From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon race.svg

This race related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
  • Needs more sources.
  • Uncritically promotes dubious claims and arguments.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Japanese American Internment[edit]

That section could use some work. The Japanese Americans interned were only on the West Coast, not the entire country. Also, regarding racist sentiments, Roger Daniels wrote a book about the political and racism climate leading up to the war and internment. There was an existing anti-Japanese political movement that made the concentration camps more feasible. This movement had roots in the Anti-Chinese movement of the 1800s, which grew and eventually managed to attain legislation to prevent Chinese people from immigrating to the US. Japanese labor came in as a substitute, and the anti-Chinese movement morphed into an anti-Japanese movement. They managed to halt Japanese immigration with the First Gentleman's Agreement in 1906.

There were also some anti-German and anti-Italian movements as well, and Germans took some heat in WW1. Before that, though, the government undertook a program called Americanization, where white Americans were taught English and civics. So a political effort by the government to help assimilate Europeans into the idea of "America" was well underway by WW2. No such thing existed for the Japanese or other Asian immigrants. Instead, the laws prohibited immigrant Asians from becoming naturalized as citizens -- and this law wouldn't be lifted until the 1950s.

The Japanese American Internment wasn't an isolated incident. It was part of a larger political project of racism that permeated the late 19th and early 20th century in the United States, and one in which the government participated, to promote and expand racism.

Also, it's kind of interesting to note that there were numerous groups in the US that supported fascism in Italy and Germany, including the American Bund, which was a German American group that had an alliance with the KKK. Despite openly supporting fascism and white racist terrorism, there was no mass internment of Italian Americans or German Americans. (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Japanese is a nationality, not a race. If Japanese internment in WWII is going to be used as an example of racism, it needs to fit the definition of racism used in this article. — Unsigned, by: 2600:8807:5402:5900:8DE1:62F0:B287:D520 / talk
Except you didn't see Germans and Italians being subjected to internment at nearly the same rates employed here. So it's not a stretch by any means to say that there was a racialized component to the mass internment of Japanese-Americans. Carthage (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph embraces the concept of race[edit]

"Racism is the belief that humans can be meaningfully defined into biological ethnic categories in order to separate supposed superior from inferior races and/or generally showing discrimination or hostility against a person(s) on the basis of THEIR RACE.[2][3] It is based upon the irrational belief that superficial differences among RACES "determine cultural or individual achievement."[4] Racism manifests in negative discrimination based upon RACE in a particular culture."

So basically, the first paragraph is embracing the concept of "race" as real thing, while the article of racialism in this very same wiki, arguments against the concept with strategies like cherry-picking a mixed-race South African family to demonstrate that "Human phenotypes don't divide neatly into geographical groupings". — Unsigned, by: / talk

Why are you so stupid? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
*YAWN* Hey, Mikey. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my latest prototypes 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Oooooh Mikey-boooooooy
The pooot, the pooooot, is caaaaallliiiiing...
Twodots (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Section on China[edit]

While this article could mention racism in China, I'm not sure if the section as it exists belongs here. It's absolutely true that China does have a serious problem with racism against Africans and other ethnic minorities (and has for quite some time), but the section as it exists is only about a specific incident by a politician. While very very racist, I'm not sure if it fits as part of "Major historical examples" anymore than say Steve Bannon saying something wildly racist. Furthermore, it made claims that his proposal "largely resulted in the elimination of the African community in Guangzhou" - a claim that was not in any of the sources. I removed this section and explained my edits, but they were repeatedly reverted - the latter two times without explanation.

It might be more worthy to expand on it based on more historical examples like the 1988 Nanjing Protests (anti-African racism) or the historical relations between Han, Uyghurs, Manchus, etc. But as of now, I'm not sure if this section belongs here. I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'm just going edit it to remove the parts that are uncited. Advicedoge (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I support keeping it, especially as we have sections for Japan and places like that. Btw, this edit warring has to stop, it got the page protected, and is stupid. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Guns, Germs, and Steel[edit]

Considering the large number of academic critiques of this work, should it really be used as a source for the history section? Plutocow (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Racism and Racialism are different[edit]

The article starts out by saying "Racism is the belief that humans can be meaningfully defined into biological ethnic categories in order to separate supposed superior from inferior races". That is racialism, which is a different (though related) concept with it's own article. Racism is action based on race, or beliefs of racial superiority, while racialism is the belief that human races are biologically distinct. While they frequently appear together, it is possible for one to exist without the other. It's possible for one to be racist while understanding the socially-constructed nature of race. I think this should be fixed. --LiamM32 (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

An issue with this distinction I think may be of philosophical relevance is whether forming an propositional attitude itself constitutes an action. If the distinction is between “content of one’s belief” and “actions” this may be a bit obscuring. What would it mean to describe the content of a ideology or set of statements as being “racist” if racism is only meant to denote “acts”? I don’t think this distinction you are making passes the “ordinary language use” or “scholarly” test in this regard. If we want to describe “racialism” as “racist” it seems that racism itself is then not solely an activity, but a kind of predicate that can be assigned to acts, as well as statements, expressions, etc. also actions “based on race” is incredibly vague. This may implicate antiracist action as being “racist” given that race factors into why the action is being performed. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)