Racism

Racism has many different definitions. Historically, it has been defined as the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, that a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others, and/or that individuals should be treated differently according to their racial designation. Sometimes ''racism'' means beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race. There is a growing, but somewhat controversial, opinion that racism is a ''system'' of oppression -- a nexus of racist beliefs, whether explicit, tacit or unconscious; practices; organizations and institutions that combine to discriminate against and marginalize a class of people who share a common racial designation, based on that designation. Assuming that every individual's character adequately can be determined by racial or ethnic stereotypes is race prejudice, and granting or withholding rights or privileges based on such stereotypes is racial discriminatory prejudice. The term ''racism'' sometimes is used to mean a strong and persistent bias or inclination towards these activities. Some believe that the term also is often used incorrectly by supporters of cultural relativism and political correctness to stigmatise their adversaries. Since the last quarter of the 20th century, there have been few in developed nations who describe themselves as ''racist'', so that identification of a group or person as ''racist'' is nearly always controversial. Racism is recognised by many as an affront to basic human dignity and a violation of human rights. A number of international treaties have sought to end racism. The United Nations uses a definition of ''racist discrimination'' laid out in the ''International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination'' and adopted in 1965:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which 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. [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm]

Racism is a controversial issue. Whether there is any validity to the concept of race is an issue that is discussed in the article Race. The issue of how and if past practices might be remedied is discussed in Affirmative action, reverse discrimination, and, briefly, in the Reparations_for_slavery#Reparations section of the article on slavery. == From "racial theory" to "racism" == Before considering ''racism'', it is an important methodological point to distinguish historically when the concept of "racism" became known as such. Historians disagree largely when "race" emerged as a concept, ranging from those who believe aspects of it have always existed among humans, to those who place it as a concept separate from general distrust of "difference" (in which case it emerged either in the Age of Exploration or even as late as the 19th century). In any event, the division of people into discrete groups, usually based on external anatomical features or assumed geographic origin, and theories about how many "races" there were, and theories of how to "rank" these races against each other, existed long before they acquired any sort of distinct stigma against them. During the late-19th century, a number of thinkers emphasized that these views were morally and ethically unjust, but this was a significantly minority opinion. Even those who opposed institutions such as slavery often did so not on the basis of equality of races, but on overall equality ''in treatment'' of "mankind". In the 20th century, however, there began a growth of thought that theories of racial "superiority" and "inferiority" were inherently problematic and wrong. Much of the discourse relating to racial theory of this sort came out of the United States in the years after the American Civil War, while European thinkers began to think of people in terms of linguistic "nations" more than they did "races". The term "racism", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, emerged in the early 1930s as distinct from the "theories of race" which had existed for at least a hundred years before that. A turning point in racial thinking came with the rise of Adolf Hitler's Nazism, which built much of its political agenda upon the rhetoric of anti-Semitism and overt statements of racial superiority and inferiority. Full opposition to these ideas did not begin until the outbreak of World War II, and a large part of Allied propaganda efforts were in labeling Nazi Germany as a "racist" state, and distinguishing their own states from them. By the end of the war, the association of racism with the Nazis, and the genocide policies they undertook, thoroughly established the meme that "racism" was something to be opposed. In the United States, the experience of the Civil Rights Movement further emphasized this point. At the present time, "racism" is now seen as something entirely to be opposed by almost all mainstream voices, though there is little agreement over what is "racism". It is worth remembering, when looking at examples of current concepts of "racism" is a relatively recent experience. In hindsight, many eminent scientists, philosophers, and statesmen appear "racist" by late-20th century standards, though the recognition of the historical nature of these judgements exonerates these figures or governments for their ideas or actions. == Origins of racism == One view of the origins of racism emphasizes stereotypes, which psychologists generally believe are influenced by cultural factors. People generally respond to others differently based on what they know, which may include superficial characteristics often associated with race. A "whites" person walking after dark in a primarily "African-American" neighborhood in an American city might be anxious for a combination of reasons. The same may be said for an African-American walking in a Caucasian neighborhood. A police officer who spends most of his day in that same city encountering criminality or hostility among people of a certain ethnic background might be expected to react negatively to a member of that same ethnic group whom he meets off-duty. A law-abiding African-American man is less likely than a law-abiding white man to view that same police officer as an ally and protector, and more as a threat to his or her personal safety and well-being because of a history in the U.S. of police authority and force being used discriminatorily, and more frequently with unjustified, deadly force against African-Americans. In both sets of cases, theories of conditioning may apply. A famous experiment in cognitive psychology showed that the majority of Americans would remember a lower-status "black" man as having a knife in his hand, after viewing a picture which, in fact, showed a "white" man in a suit with a knife facing this lower-status man. Debates over the origins of racism often suffer from a lack of clarity over the term. Many use the term "racism" to refer to more general phenomena, such as xenophobia and ethnocentrism. Others conflate recent forms of racism with earlier forms of ethnic and national conflict. In most cases, ethno-national conflict seems to owe to conflict over land and strategic resources. In some cases ethnicity and nationalism were harnessed to rally combatants in wars between great religious empires (for example, the Muslim Turks and the Catholic Austro-Hungarians). As Benedict Anderson has suggested in ''Imagined Communities'', ethnic identity and ethno-nationalism became a source of conflict within such empires with the rise of print-capitalism. Notions of race and racism, however, often have played central roles in such conflicts. Historically, when an adversary is identified as "other" based on notions of race or ethnicity particularly when "other" is construed to mean "inferior" the means employed by the self-presumed "superior" party to appropriate territory, human chattel, or gold or other material wealth often have been more ruthless, more brutal and less constrained by morality or ethics considerations. Indeed, based on such racist presumptions, the political or moral decision to enter into armed conflict can be made less weighty when one's potential adversaries are "other than," because their lives are perceived as having lesser importance, lesser value. In history, some examples of the brutalizing and dehumanizing effects of racism, are: the trading of Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples#Note_re_disease:_smallpox_blanket_incident among Native Americans as a weapon of bioterror in order to reduce their population. In the western world, racism evolved, twinned with the doctrine of white supremacy, and helped fuel the Europe exploration, conquest, and colonization of much of the rest of the world -- especially after Christopher Columbus reached the Americas. As new peoples were encountered, fought, and ultimately subdued, theories about "race" began to develop, and these helped many to justify the differences in position and treatment of people whom they categorized as belonging to different races (see Eric Wolf's ''Europe and the People Without History''). Some people like Juan Gin�s de Sep�lveda even argued that the Native