Talk:Racism/Archive2

Introduction + Racism in the US segment
I was wondering whether it would be ok if I rewrote the introduction since it seems to describe institutional racism rather than racism on it's own (though a segment on Institutional racism should certainly be kept on the page), and the segment on racism in the US since whats there at the moment seems a little....crap to be honest (as does the Apartheid one). It wont be a gigantic textwall or anything, just a (hopefully) well sauced couple of paragraphs. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Colorblindism
I skimmed the article, so forgive me if this is already covered and I've missed it, but do you guys think that this article should include responses to racism that rely on "colorblindism"?

You know, when people use the fact that race is arbitrary to justify allowing or supporting racist policies? I've noticed that in a lot of discussions I've seen, if one points out the absence of a particular race in a certain area, be it positions of power or wealth or in media representation, the other person will pat themselves on the back for "not seeing race," and then will accuse the first person of racism for caring enough about race to want to see racial imbalances corrected. "What does it matter if the majority of film characters/CEOs/politicians are white, if race doesn't matter? If you think there should be more representational distribution of races in these roles, then you think race matters, which makes you a racist!"

The argument is stupid, because it implies that one cannot recognize race as a non-inherent descriptor and an invalid basis upon which people should be treated, whilst realizing that the reification of it has led to people who have been designated as different "races" recieving differential outcomes, and that this situation is unjust and should be corrected. Here's just one example of this sort of mental gymnastics from recent memory:


 * "If you care that certain races are not as present in comics, you are being racist. The "race"(which doesn't actually exist and is more of a loose guideline that people use) of a character shouldn't matter to you unless you are a racist. So the only way you can take umbrage with 97% of characters being white is if you are a racist.
 * [...]
 * By the mere act of acknowledging race as a valid concept, you are invalidating your own claim that "race doesn't matter". That you count the number of "white" superheroes and specifically pay attention to their representation means that race matters to you. You are being a blatant hypocrite"
 * Source: http://4archive.org/co/thread/68545154#p68548037
 * By the mere act of acknowledging race as a valid concept, you are invalidating your own claim that "race doesn't matter". That you count the number of "white" superheroes and specifically pay attention to their representation means that race matters to you. You are being a blatant hypocrite"
 * Source: http://4archive.org/co/thread/68545154#p68548037

Here is a decent article on the whole "I don't see race" argument: http://charterforcompassion.org/node/6104

I'm not sure if this should be part of the racism article, or get it's own article. It also has relevance to affirmative action. 184.64.232.193 (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like an article on the subject, with more examples and a look at its reasoning. Colorblindism isn't quite racism -- it's anti-anti-racism. 17:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that such an article would be both interesting and pertinent to RW. While colorblindism may not necessarily be racism, it can be used to provide existing racist injustices a more palatable cover. To take a hypothetical example, imagine someone using the colorblind argument as a justification for leaving Apartheid or Jim Crow in place. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Under South Africa
Could we point out that the "brown-skinned people" were both black and Indian? I'd do it myself, but the page is understandably semiprotected. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Racism must be societal?
"Racism is a system of societal organization in which one or more races is held to be superior to others, thereby enjoying greater privilege in society. Racism occurs when negative discrimination based upon race occurs at a pervasive level in a particular culture."

So if one guy abuses someone of a different race one time, that's not racism? Is this defintion contrived so only Whites can be racist? 210.96.84.241 (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In countries where your assumption is true, that is the failing of the non-individual definition. Dave Bernard (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So in other words this article is bollocks? Suprising for rationalwiki. 210.96.84.241 (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Major historical examples
You have some good examples here. Nice touch including the Japanese, they fought on the side of the Nazis. But what about all of the microaggressions from White people? How do you think Jews, Turks and Armenians think when White people look at them in a strange way? As a mixed Turk/Armenian of the Talmudic Jewish faith, I can tell you microaggressions from Whites are a major problem. And we need to use the word genocide more referring to Whites, like the Native Americans and the Holocaust. Thanks. Social Justice Internet Scientist (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mikemikev take your meds. Krom (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Race equals Culture?
Do people actually think that being disrespectful to a culture is racist, or are they simply misunderstanding the word? Is that an actual definition people argue for, and should it be in the list of possible definitions? I'm sure there are plenty of equally fallacious uses of the term "racism" that aren't covered.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Defining away Racism
This article begins with a non-standard definition of racism. "Racism is a system of societal organization in which one or more races is held to be superior to others, thereby enjoying greater privilege in society...[1]" The definition, incorporates the phrase "system of societal organization," a phrase that is not included in the citation given. I recommend using a citation that supports the author's definition.

