Talk:Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 January 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Whitaker

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/look-at-how-rationalwiki-org-portrays-us/ --ZooGuard (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

Do we have a cite on comments about the world's white population being on the increase? I have stats to hand proving that the white population of the US has grown, but I'm struggling to find any worldwide data. Balaam (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would assume the entire white population of both the US and the world has grown in absolute terms. Proportionality might be a very different story though. I've had a quick look around but couldn't find any reliable sources on the historical trend - it would be worth knowing though... perhaps someone at a university might find something. VOX^HUMANA 09:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical stats also have to correct for various historical criteria of "white". It turns out quite a lot of race-related stuff is a social construction. Who'da thunk? - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, from my experience the very people who make this statement claim that in the year 1900, white people made up 30% of the world's population whereas now they make up only 8%. I can't be bothered to go fishing for statistics right now, but I'm pretty sure the population then was less than 1/4 of today's. TheSocktor (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to refer to a time when no one had slaves and has been many years since that time, since if slaves were around then of course the population of black to white people will be much higher in black during that time then other times.73.45.78.172 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate

The page says the white population is alternatively 79.96% and 72.4%, neither are accurate, the real figure is 63%.

Thanks for catching the inconsistency, I've removed the 79.96% figure (which I believe came from this source) However, I have left the 72.4% figure, which comes from census results. I see the 63% figure on Wikipedia, but the source link is broken. The discrepancy seems to be due to whether or not Hispanics are counted. Balaam (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Visual map

There is a visual world map based on studies of ethnic diversity - one glance at it is enough to shatter the "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for everybody!" mantra, as it shows that most of Africa, South America and (Southern) Asia are considerably more ethnically diverse than Europe, the US, and Australia. Slightly dated though. Useful reference for this or other racism-related pages perhaps? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/ --Yisfidri (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, those diverse areas are prone to ethnic conflict. So the while the mantra may be defeated, the issue of ethnic conflict remains. Which is the more important argument imo.

I thought that Canada was supposed to have integrated populations of many different races, and that all of the races which also exist in America get along well and all treat each other like normal people.73.45.78.172 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, in Japan, people other then police will not attack or have a problem with non-Asians, and it is other foreigners who will bully someone saying, "You're not Japanese enough!", but the Japanese people themselves are not upset, and even on breaking their weird non-moral social codes, such as somehow, "eating or not eating everything on your plate," or "going to the bathroom in a specific way" is considered "wrong", but if a foreigner does it they will usually forgive them unless they already corrected them a couple times (Some of these can otherwise be seen as serious offenses). (Info based on multiple vlogs of Americans/Canadians/British living in Japan.)73.45.78.172 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, because there has never been conflict between people of, say, French ethnicity and German ethnicity, has there? King Skeleton (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Instead of a place with the "greatest ethnic diversity", the best kind of place would be one where it is mostly white, but some black people live there - say, about 10 per high school, if the high school is a normal size. That way, things would happen such as

-white people not being racist, because they have both met black people as well as have met black people who aren't shitty -black people not being shitty, because they were not raised and/or living in an area where "all black people are supposed to be shitty" was taught -white people walking and talking with black people would not be considered something that is worthy of criticism, because the black people would be seen as normal because they actually are normal, and they would be seen to be exactly the same as any other member of a club, even though there will only be one black person in the club.

For other ethnicities and groups, mileage may vary.73.45.78.172 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Asian immigration

Legally, there is no such thing as immigration to an Asian country. They may issue tourist visas and work permits, but these are always for a year or less. There is nothing equivalent to a green card. The only exception is when a foreign woman marries a local citizen. PeterKa (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Japan has citizenship status. It can be revoked if arrested.73.45.78.172 (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Asian country" as in Far-East Asian country? Or do you actually mean all of the countries wholly contained within the continent of Asia? Nullahnung (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No such thing as immigration to an Asian country. That's bollocks! I'm qualified to become a permanent resident of Taiwan. Spud (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

People immigrate into Israel all the time. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You are lying. Only Jews can immigrate into Israel.--Kevin (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. There are no Jews living outside Israel, in your view? I didn't know that diaspora denialism was a thing. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what Kevin is saying. Kevin is saying that if you're not a Jew, then you can't immigrate into Israel. Nullahnung (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

He may have been thinking that, but it is not what he said. A less charitable way to read what he actually did say, calling PS&L's "People immigrate into Israel all the time." a lie, is that people can't immigrate, but Jews can. See where that logic takes you...

I do not have a dog in this fight, but there are African Jews, the Falash Mura whose immigration status has been back and forth not so long ago. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

For some reason it still reads like a non-sequitur to me when the response to "only Jews can immigrate into Israel" is "so there are no Jews living outside Israel?"

I've never been very good at implied meanings, though, so apologies if I'm missing something here. I don't wish to squabble over something like this, so this admittance of possible failure to comprehend on my side may be the last thing I will say in this conversation. Nullahnung (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Enh. I won't worry about it if you don't worry about it. My hasty reply to Kevin had to do with "only Jews can immigrate" not falsifying "people immigrate all the time" as he seemed to claim it did. One way for his claim to hold true would be if there were no Jews left outside Israel (and no one willing or able to convert to Orthodox Judaism, or some such rabbit-hole diving.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Did no one read the article, or at least, you know, the title? This is an article about race, not geography. Japan is given as an example of an Asian nation, although of course it's not actually on the Asian continental landmass. PeterKa (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

But Japan is part of the continent of Asia, geographically, which is what makes them Asians. "Asian" is as much a race as "European", "African" or "North American". Nullahnung (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you can rewrite the article. I'm pretty sure "African" is being used a racial description. Also, Israel and India are listed separately from Asia. PeterKa (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Israel and India are listed in an image illustrating the straw man thought of Steadfast Trust. This is not the stance of the article, it is the stance of those bigots. As for "African", I can't find the offending statements you mention, please quote them here and point out why you think the article uses that as a racial description (as a stance of the article itself, not as a stance of a bigot like Bob Whitaker!). Nullahnung (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, I find it most difficult to believe that all Asian countries (no matter if you define the term geographcially or "racially") are all the same in that regard. And while it's true that formerly you could only get Japanese citizenship as a foreigner through marriage or adoption into a Japanese family, this is no longer case, actually. Overall, that whole argument smells a bit of Fatwa envy to me. Octo8 (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly a lot of psychoanalysis. PeterKa (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• What the article says is that, "Asian countries do, in fact, have far-right idiots paranoid about being overrun by immigrants." This makes it sound people can immigrate to whatever Asian country they like, and that most Asians are cool about it. But this is very far from being the case. Anti-immigrant sentiment is in fact quite mainstream. Yeah, Japanese law has been revised recently, and Taiwan does allow "senior professionals and investment immigrants" to get permanent residence.[1] But I think it is fair to say that the traditional, and still extremely common, view is that every visa holder should go back to his home country eventually. That is to say, the entire concept of immigration is treated as problematic. PeterKa (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)