Americans were natural slaves. In Asia, the Chinese and Japanese Empires were both strong colonial powers, with the Chinese making colonies and vassal states of much of mainland Asia, and the Japanese doing the same in the west Pacific. In both cases, the Asian imperial powers believed they were ethnically and racially superior to their vassals, and entitled to be their masters. == Expressions == Racism may be expressed individually and consciously, through explicit thoughts, feelings, or acts, or socially and unconsciously, through institutions that promote inequalities among "races". Although some speakers attempt to express a semantic distinction by using the word ''racism'' rather than ''racialism'' (or vice versa), many treat the terms as synonymous (see below). Racism may be divided in three major subcategories: individual racism, structural racism, and ideological racism. Examples of individual racism include an employer not hiring a person, failing to promote or giving harsher duties or imposing harsher working conditions, or firing, someone, in whole or in part due to his race. Researchers at the University of Chicago (Marianne Bertrand) and Harvard University (Sendhil Mullainathan) found in a 2003 study that there was widespread discrimination in the workplace against job applicants whose names were merely perceived as "sounding black." These applicants were 50% less likely than candidates perceived as having "white-sounding names" to receive callbacks for interviews, no matter their level of previous experience. Results were stronger for higher quality resumes. The researchers view these results as strong evidence of unconscious biases rooted in the country's long history of discrimination. This is an example of structural racism, because it shows a widespread established belief system. Another example is apartheid in South Africa, and the system of Jim Crow laws in the United States of America. Another source is lending inequities of banks, and so-called redlining. Racism is usually directed against a minority population, but may also be directed against a majority population. Examples of the former include the enslavement of black Africans and repression of their descendants in the United States. The existence of the latter is often controversial, but agreed upon examples include racial apartheid in South Africa, wherein whites (a minority) discriminated against blacks (a majority); this form of racism also occurred during the former colonial rule of such countries as Vietnam (by France) and India (by the United Kingdom). "Reverse racism" is a controversial concept; it refers to a form of discrimination against a dominant group. In the United States, many people, mostly conservatives, criticize policies such as affirmative action as an example of reverse racism. They say that these policies are race-based discrimination. Supporters of affirmative action argue that affirmative action policies counteract a systemic and cultural racism by providing a balancing force, and that affirmative action does not qualify as racist because the policies are enacted by politicians (who are mostly part of the white majority in the United States) and directed towards their own race. Some Americans believe that reverse racism exists in the United States, but that it is cultural racism, and not primarily systemic. For example, some African-Americans discriminate against white people -- this too can be called reverse racism. But some would argue that this is not racism (which they would see as primarily systemic) but actually personal prejudice because African-Americans lack the cultural, political and economic resources to systemically disenfranchise European Americans. In addition, some white people believe that political correctness has led to a denigration of the white race, through perceived special attention paid to minority races. For example, they consider the existence of Black History Month (February) but not a White History Month, Amerindian History Month, or Asian History Month to be de facto racism directed at the majority and non-black minorities. Yet again, others argue that the lack of a White History Month is due to the fact that much of the school year is devoted to teaching history from the viewpoints of the majority culture. Racial discrimination is and has been official government policy in many countries. In the 1970s, Uganda expelled tens of thousands of ethnic India. Until 2003, Malaysia enforced discriminatory policies limiting access to university education for ethnic China and Indian students who are citizens by birth of Malaysia, and many other policies explicitly favoring bumiputras (Malays) remain in force. Russia launched anti-Semitic pogroms against Jews in 1905 and after. During the 1930s and 1940s, attempts were made to prevent Jews from immigrating to the Middle East. Following the creation of Israel, land-ownership in many Israeli towns was limited to Jews, and many Muslim countries expelled Jewish Arabs and continue to refuse entry to Jews. In the United States, Racial profiling of minorities by law enforcement officials is a controversial subject. Some people consider this to be a form of racism. Some claim that profiling young Arab male fliers at airports will only lead to increased recruitment of older, non-Arab, and female terrorists. (Some terrorism experts disagree with this claim.) Many critics of racial profiling claim that it is an unconstitutional practice because it amounts to questioning individuals on the basis of what crimes they might commit or could possibly commit, instead of what crimes they have actually committed. See the article on racial profiling for more information on this dispute. ==History of racism in the modern world by whites== In 19th century Europe and America, some scientists developed various theories about biological differences among races, and these theories were in turn used to legitimize racist beliefs and practices. Much of this work has since been rejected by the scientific community as flawed and even as pseudoscience. Today there are some scientists who claim that "race", in the general sense in which the term is used, is a social construct: the way in which individuals are classified into racial groups varies from person to person, and from place to place, and from time to time. These scientists say that superficial characteristics which are associated with racial groupings are poor predictors of genetic variability. There can be more genetic variation within a racial grouping than between two racial groupings. They also point to the lack of well-defined boundaries to racial classifications; for example characteristics such as skin colour and facial appearance can be shown to vary as a continuum from place to place. Other scientists counter that "sex" and "species" are likewise seen by some as socially constructed. After all, humans and chimpanzees (or males and females) are far more genetically alike than different. According to this view, categories need not be absolute in order to have scientific utility. ===Canada=== While Canada often depicts its society as being a very progressive, tolerant, diverse, and multicultural nation, Canada also has its own history of racism. Although the historical records are not very clear at the very beginnings of the country's history, one can argue that the first event of racism in Canada occurred during the first trip of Jacques Cartier in 1534, when he brought back two Iroquois more or less against their will to France, which greatly amused the List of French monarchs. Later, although still not very clearly recognised in the mainstream culture (where it is more seen as territorial wars), much racism occurred between the French and the First Nations people, between First Nations tribes themselves (fuelled by alliances of certain tribes with the French, and others with the English), between the English and the First Nations, and between the English and the French. Although the country's history was influenced greatly by these wars, the relationships between all those ethnicities has changed a lot since the beginning of European settlement in Canada. Moreover, there are notable records of Slavery in Canada in the 1700s. More than half of all Canadian slaves were First Nations. In 1793, Upper Canada governor John Graves Simcoe passed a bill making it illegal to bring a person into the colony for the purposes of enslavement, and slavery was fully outlawed in 1834. In the middle to late 18th century, Canada was a destination for many escaped African American slavery on the Underground Railroad. Many of the former slaves settled in Western Ontario, in communities such as Windsor, Ontario, Chatham, Ontario and Buxton, Ontario, and in Nova Scotia, notably in the town of Africville. Black Canadian settlers such as Mary Ann Shadd and Josiah Henson made notable contributions to Canadian history. However, although Black Canadians could not be enslaved, they did still often find that they encountered substantial racism. Starting in 1858, China "coolies" were brought to Canada to work in the mines and on the