit that Black Africans are better athletes than whites genetically, it's a complete objective reality that Sub Saharan blacks have more fast twitch muscle than their Caucasian and Asian counterparts, which explains the vast gap in athletic capability between the races.

God you people are so pathetic it's unreal. 05:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They are stupid and/or liars. That is all. They think screaming "racist" is some kind of logical argument. 121.67.247.18 (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because "SkepticWiki" was already taken at the time.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's have fun, shall we. If it's so obvious, what scientifically measurable data separates an African(race, not birthplace) from a Caucasian, in a way that there is no overlap in the two groups, and every single person can be A. African, B. Caucasian, or C. other?  Please remember that this requires data.  Thanks!  159.45.129.9 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A large number of polymorphism measures from the genome.


 * "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations

D. J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, [...], and L. B. Jorde...

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 [congruent with] 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 [congruent with] 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations."


 * Having fun yet? 27.1.214.45 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice cherry picking. You forgot this bit...

<blockquote style="margin-left:6em;">"A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
 * I.e., They ain't talking about race. Fun? Yes, watching you flounce around spewing nonsense is a fucking gas. Have a real fine day now. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If 'geographic ancestry' means a narrower classification than the wider racial classification then obviously it will have more predictive power. This contradicts nothing. They are talking about race, they are talking about any population taxonomy. The three major race groups are still separable and do not overlap by definition. Try looking at a PCA chart. 211.168.4.65 (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Racism among Bedouin
First of all, what I'm about to talk about has nothing do with the white nationalist rant that is constantly removed and than reinstated into this article (see article history for examples). However, seeing this nutter talking about Bedouin reminded me that there is an actual problem of racism among them, or at least among Israeli Bedouin. Several of the Israeli Bedouin are descendents of sub-Saharan Africans who were held as slaves by Bedouin at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. The descendents of those slaves were eventually assimilated into the Arab Bedouin culture and were all freed when the State of Israel was formed, but they still face racism from lighter skinned Bedouin. I want to add info about this into the article, but I can only find internet sources on this subject in Hebrew. Is it OK to use Hebrew language sources or does RW has a preference for sources in the English language? - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are examples of racism in every culture & we don't need to try to list them all. If there aren't English language sources available on this example, it's probably not the best example to add to the article.  19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, while I don't doubt that what's described is a kind of prejudice, from what keeps getting posted I have a hard time calling it racism. Racism is prejudice + power, in a systematic way. Do the Bedouin control the system of power there? Or are both groups transitory/part of a subgroup in a larger (Israeli?) society? This is why reverse-racism doesn't exist, and why two suppressed groups can be racist to each other only if they borrow the discourse of the dominant group who set the 'social rules' in the first place (this is why a lot of activists push for solidarity between different groups of people of color in the USA, because if they use racism to tear each other down they're really just borrowing the language and ideas from the culture that hurts them both, etc.) <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 19:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice that both Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins agree that there were genetic explanations for the high IQ of some racial group or subsets versus others. Pinker it seems is praised by the rationalwiki folks, but he's influenced by Thomas Sowell. So doesn't that make him part of the dreaded right wing conspiracy?
 * "There are examples of racism in every culture & we don't need to try to list them all."
 * Please only list examples of White racism, since this is currently fashionable in the Jew owned anti-White media. 210.96.84.241 (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The many factors of history
I think the history section does a good job of illustrating how diverse the number of factors are that could have contributed to things such as the rise of the British Empire, that have appeared in racist thought.

HOWEVER, the whole section, and particularly the part concerning theories championed by this Jared Diamond, haven't considered economic, political and state infrastructure as well as the unique make-up of inter-European competition that contributed greatly to things such as the rise of colonialism.

There is no mention at all of extremely important factors like the emergence of the Renaissance and industrialization that all contributed to "European superiority". There's some good stuff, but the section is sorely, sorely lacking, still. IMO it greatly emphasizes this 'alternate theory based on geography' and almost ignores some of the more tangible historic factors. I suggest at least a little bit of a shift in emphasis here, preferably written by someone with more historic expertise than me. Any studied historians around here? Nullahnung (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Diamond addresses political and cultural factors at length in his work, but it is the part of his work that has come under the most fire. He attributes the Chinese failure to capitalize and conquer based on their early technology on the massive monolithic empires that sprang up in the area, among other causes, and other historians/anthropologists have challenged both that characterization and any distinctions from Europe.  I didn't put in the article, accordingly, because it doesn't represent a good consensus.  I lack the background to add more independently, but we would certainly welcome further contributions.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 15:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)