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

This Race related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

South Africa[edit]

@SouthAfrica Discuss here before making controversial edits to the page. I don't believe that it's racism but rather trying to reverse the effects of racism. White people currently own most of the land in South Africa due to the apartheidWikipediaClickerClock (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if that is correct or not, but even if it is, is it not racist to target them based on their race and "expropriate their land without compensation", in other words, to steal it? --SouthAfrica (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Please look at the definition of racism used by sociologists. It's not stealing. If I stole your car and you took it back. Is it okay for me to scream RACISM? Taking back things that were stolen from you are not racism.

At a stroke, the passing of the Natives Land Act on 19 June 1913 saw the majority of South African land reserved for whites, or Europeans. Just 7% of agricultural land was set aside on reserves for blacks, or Africans, though they comprised 67% of the population.

The British + Dutch colonized South Africa through slavery and war. If I got something with violence, do I really own it? If I punched a man and took his car, is that car really mine? The answer is no. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. The people who own the land nowadays have nothing to do with 1913, and this would just be stealing land again. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The South African Whites did not steal any land, they settled the land at a time when South Africa was mostly unoccupied save for a few small nomadic tribes. The land was not settled or occupied and it certainly didn't exist as a state. The land has been farmed by whites since the beginning and has fed a growing population of blacks who could not survive that far south prior to Dutch settlements. It wasn't until after they cultivated the land that Bantu migrated South. Bantu make up the current ruling party in South Africa and arrived after the Dutch. The Bantu are stealing the land, not the White Africans. Learn some history and also learn what racism is, stop perverting the definition to justify your selective hatred of a specific race. Thanks. BAKSla (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll address your points in a piecemeal manner, I think that will be easiest:

Please look at the definition of racism used by sociologists.

I haven't looked at the definition according to sociologists, but I have looked at the definition according to the 1965 UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which I think we can agree is spot on:

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

It's not stealing.

Depends on the reason/s for stealing.

If I stole your car and you took it back. Is it okay for me to scream RACISM?


Taking back things that were stolen from you are not racism.

Generally speaking no, but that is too broad a statement for a topic as specific as this.

At a stroke, the passing of the Natives Land Act on 19 June 1913 saw the majority of South African land reserved for whites, or Europeans. Just 7% of agricultural land was set aside on reserves for blacks, or Africans, though they comprised 67% of the population.

If we put this in a wider perspective, what happens then to the Australians and the aboriginals? The Americans and the native Indians? The Russians (in East Prussia) and the Germans, for example? Would it be righteous for gangs of native Indians expelling americans from their land, for example?

The British + Dutch colonized South Africa through slavery and war.

Colonialisation could be brutal, but the white farmers they are persecuting aren't the British and Dutch who were colonizing them through slavery and war, so I find your remark odd.

If I got something with violence, do I really own it? If I punched a man and took his car, is that car really mine? The answer is no.

A poor example. The Natives Land Act was passed 1913 as you stated. I doubt any of these farmers were of age, let alone born pre 1913.

I noticed after I wrote all this up that Bigs had commented excellently, "Two wrongs don't make a right. The people who own the land nowadays have nothing to do with 1913, and this would just be stealing land again." Hitting the nail on the head. And the reason they would want to steal this land again? Because the farmers are white. --SouthAfrica (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