Canadian Pacific Railway. However, they were denied by law the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote, and in the 1880s, "head taxes" were implemented to curtail immigration from China. In 1907, a riot in Vancouver, British Columbia targeted Chinese and Japanese-owned businesses. In 1923, the federal government passed the ''Chinese Immigration Act of 1923'', commonly known as the ''Exclusion Act'', prohibiting further Chinese immigration except under "special circumstances". The Exclusion Act was repealed in 1947, the same year in which Chinese Canadians were finally given the right to vote. Restrictions still existed on immigration from Asia. In 1967, these restrictions were repealed and Asian immigrants were given the same rights as any other group. In 1999, Adrienne Clarkson, the child of Chinese immigrants who moved to Canada in 1942 under the "special circumstances" clause, became Governor General of Canada. Japanese Canadians were also subject to anti-Asian racism, particularly during World War II when many Canadians of Japanese heritage -- even those who were born in Canada -- were forcibly moved to internment camps. The government of Canada officially made restitution for the treatment of Japanese Canadians in 1988. However, racism in Canada has not only been connected to immigration. French Canadians, including Acadians, Qu�b�cois and Franco-ontarians, and First Nations have also been subject to discriminatory treatment in Canada. However, having French recognised as an official language was seen as a very good step (among many other events) towards today's multiculturalism. There also exists discriminatory treatment towards English language speaking Canadians in Quebec where there are stiff language laws in place to ensure French is the dominate language. Notable racist organizations in Canadian history have included the ''Parti national social chr�tien'', and the ''Heritage Front''. Other notable individuals in the history of Canadian racism include Adrien Arcand, Ernst Z�ndel, Doug Christie (lawyer), Wolfgang Droege and Don Andrews. However, in the recent history of Canada, as most societies that see globalisation as progress, the country chose to proclaim itself as a multicultural nation, and hopefully in the future "visible minorities" will have even more (or should it be said "a more even") representation in the government, mainstream media, culture, and in the social classes than it has today. ===United States of America=== In colonial America, before colonial slavery became completely based on racial lines, thousands of African slaves served whites, alongside other whites serving a term of indentured servitude. In some cases for African slaves, a term of service meant freedom and a land grant afterward, but these were rarely awarded, and few black Africans became landowners this way. In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon led a Bacon's Rebellion against the Governor of Virginia and the system of exploitation he represented: exploitation of poorer colonists by the increasingly wealthy landowners. However, Bacon died, probably of dysentery, and the revolt lost steam. The central cause of concern to landowners was the unity of Bacon's populist movement. It raised the question to the landowners of how to divide the population politically in ways that would keep the poorer colonists divided enough to rule. To the Governor, the most threatening, and unexpected, aspect of Bacon's rebellion was its multi-racial aspect. So from that time on, the wealthy landowners determined that only Africans would be used as slaves - and white colonists were promised whatever benefits would have gone to Africans had they continued to be indentured servants. This change began the infamously long period of the American slave society, in which slaves were primarily used for agriculture labor, notably in the production of cotton and tobacco. Black slavery in the Northeast was less common, usually confined to involuntary domestic servitude. The social rift along color lines soon became engrained in every aspect of colonial American culture. Slavery in the Confederate states of America officially ended with the Emancipation Proclamation, which was issued on January 1, 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln. Slavery ended in the whole country with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was declared ratified on December 18, 1865. Despite this, remnants of racism continued in the United States with the existence of Jim Crow laws, educational disparities and widespread criminal acts. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 signified a change in the social acceptance of racism in America. ===Nazi Germany=== *Nazism *General Government an attempt to introduce racial segregation in Poland, which was occupied by Nazi Germany. There were several separated races (in order of privileges): ** Reichdeutsche ** Volksdeutsche ** Ukrainians ** Goralenvolk ** Poles ** Russian ** Jews ===South Africa=== See Apartheid. ===Australia=== See White Australia Policy and Terra nullius. ===United Kingdom=== There were race riots across the United Kingdom in 1919: South Shields, Glasgow, London's East End; London, Liverpool, Cardiff, Barry, and Newport. There were further riots by immigrant and minority populations in East London during the 1930s, Notting Hill in the 1950s, and Brixton, Toxteth and Blackbird Leys, Oxford in the 1980s. More recently, there have been riots in Bradford and Oldham. These riots have followed cases of perceived racism - either the public displays of racist sentiment (including crimes against members of ethnic minorities which were subsequently ignored by the authorities), or, as in the Brixton and Toxteth riots, racial profiling and alleged harassment by the police force. Racism in one form or another was widespread in Britain before the twentieth century, and during the 1900s particularly towards Jewish groups and immigrants from Eastern Europe. The English establishment even considered the Irish a separate and degenerate race until well into the 19th Century. Since World War I, public expressions of white supremacism have been limited to far-right political parties such as the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s and the British National Front in the 1970s, whilst most mainstream politicians have publicly condemned all forms of racism. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that racism remains widespread, and some politicians and public figures have been accused of excusing or pandering to racist attitudes in the media, particularly with regard to immigration. There have been growing concerns in recent years about institutional racism in public and private bodies, and the tacit support this gives to crimes resulting from racism, such as the murder of Stephen Lawrence, Gavin Hopely and Ross Parker. The Race Relations Act 1965 outlawed public discrimination, and established the Race Relations Board. Further Acts in 1968 and 1976 outlawed discrimination in employment, housing and social services, and replaced the Race Relations Board with Commission for Racial Equality. The Human Rights Act 1999 made organizations in Britain, including public authorities, subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Race Relations Act 2000 extends existing legislation for the public sector to the police force, and requires public authorities to promote equality. There have been tensions over immigration since at least the early 1900s. These were originally engendered by hostility towards Jews and immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe. Britain first began restricting immigration in 1905 and has also had very strong limits on immigration since the early 1960s. Legislation was particularly targeted at members of the British Commonwealth, who had previously been able to migrate to the UK under the British Nationality Act 1948. Virtually all legal immigration, except for those claiming refugee status, ended with the Immigration Act 1971; however, free movement for citizens of the European Union was later established by the Immigration Act 1988. Legislation in 1993, 1996 and 1999 gradually decreased the rights and benefits given to those claiming refugee statues ("asylum seekers"). A further government Act in 2002 gave Britain the most restrictive immigration laws of any country in the European Union. Some commentators believe that a huge amount of racism has been undocumented within the UK, adducing the many British cities whose populations have a clear racial divide. While these commentators believe that race relations have improved immensely over the last thirty years, they still believe that racial segregation remains an important but largely unaddressed problem. === New Zealand === Although New Zealand did not have an official policy along the lines of the White Australia Policy, it did impose a poll tax on Chinese immigrants during the 19th Century and early 20th Century. The poll tax was effectively lifted in the 1930s following the invasion of China by Japan, and was finally repealed in 1944. After