Talk:Racism/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 14 January 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

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 Holden^{The 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

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. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 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. Derrick Bell, 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 "color blindness". 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 eerily close to its opposite, when SJWs for example demand "safe spaces" exclusive for members of proper racial (non white) categories, or lobby against cultural appropriation (which is a form of culturo-racial purity). The mirror image of white nationalism is "non-white cultural nationalism/separatism" (see critical race theory). ~ 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. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 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 pseudoscientifically 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. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

South Africa

@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 apartheid —ClickerClock (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?

No.

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 Australia?? 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, LeftyGreenMario! 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, LeftyGreenMario! 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, LeftyGreenMario! 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, LeftyGreenMario! 00:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This is fake right

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)