as there has been no further discussion or refutation of my edit and Bigs' edit I will restore that edit. --SouthAfrica (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe before crying racism you could provide evidence that it's based on race rather than the position of the landowners as the decendents of colonialists who illegally appropriated the land? --Gospatric (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
the source states that the South African politician for example has declared an end to reconciliation between black and white South Africans. Your descendants of colonialists remark is not appropriate - they are not guilty of any/all sins of their forefathers. --SouthAfrica (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
several more sources on black on white racism: here, here, here and here and here --SouthAfrica (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
As I noted on your own talk page, @SouthAfrica: It would be useful though if you had a reference or references (perhaps a link to the law itself) that showed that the law in question is specifically directed at whites, not large farm owners in general (whom I presume could be other races, even if rarely). This would make a stronger case that it is not not just land reform + political rhetoric, but rather a law that is specifically targeting a race. The parallel at that point would be the Nazi expropriation of Jewish properties, the law for which did specifically identify Jews. Bongolian (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a smoking gun on this topic, so I've added the question marks and "it seems". Rational wiki readers can make their own mind up. --SouthAfrica (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have any disagreements with my most recent edit on this page or not? --SouthAfrica (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Herald Sun (whose publisher is from a Rupert Murdoch-owned spinoff of NewsCorp?) doesn't seem like a credible source at all (this wonderful line: "But here we see again that with so many of the Left in these days of identity politics that it's not the principle that counts but the side.") We can't use it unless it's to document their opinions, but can't use it as a source to support the existence of anti-white racism. I don't think the Dutton one is considered a source for the existence of anti white racism, though if Dutton has enough influence, you can maybe bring it up as well as the backlash he has received (as he's been labeled as racist; his accusation "crazy lefties" don't really lend credence to his arguments though). The Australian piece seems to be tied behind a lousy paywall, but it seems supportive of Dutton. And it seems like The Australian is also related to NewsCorp, being owned by News Corp AustraliaWikipedia?? Screw The Australian. The Guardian piece is just Tony Abbott backing Peter Dutton. Doesn't seem like a credible person either (and there's Rupert Murdoch name again). It also contradicts with Dutton's arguments with a statement by a Gareth Newham at the Institute for Security Studies, which they call a leading authority on crime statistics. I'm more ready to believe Newham than Dutton to be honest. The last one is from a right-wing publication that's thankfully anti-Murdoch, Daily Telegraph, but unthankfully, it's another goddamned paywall. The closest thing I can find as a source is a link within the Guardian article that contradicts the idea that whites are being unfairly targeted, while also adding that such studies are really complicated and difficult to perform. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone should probably also look over this afriforum piece that talks about the racism, which was used by The Herald Sun. The prose itself is pretty bad lol, though with gratuitous "it should be noted", "it is worth noting", "the point will however be made clear", "the fact that", and "firstly" "secondly" "thirdly"; it might be a real challenge to read this. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

that's why I added the question mark and "so it seems". It appears something is happening over their, but I have no smoking gun. Very convenient of you to dismiss most of the sources because you view them as unreliable. --SouthAfrica (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@SouthAfricaYou should have used "there" instead of "thier". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
word of advice @GrammarCommie, when you want to correct someone's spelling, don't write thier instead of their. --SouthAfrica (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
GrammarCommie still commits the crime of incorrectly using "it's", which is an error I see painfully way too much on the Internet. So no cookie for either of you.--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Muphry's law strikes again I see... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The sources LeftyGreenMario notes above are known to present very biased viewpoints that cast doubt on their reliability. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, anything the Murdouch media touches is often spun hard to support a political point of view, regardless of facts. You can't trust them; anything that cites anything related to Murdoch's media empire is always to be taken with a bigger grain of salt than most other sources, especially if the language is "the Left are bad people". I can't examine the paywalls, no way I'm going through the trouble to spend money just to try to examine the article. I've also brought up the Afriforum one that I took from one of the sources, so I'm not exactly dismissing the source, but I need someone who can read what's in there and especially try to figure out of it's supporting whatever the Herald Sun is spouting off. And finally, there's a contradictory source within the Guardian article you cited (and I don't think the Guardian is on the same slant as most of those sources despite it being known as left-wing; to the Guardian's credit, it doesn't try to blanket characterize things they don't like). The ABC one is simple reporting on Dutton, who called the media "crazy lefties", but he's also not an appropriate authority to cite over this kind of issue.
Cosmikdebris: actually, ABC seems fine, but just reports on Dutton's defense as well as his remarks over "crazy lefties", so it's not a statement on the actual existence of this phenomenon. The Guardian one is also much more cogent than the rest and also cites an actual authority that contradicts the claims. Finally, I did look at the Herald Sun link, and I did find the Afriforum piece for people to comment on. But Herald Sun is such a weak sponsor for a piece like that, and I want a less slanty news publishing site to interpret it and not say blanket things about "the evil Right" or "the crazy Left", whatever. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

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

This is fake right[edit]

I dont mean is racism fake but, is the stuff racists says fake? Akways? Ocarina (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't include any direct quotes from racists in the article. What "stuff racists says" do you mean? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Like "black people are toasters" Thats fake right? I have a racist friend, he says black people are toasters, but hes wrong I think, so racism is WRONG right? Ocarina (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you're a troll. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty trolly. Gotta say. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:33, 11 March 2019 (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. Watch me🇺🇸CircularREmail2.gifasoning🇺🇸My experiments 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)