World War II, immigration policy remained largely Eurocentric until the mid-1980s, although war refugees and non-Anglo-Celtic migrants were allowed in the country in limited numbers. In the 1975 election campaign, opposition leader Robert Muldoon ran a scare campaign directed against Pacific Islands migrant workers, which was followed by a series of dawn raids on suspected overstayers. Land issues came to a head in the late 1970s with Maori protesters occupying the Raglan Golf Course and Bastion Point, with land claims on both being settled by the following decade. In 1986, country-of-origin rules were abolished, leading to major inflows of immigration for the first time in years. However, anti-immigration rhetoric from Winston Peters has since forced immigration rules to be tightened. === Switzerland === A recent official research report of the [http://www.edi.admin.ch/ekr/index.html Federal Commission against Racism (Bern, Switzerland)] revealed both public and officials in Switzerland to exhibit a high degree of widespread racism. The international and national public had denied this so far and typically labelled few incidents as "exceptions" in order to downplay the issue. Racism based on skin colour in Switzerland, however, is by no means exceptional, and it affects immigrants even decades after their immigration. Racism based on skin colour today is a widely accepted norm in Switzerland, as incidents remain mostly without consequence. Immigrants have also labelled the Swiss way of integrating dark skinned foreigners as 'silent apartheid'. Apartheid is silent partly because Black people are typically discouraged to speak about such incidents. They are targeted by police and intimidated by authorities, which is one of the reasons leading to only a few incidents being reported. They experience frequent public humiliation and hate stares. Seats in public transport are typically left empty next to a Black person. Black people in Switzerland are also denied jobs on an openly declared basis of the color of their skin. Job promotion is a huge issue as Black people are mostly denied a higher position in their company, and if they manage to occupy a higher position, they are under harsh scrutiny. A Black person may well be jailed with a broken jaw and not receive the same medical attention as another prisoner. Neither the public nor officials, by and large, see Black people as a diverse group that features of a whole range of nationalities, cultures, languages, political attitudes and religion. The report concludes that it would be good to alert Black people to this issue about Switzerland, as up to the release of this report, many people assumed Switzerland to be free of racism. ===Zimbabwe=== Black Zimbabweans faced racism during white colonial rule before Zimbabwe achieved its independence from Great Britain. During the colonial era, inequalities existed. The nation's greatest resource, land, was in the hands of the white minority. The Market_dominant_minorities, the whites have recently come under explicit intimidation and many have had their lands confiscated by President Robert Mugabe's sanctioned mob_rule. == Some examples of specific types of alleged racism == *Afrocentrism - the belief that black African cultures were historically more powerful and influential than most historians believe, or that certain ancient civilizations were created or maintained by black Africans *Anti-Semitism - usually, racism directed towards Jews, though Arabs are sometimes included as well. *Apartheid - a now defunct, white supremacist system that once existed in South Africa, in which Whites, Blacks and "Coloreds" were segregated; some refer to current Israeli policies towards Palestinians as apartheid as well. *Black supremacy - the belief that those of African descent are the superior race. *Bumiputra - A system whereby Malays are accorded economic privileges not available to those of other races. *Caste - (not always considered racist) A system of social hierarchy among various social groups, such as in India often stratified along color lines, with the darkest individuals being members of the must subordinate caste - each assigned a specific occupation and social role.(see untouchable.) *Colonialism - a practice of the imperial powers of Europe and Asia, wherein foreign territories were subjugated and minority ruling classes were installed to exploit the natural and human resources of the territory. Although not explicitly racist by intent, negative consequences due to racism nearly always resulted. *Colorism - a bias against dark skin resulting from an internalization of white racist values, manifested in such things as the brown paper bag test. There seems to be an implicit calculus behind this belief that makes the worth of an individual inversely related to the darkness of his/her skin. *Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people for political or military reasons. *Ethnic Cleansing - the intentional and systematic relocation and/or elimination of different ethnicities to produce an ethnicly "pure" territory or country - for example, recent history in the former Yugoslavia *Eurocentrism - the practice of historically and culturally focusing on white Europeans, to the exclusion of study, or even mention of, significant achievements of other groups of people; and often the appropriation of achievements of people of color as being European in origin *Genocide - the intentional and systematic elimination of different races to produce an racially "pure" territory or country - for example, the history of the Third Reich *Institutionalized Racism - the process of purposely discriminating against certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices. Often, institutionalized racism is subtle and manifests itself in seemingly innocuous ways, but its effects are anything but subtle. An example of this type of racism is the redlining of districts to keep certain people from moving in to a new neighborhood, pervasive in the financial industry in the 1950s and 60s. *Interracial fetish - a sexual fetish involving stereotypes of cultural behaviors in a fetishistic manner. Coercion and dominance are recurring themes. Additionally, this is sometimes considered Misogyny as well as racist. Not surprisingly, there is no shortage of pornographic material that has been produced catering expressly to this attitude. *Islamic fundamentalism and Islamist terrorism - Political reverse discrimination prejudice and terrorism against non-Muslims, Muslims who do not adhere to their particular brand of Islam, and non-Islamic governments. *Islamophobia - the manifestation of hatred and hostility towards Muslims and sometimes Arab people in general. *Manifest Destiny - a historical form of the belief that asserted that white Americans had the right and duty to colonize the West and "civilize" the Native American inhabitants. *Model Minority - stereotype that Asian Americans are intelligent and hardworking and should serve as a "model" for other minorities in the United States *Nazism (National Socialism) - a historical form of political organization coupled with extreme racism, that directed its energies against the Jews, Roma (people) (the so-called Gypsies), Poles, Russians and other Slavs, among other groups. Some adherents of Nazi ideology continue to exist today. *Racial purity - the belief that the various so-called races should be kept "pure" by not permitting interbreeding *Racial segregation - the discriminatory practice of separating groups in society along racial lines, often associated with privilege, power and entitlement for a dominant group and disdvantage and oppression for the subordinate one. *Redlining - the practice of denying marginalized communities services (such as food delivery or taxi service), or access to home or business loans allowing residents to build equity and have a financial stake in their own communities, or refusal to locate businesses or other services in marginalized communities (such as supermarkets, banks, or bus and subway routes). *Reverse discrimination or reverse racism - the belief that measures designed to correct alleged racism, such as Affirmative action, have in fact simply created new racist policies against the dominant groups. This is a highly controversial idea. *White flight - the practice of white residents abandoning a neighborhood or area due to the arrival of black or other residents, often weakening the tax base and reducing public services. The practice is also known as the tipping point. *White man's burden - the belief once held by Europeans that they were obligated to civilize and "correct" the great unwashed heathen masses of the world. Although considered a noble mission by some, in practice its consequences nearly always resulted in more human suffering. Term coined by Rudyard Kipling. Similar to "colonialism". *White skin privilege - preferential treatment enjoyed by whites in various aspects of society. *White supremacy - the belief that Caucasian races are, as a race, superior or worthy of supremacy, even called by some the "master race". *Attitudes