American and British Law define racism in terms of individuals, so that any legal action or legislative act attempting to moderate racism in society would be dependent upon that assumption. It is not helpful to insist that there is a "societal organization" where there are no underlying legislative acts or policies, or even non-governmental organizations fostering said alleged "societal organization." For example, Black's Law Dictionary definition of Racism, "A set of policies that is exhibited by a person or persons toward a group of people of a different race. Often antagonistic and confronting. The assumption of lower intelligence and importance given to a person because of their racial characteristics." Remedies in law can only address the acts of individuals and organizations. Thus the indeterminate term "societal organization" has no corresponding reality in law. One might assume that the shadow societal organization is a manifestation of PTSD afflicting social justice activists.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It seems to be a far-left reinterpretation of racism. Obviously racism can result in a system in where one group enjoys greater benefits on racial grounds but it seems to be confusing the ideology that causes said system with the system itself. ClothCoat (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The first definition misrepresents the given sources. The "meaning" section has no source.
 * I think the main controversy today is whether ethnic/ethnoreligious nationalism constitutes racism. The nationalists prefer the narrowest possible definition.

Keith McClary (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Racialism and Critical Race Theory
A relatively new phenomenon is a form of cultural racialism, which is a mirror version of biological racialism. To give a quick idea, you need to look at the history of racism. First there are those racists, then the civil rights movement came along with notably Martin Luther King Jr. expressing "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Legislation then followed in the 1960s. The work left to do was social change. , of Harvard Law, in particular however favoured a revisionist view of this, and this led to Critical Race Theory. The name alone would suggest that it should be somewhere in this article. As far as my armchair research goes, Critical Race Theory (CRT) grew to a big movement in academia (the proponents say so themselves), and I believe it heavily influenced what is now commonly called "social justice warriors" (this article is mostly nonsense). Here's one description from Slate on CRT (I wish I found earlier). With this comes a cultural conception of race, that is also against what they deem. It's a very US thing for now, but it says that since society is based on racist assumptions that are everywhere and also unseen, racial identities should be acknowleged (and embraced for non-whites). This of course shades into the SJW idea of identity politics. In more academic jargon¹

In the eyes  of  the  critical  race  theorists,  Reagan-era  formalism  had  at its  core,  a  racist  and  white  supremacist  agenda  bent  upon  undermining the  gains  of  the  liberal  civil  rights  movement. Whites benefitted  from  superior  status  in  society;  they  failed  to  recognize,  however,  the  extent  of their  white  privilege.

At the end, their talk sounds as racist as those of the classical racists, albeit it comes from the exact opposite direction, asserting not biological races, but cultural ones. Some ideas from this project is to its opposite, when SJWs for example demand "safe spaces" exclusive for members of proper racial (non white) categories, or lobby against  (which is a form of culturo-racial purity). The mirror image of white nationalism is "non-white cultural nationalism/separatism" (see ). ~ Aneris 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * CRT isn't racialist, because it's not based on biology; it might be racist, depending on how you view the best solution to racism. I suggest moving this to that talkpage. 20:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * K, as you read this, I moved it to the Racism article. ~ Aneris 20:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The word has failed
Racism is a useless description, a weak, foggy term of attempted abuse. The principal purpose of the word was never to describe but to terrorize -- to terrorize decent, solid, nonprogressive folk. The word used to work, but it doesn't work any more. The word has lost its terror. By the way, the races differ rather a lot, duh, as you liars very well know. Hjh (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think branding someone who claims superiority over another person based on the social construct of race a racist to be a fairly useful, actually. Petey Plane (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you probably would. "Social construct"? Dude, listen to yourself. When you're in a hole, stop digging already. It's embarrassing. Hjh (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * pray tell how Social Construct isn't a fitting description? If you had a basic understanding of words you could argue that this very social construct is used against white people. But that would undermine your position as Race realist, wouldn't it?--Benaresh (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fellas, check your signaling. You're not going to win this debate.  For your own good, you need to realize when you've embraced a lost cause.  Admit the mistake, get on with your lives; you'll be much the happier for it. Hjh (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * --Benaresh (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)--Benaresh (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Page renaming
I think that this page would be better renamed as something like "Major examples of racism". The reason for this is 1) Racism and Racialism are synonymous. 2) We already have a gold-level article on racialism. 3) Most of this article is taken up by examples. Bongolian (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The dictionary definition of "racialism" is a synonym of racism. Christopher (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The article on Racialism seems to focus on the attempts to give racism a scientific basis. This one could focus on all the other stuff. Of course, this being RW, it's far from well-written.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Racialism" and "racism" are NOT synonymous. Racialism is a lie. Racism is not. Racialism is a pseudoscience. Racism is not. One denotes a ridiculous, false human anthropology — the other universally denotes real social attitudes regarding a perception of race, fueled by the human psychological slant towards ingroup-outgroup behavior.


 * Racialism is the failed attempt to pseudo scientifically prove that the social attitudes of racism are actually reasonable, largely in the context of pre-genetics biology. In other words, "Racialism" denotes the clear-cut, long-debunked pseudoscience which (save for the "biodiversity movement") belongs in a museum.


 * "Racism", on the other hand, is an actual phenomenon — as relevant today as it was yesterday — studied right now in mainstream psychology and sociology. As such, "Racialism" and "Racism" are very different, and it is essential that they remain separate. Please don't conflate the two, guys. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah you're right. I now think they should be kept separate. Christopher (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks for hearing me out Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Most Bluepilled Website
/pol/: The purest crystal hyperbole in the world. 22:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)