of suburb and gated community developers, who are often accused of pandering to racist views by emphasizing "crime risk" in more racially diverse downtowns, especially in North America. *Xenophobia *Zionism was labeled racism by UN Resolution 3379, although the UN later rescinded this resolution. The Anti-Defamation League, most Jews, and most American Fundamentalist Christians deny that Zionism constitutes racism. [http://www.adl.org/presrele/islme_62/3840_62.asp] See Zionism and racism for details. ==Related concepts== *''Affirmative action'' is the practice of favoring or benefiting members of a particular race in areas such as college admissions and workplace advancement, in an attempt to create atmospheres of racial diversity and racial social equality. Though lauded by many as a boon to society, giving the less privileged a chance at success, the practice is condemned as racially discriminatory by others. *''Historical economic or social disparity'' is alleged to be a form of discrimination which is caused by past racism, affecting the present generation through deficits in the formal education and other kinds of preparation in the parents' generation, and, through primarily unconscious racist attitudes and actions on members of the general population. (E.g. A member of Race Y, Mary, has her opportunities adversely affected (directly and/or indirectly) by the mistreatment of her ancestors of race Y.) However, many people dispute the idea that this can be called racism; many hold that this view infantilizes members of a given ethnic group (e.g., blacks or Hispanics) and treats an entire race as victims unable to improve themselves through their own efforts. In this opposing view, it would be "racist" to believe that a group is being held back by such concerns. Yet, some recent studies have suggested that this latter view may not be altogether plausible. *''Institutional racism'' or ''structural racial discrimination'' -- racial discrimination by governments, corporations, or other large organizations with the power to influence the lives of many individuals. *''Cultural'' racial discrimination occurs when the assumption of inferiority of one or more races is built into the culturally maintained image of itself held by members of one culture. (e.g. Members of group X are taught to believe that they are members of a superior race, and, consequently, members of other races are inferior.) *''Racial discrimination'' is differences in treatment of people on the basis of characteristics which may be classified as racial, including skin color, cultural heritage, and religion. (e.g. Mary refuses to hire John because he is of race Y.) This is a concept not unanimously agreed upon. While this usually refers to discrimination against minority racial groups in Western societies, it can also (arguably) refer to the opposite situation, and in that case is often called reverse discrimination when it is due to affirmative action or other attempts to remedy past or current discrimination against minority racial groups. (e.g. Mary cannot get a job, despite her qualifications, because she is of the dominant race Y.) Many do not consider this racism, but simply a form of discrimination. *''Racialism'' is a term often found within white separatist literature, inferring an emphasis in Race in social matters. Racism infers an assumption of racial superiority and a harmful intent, whereas separatists sometimes prefer the term racialism, indicating a strong interest in matters of race without a necessary inference of superiority or a desire to be harmful to others. Rather their focus is on Racial segregation and white pride. *''Racial prejudice'' is pre-formed personal opinions about individuals on the basis of their race. (E.g. John thinks that Mary will have bad attribute X solely because Mary is a member of race Y.) == Some examples of allegedly racist organizations== *Al-Qaeda - worldwide Islamist terrorist alliance that has gained worldwide notoriety since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. Racist activities include: hatred and attacks of the Western world, Jews, and other non-Muslims (following Osama Bin Laden's declaration of jihad against the non-Muslim world). *Aryan Nations - a group of militant white supremacists *British National Party - a far-right political party in the UK *Creativity Movement - formerly known as "The World Church of the Creator", a religion founded by Ben Klassen which bills itself as "A White Racial Religion" and advocates "Racial Holy War" *National Front (France) - a political party in France whose leader proposed deporting 3 million non-Europeans from France in his 1995 presidential election bid *Jewish Defense League - a Meir Kahane fringe group often accused of using violence and intimidation against non-Jews *Kahane Chai - an Israeli fringe organization that preaches Jewish supremacy, named after Meir Kahane *Ku Klux Klan - a group of American white supremacists, founded after the American Civil War *National Alliance - White separatist group founded by William Luther Pierce, a former member of George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party. *Nation of Islam - a Black Muslim supremacist organization that believes that whites are demons and allege various anti-semitic conspiracies about Jews *New Black Panther Party - an anti-white, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic organization not sanctioned by the living members of the original Black Panther Party *New Zealand National Front - a group in New Zealand which describes itself as "nationalist" but which has been called "neo-nazi". *Vlaams Belang - The direct successor of the Vlaams Blok party, which was dismantled after a judge had ruled it to be a racist party. Both the old and new party are known for advocating separation of the Dutch and French speaking parts of Belgium and their hostile approach towards immigrants. == Related terminology == The terms ''racialism'' and ''racialist'' is sometimes used by those who feel it is a different concept where negativity or hatred is not prescribed. People who call themselves "racialists" tend to be separatists (or white nationalists) and sometimes see a difference between themselves and white supremacists. Many people who study racism, such as Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie Shanks-Meile, contend that terms such as ''white separatism'' and ''white nationalism'' are euphemisms that have been adopted by neo-Nazi and racist groups in order to make their views seem less extreme. White separatists reject such claims. For instance, Kevin Alfred Strom has defined white separatism this way: :"A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races—since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs." [http://www.natvan.com/pub/012404.txt] ==See also== Affirmative action, Afrophobia, Afrocentrism, anti-racism, anti-Polonism, anti-Semitism, Apartheid, Ascribed characteristics, Asian fetish, The Bell Curve, Black power, Black supremacy, Chauvinism, Civil rights movement, Collectivism, Criminal Blackman Myth, Discrimination, Dominant minority, Environmental racism, Essentialism, Ethnic stereotype, Ethnic cleansing, Ethnocentrism, Eugenics, Eurocentrism, Genocide, Hate crime, Health disparities, Homophobia, Institutional racism, Islamophobia, Jim Crow laws, Ku Klux Klan, Lynching, Master race, Miscegenation, Nazism, Neo-Nazism, nigger (word), Pigmentocracy, Race, Race riot, Racialism, Racial profiling, Racial realism, Racial segregation, Task Force to Overcome Racism in Topeka, Rankism, Sexism, Skinhead, Social Darwinism, Social stereotype, Tulsa Race Riot, White Australia policy, White nationalism, White power, White pride, White separatism, White supremacy, White trash, Wog, Xenophobia List of ethnic slurs ==References== * Elazar Barkan, ''The retreat of scientific racism: changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars'' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). * Bruce Dain, ''A hideous monster of the mind: American race theory in the early republic'' (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002). (18th century US racial theory) * Ann Laura Stoler, "Racial histories and their regimes of truth," ''Political Power and Social Theory'', 11 (1997): 183-206. (historiography of race and racism) == External links == * From ''Nova Online'': George W. Gill [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html argues here for the biological concept of "race"] and, in a matching article, C. Loring Brace [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html argues against the existence of "race" as a biological entity]. * From ''California Newsreel'': [http://www.pbs.org/race Race: The Power of an Illusion], an in-depth website (companion to a [http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0149 California Newsreel film]), presenting the argument that while race is a biological fiction, racism permeates the structure of society. And from ''American Renaissance (magazine)'', a "pro-white" publication, [http://www.amren.com/0306issue/0306issue.html#article1 Race Denial: The Power of a Delusion], a detailed critique seeking to refute the film. Racism Sociology simple:Racism

Racism

For older talk, please see:

Talk:Racism--archive 1
Talk:Racism (archive)
Talk:Racism (archive 2)
Talk:Racism (archive 3)
Talk:Racism (archive 4)
Talk:Racism (archive 5)
Talk:Racism (archive 7)
== Darwinist theory and racism == I have extensively rewritten this section as, far from being NPOV, it seems to crib liberally from Kent Hovind's creationist tracts. The quote used from 'Descent of Man' is genuine, but taken out of context. I have added another quote from the same work to try and rectify it. The article also gives the impression that the concept of evolution was immediately accepted by the general public. The fact that over 50% of Americans still do not accept evolution seems to undermine this. Nasir Al-Sady == Recent edit == Good recent edit, Bcorr. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 21:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Thanks Sam -- I appreciate it. User:Bcorr|User talk:Bcorr 21:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Is "racism is the attitude, racial discrimination is the action" or "is "racism racial discrimination, combined with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against."== ''There is a growing, but controversial, tendency to state that racism differs from racial discrimination in that racism is racial discrimination combined with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against.'' Um - I still think this is the wrong way round: racism is the attitude, racial discrimination is the action. It's the discrimination that has the negative impact. User:Evercat 21:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Hi Evercat. Here's the basic issue we've been going 'round and 'round about, which is largely Talk:Racism#Racial_discrimination_is_not_Racism. Some people (myself included, I should disclose) feel that "racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race, combined with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against." This viewpoint can be seen in many of the discussions linked above as well. The other major viewpoint is basically that racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. :For a good example of this debate from the "real world," see this exchange in the Calvin College official newspaper ''Chimes'': :#[http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/2001.05.04/features/story01.shtml MSAB sets campus-wide anti-racism as long-term goal, May 4, 2001] :#[http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/2001.10.26/per6.html 'Power + prejudice = racism' equals an inadequate definition, October 26, 2001] :#[http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/2001.11.09/per1.html Dissent: Understanding the definition of racism, November 11, 2001] :As I've tried to say elsewhere, the first view would say that racial discrimination is about specific acts, whereas racism is about a system of oppression, and prejudice is about beliefs that may include racism. The second view is that racism is simply prejudice based on race. The major difference in these two ideas comes down to the following. Can anybody be racist, or only those who have structural power ''from a societal point of view''. Then what tends to happen as well is that people arguing against the first view will say, "Well, can't Colin Powell be a racist? He has lots of power and can use it to discriminate against whites?" Then someone might argue that according to the first point of view he can't be, but that's not really what the definition means. It conflates "racism" with "a racist" -- when really it's about systems of oppression, so that you cna hypothetically argue that a certain subset of society can have what is commonly called reverse racism, but it's not valid to equate the power of Colin Powell to the larger systems that (many would argue) structurally perpetuate white privilege in the U.S. :Clearly, there is not consensus on this, and I've been thinking about adding a section about the very debate we've been having to the article.... User:Bcorr|User talk:Bcorr 21:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::I just wanted to point out that I wasn't meaning to take a stand on any of this when I made my comment (indeed I hadn't seen evercats comment/edit), and was rather praising the general compromise of how the concept was presented (as opposed to what the concept ''is''). Since I don't have anything useful to ad as far as that goes, I'll butt out now, thanx :) User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 21:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) :My problem with the sentence is simply that it seems to imply that racial discrimination ''does not'' have a negative impact on anyone, in which case "racial discrimination" means something radically different from what I thought it did... User:Evercat 21:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Hi Evercat -- I've added "on a societal level" to that sentence to try and address that.... Thanks, User:Bcorr|User talk:Bcorr 21:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::OK, to be honest, I strongly dislike the sentence "''There is a growing, but controversial, tendency to state that racism differs from racial discrimination in that racism is racial discrimination combined with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against on a societal level.''" :::The reason is very simple: discrimination can only be carried out by a group that has the power to do so, and for a group to descriminate against itself and in favour of another group is extremely unsual and unnatural. :::I get the feeling that the turn this is taking is relevant for the US only. What this really appears to be about is affirmative action and the silly debate about affirmative action being racist. Affirmative action is an aberration, relevant for the US only. I think it is actually racist at the individual level (at least in some sense), although its effect at the societal level is (supposedly) anti-racist. Affirmative action is the kind of idiocy wishy-washy liberals will get you to agree to: a lame compromise where the majority group agrees to descriminate against itself in order to avoid taking real measures against racism (like reparations, funding decent schools and public institutions in poor areas etc.). I was just chatting to a (black) friend about this and she said it's one of the many ways black people are told that they are incapable. In that sense, one can make a strong argument that affirmative action not only discriminates in a racist way against whites at the individual level, but also that it is racist against minority groups at the societal level. While doing research for this article I came across a survey done in the UK, and the result is that 3/4 of all people are opposed to positive racial discrimination. Interedstingly there was no difference between ethnic minority groups and the majority group. So I really think that this a special US thing, viewed differently in most other countries. :::I suggest that we don't talk about discrimination at all, but use a word which BCorr mentioned above, which expresses the same idea and which goes to the heart of the matter: system of oppression. The discrimination thing could be dealt with in more detail in the article. - User:Pir 23:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Oh, ''I see!'' I hadn't realised "racial discrimination" could mean "positive discrimination"... User:Evercat 23:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) There is nothing positive about positive discrimination, it’s the same old racists (in the USA the democratic party) attempting to enforce a racial hierarchy. The only difference is this time, they've taken pity on the "minorities" (whomever they deem inferior), and decided to give them a "helping hand" (a swift kick in their respective prides and self respect, if you ask me), ignoring completely the socio-economic nature of poverty in favor of race based ignorance (one drop rule, anyone?) in a bid for a cleansing of racial-gult.. and the minority vote. What could be less meritocratic? What could be surer to enrage working class non-"minorities" against their "minority" fellows? I have personally heard quite a bit of racism based solely on negative experiences w positive discrimination. I personally am outraged when an employer decides to check the "white" box on the racial form for me, against my wishes. I've never checked the "white" box on anything, precisely because I know full well how it will be used against me. In summary, "positive discrimination" is state sponsored racism at it's most obvious. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 21:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) This article deals only with negative aspects of racism... liberals have brainwashed people into thinking racism is wrong but really it's just a good techique to ensure the survival of one's own race. ===Personal aside=== :Sam, I don't think you realize that "positive" has several meanings. You assume it means "good," which it does but not in all contexts (hey, there is nothing morally superior about the positive side of a battery!). When people talk about racism and discrimination, they distinguish between positive or prescriptive acts, and negative or proscriptive acts. It just doesn't mean what you think. By the way, I am glad you never checked the White box, but really, this is not a chat page -- the issue is an encyclopedia article. User:Slrubenstein ::I don't see your comments as insightful or constructive. Of course I know what positive discrimination means, just as I know what affirmative action means, just as I know what State sponsored racism means, insinuating otherwise is a feeble ad hominem. Citing examples of my personal life on a talk page, which happen to relate directly to article related discussions, is nothing to be ashamed of, it simply brings matters home. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 16:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) You wrote that there is nothing positive about positive discrimination. Yet clearly there is something positive about it. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. If you write "there is nothing positive about positive discrimination" you are proposing either to eliminate any discussion of positive discrimination from the article, or to include it but call it something else. I am against either of these changes to the article. However, if you want to make your case, please specify which proposal you intended to make, User:Slrubenstein :No. I propose none of those things. All of the above is wrong. There is nothing positive about positive discrimination, but I don't propose for the article to state that, nor do I propose to eliminate mention of it, or whatever other ridiculous ideas you might have in mind for me to propose. What I intend is for other editors to be aware that affirmative action / positive discrimination is seen to be Reverse racism by many. I have no intent to reduce the articles focus on such acts of state sponsored racism. Quite to the contrary, my goal is that those editing have some awareness of what they are discussing. All of this is in response to: ::''Oh, ''I see!'' I hadn't realised "racial discrimination" could mean "positive discrimination"... User:Evercat'' :I want him to be aware that yes, indeed it can, and is. What is a more obvious example of discriminating based on race than "positive discrimination"? User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 10:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Sam, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you know what the difference is betweem positive and negative discrimination, and then insist that there is nothing positive about positive discrimination. It is a useful distinction and stays in the article. User:Slrubenstein :Who are you talking to? Have I ever said I was going to remove mention of positive discrimination from the article? ''Have'' I removed it? I'm sorry, but I'm not finding this a useful dialogue. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 17:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) == from article == In its modern form, racism evolved in tandem with Europe exploration, conquest, and colonization of much of the rest of the world, and especially after Christopher Columbus reached the Americas. As new peoples were encountered, fought, and ultimately subdued, theories about "race" began to develop, and these helped many to justify the differences in position and treatment of people whom they categorized as belonging to different races (see Eric Wolf's ''Europe and the People Without History''). Some people like Juan Gines de Sepulveda even argued that the Native Americans were natural slaves. :there is nothing ''new'' or ''modern'' about this. Have a look at roman, egyptian, jewish, babylonian, etc... history. How about how the aztec's interacted w other tribes. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 15:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Such forms of racism have in these enlightened times been defined out of existence. User:VeryVerilyUser talk:VeryVerily 00:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Is this just your personal opinion, Sam? If so, put it on your user page. The passage you quote actually provides a scholarly reference. Virtually all historians I have read argue that race and racism, as understood today, are modern -- and that ancient Roman, Egyptian, Hebrew, and Babylonian societies either had no corresponding notion of race, or had a notion of "race" (the word comes from Latin) but one that is fundamentally different from what this article talks about. User:Slrubenstein :Two words: Caste system. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 17:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Another great example of a system that operates differently from race and racism and has been analyzed specifically in contrast to race by many scholars. Certainly merits its own article. Once again, though, I do not see how your comments are meant to improve ''this'' article. One word: research. User:Slrubenstein :Thats ironic, your suggesting I perhaps am doing something other than research by volunteering on an encyclopedia? I suggest you take personal comments / venom to User talk / email. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 20:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) It is frequently claimed that the ancients did not have "racism," and despite being a classicist I'm never sure what that is supposed to mean. Obviously ''most'' ancient peoples did believe they were superior to others they encountered (honestly so do most modern peoples). I think what the real point of the no-ancient-racism claim is that the Ancients didn't have an idea of a unified "white race" in opposition to a "black race." The Romans didn't, for instance, have any especial hatred for the Ethiopians on the basis of their skin color, but that isn't to say that they didn't hate them at all. --User:Iustinus 01:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Israel & Palestinian Territories == I think this section needs to be substantiated, significantly revised, or removed. The main problems I see are as follows: 1) ''Although Israeli law treats all citizens equally, it does discriminate between Jewish and non-Jewish non-citizens.'' This needs to be backed up with, at the very least, an external link or two. More detail on this point would also be helpful. 2) ''The Israeli constitution grants Jews the right to immigrate, while denying the right to return to the former inhabitants of its area, the Palestinian refugees.'' To my knowledge, Israel does not have a written constitution. The right of Jews to immigrate is codified in the Law of Return. Also, the part about "denial of the right of return" is terribly oversimplified; Arabs who remained in Israel after the 1948 War were given full citizenship. It remains an ongoing issue in the Israel-Palestinian conflict whether or not a Palestinian right of return does, in fact, exist - making this possibly a NPOV issue. 3) ''One fringe Jewish extremist group, Kach, does preach racism towards Arabs.'' The first three sentences of this section all insinuate racism in the Israeli government. Could it at least be mentioned, for the sake of fairness, that Kach was ''outlawed by that same government'' for acting upon its racist views? Because of the sensitivity of the issue I will wait for any comments before making changes to the article. -User:Joshuapaquin 21:06, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) :1) Israel does not practice this discrimination on explicit ''racial'' lines (as the Republic of South Africa did) — both Jews from a European and African, etc. racial complexions can and do qualify in the Law of Return policy. :2) Israel does not have a written constituion. Denial of Palestinian Right of Return is not based on an explicit ''racial'' policy as was the case in South Africa, Rhodesia, etc. :3) Not condoned by any political party with elected representatives that I know of, and indeed, outlawed. Hopelessly POV and innacurate, needs to be rewritten from scratch or deleted. user:El_C :: It's been a week with no proposals for improvement save deletion. I'm deleting the section. -User:Joshuapaquin 00:29, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) : Agreed, no reason to delete--KEEP IT!! But It does need to be mentioned that there have been some disciminatory actions taken (in violation of the Law of Return) against many Jews who have converted to Messianic Judaism (a form of Christianity). User:Sweetfreek 04:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Clarity of basic formulations needed == The beginning of this article uses the expression: "negatively discriminate against". The person who wrote this sentence may know what s/he meant by it, but I believe that the average well-informed reader will not. If one discriminates between two groups of organisms, "the orange ones" and "the purple ones" for instance, that may be a value free categorization by color. However, in the way I learned to speak English, if one discriminates against the purples then at the very least one's personal evaluation of and/or attitude toward the purples is less favorable than that toward the oranges. The word "negatively" is an adverb and in the phrase under consideration it modifies the word "discriminate." To "negatively evaluate someone" is to evaluate that person and do so in a way that decreases the "value" of the person from some reference level, just as to "negatively rotate a screw" means to rotate it in a "negative" direction. "Discriminate" literally means nothing more than to be able to distinguish something from its background. To "negatively discriminate" something would then mean what? To pick something out from among others and to do so in some "negative" direction perhaps? Would that not probably mean to most people to pick something out from among others and to give it a negative value? And that suggests to me, and I think to "the average well-informed reader", that one could "positively discriminate against" somebody. The problem for me is that as a reader I regard all of the above as guesswork applied to try to make comprehensible something that should have been said more clearly. My impulse as an editor would be to delete "negatively" as redundant. If an article begins with a problematical formulation, then the remainder of the article may show all sorts of fracture lines. User:Patrick0Moran 06:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) == History of Racism in America == Racism#United_States_of_America has no information after the American Revolution. I checked the archive and can't find anything more ever having being there. While the ancient history of American racism is interesting, there should be at least a quick overview of the ebb and flow of racism in the last hundred years. There's a list of articles at the end, under "See also", like Jim Crow laws and lynching, that would merit being mentioned in this section and given some context. US history shouldn't be belabored in this general article, but the current paragraphs are so distantly historical as to be a distraction, in my opinion. ---- I removed to passages. One was an "original definition of racism" which didn't seem to me to be much different from the opeinign definition of the article. So why is it here? It seems extraneous. Also, I don't understand the use of the word "original." I assume this means it is from the first dictionary (Johnson's? Whose) but there was no source or citation. If we are gooing to review the various definitions of "racism" from the first published to the last, then I think this deserves its own section and each definition needs a concrete date (1600s? when, exactly?) and source. User:Slrubenstein == Social Darwinism == ''Another well-referenced source of racism is a mis-interpretation of Charles Darwin's theories of evolution. Some take Darwin's theories to imply that some races are more civilized, and that there must be a biological basis for the difference. People in this category often appeal to biological theories of moral and intellectual traits to justify racial oppression. This viewpoint had long been widespread in Europe and America at the time Darwin first developed his theories, and his theories played an important role in changing attitudes.''(From ''Origins of Racism'', in the artical) I don't think it's true to say that Darwin's ideas were a source of racism. Sure, they were widely misinterpreted and formed the foundation of Social Darwinism, but this was only ever an excuse for, and not a source of, racism and discrimination. Hierarchies on the basis of colour were already fully formed by 1859 - colonisation, slavery and social engineering in Australia and Africa are but two examples of this. Also, Social Darwinism, to which I am sure the above paragraph refers, doesn't really exist to offer biological explanations of 'civilisation' (Hmmm, well, it kind of does, I suppose, but this is purely incidental), rather, it suggests that 'all is fair in love and war', and that on judgement day it is natural selection, and not God, that will pass sentence. Basically, I'm saying that I don't think that Darwin's ideas played an important role in changing racial attitudes, they merely provided excuses for their continuation. Of course, ''The Origin of Species'' then provided Francis Galton with the framework for the Eugenics movement, but this, again, reflected a change in policy and morality, rather than attitudes and hierarchies. I read, somewhere, that the idea of 'racism' was first concieved as a system of 'divide and rule' by early Virginian land owners. I have not as yet conducted much research into this idea, and have no idea as to its validity. See ''Before Color Prejudice'', by Frank Snowden, for a study of Pre-Christian attitudes to race. :In that case, you are saying you agree with the paragraph from the article you just quoted? User:Slrubenstein == Racism in a single group vs cross-group racism == It seems to me that there is confusion in the different ways this word is used. At least in the USA, racism implies negative discrimination *WITHIN* the social group. I think this is different from feelings of superiority between groups or nations. Often remedies to the first kind of racism are generalized to the whole planet, which is a very different social environment. == Sendhil Mullainathan == Why is Sendhil Mullainathan "the Great"? The link is to a stub, describing Sendhil Mullainathan "the Lesser"... -User:Joshuapaquin 21:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC) : Sendhil himself encouraged such labelling earlier today, but you're right that it doesn't belong (at least yet!) and I removed the references. User:Tobacman 23:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Racism in America == I was reading the paragraph on slavery and racism in America, and the paragraph states that slavery officially ended in the US with the Emancipation Proclamation. This is flat out wrong. Slavery officially ended in the US with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation had no legal bearing over the territories in rebellion, and did not free slaves in 48 counties (now West Virginia), several parishes in Louisiana, and the entire state of Tennessee. Would everyone agree with this? --User:Mrbrown 20:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) == Racism in Canada - Pre-1867. == I see Canada had a pretty racist history in the 1700s. That's amazing since Canada has only been a country since July 1, 1867. I sure hope Wikipedia doesn't convict me for crimes I commited 200 years before I was born. Nice site though. Good luck all. : I don't really see the need of that point: if you refer to the geographical location, Canada has been since pretty much the dawn of the earth, like every other geographical location on Earth. People existed in Canada since at least 10000 BC. : BTW, it seems that racism started at the very beginnings of the European colonization of Canada: Jacques Cartier "kidnapped" two amerindians on his very first trip, to bring back to the king of France; moreover, Amerindian nations were fighting each other, and there is no doubt to my mind that they were racist against each other; the English imprisoned, tortured, killed, deported, and enslaved many French Canadians and/or First Nations people (Quebecois, Acadiens, etc.); the French canadians were doing that when they were in power, too; the black people were also victims of racism, to probably the exact same extent as everywhere else they've been enslaved. So better paint a real portrait than the point of view of a single citizen. : Before acquiring enough wisdom, probably every single human being on Earth has had at least one racist thought, belief, or action; if this article is aimed at describing the history of racism, good for that, but there is far more to it than blatant description in an encyclopedia. I think as racism is a topic which can lead to lots of trouble via hurt feelings, relating the historical records of racism can easily lower the reputation of a country vs. another, on the simple basis of the quality of the historical record (among many, many other things). Therefore, shouldn't people focus on explaining how history made it how it is today? : Finally, I reworded the section comparing Canada vs. US, as I am more than tired of seeing that everywhere even though Canadians don't really like that "What are Canadians? Well, not Americans" relationship as they often believe that defining themselves too much in opposition to the US doesn't really show the world who they are, and I perceive that is not really far from racism (countryism?); it's a waste of words, really, to explain something that can be explained under "Canada-US relationships". And as I am French canadian, I also reworded a couple sentences about how Canadians believe are their society, because I really don't believe they are better or worse than ANY other nation. NPOV, it's as simple as that! >>Frankidou, 21:01, 22-04-2005 == Al-Qaeda == if Al-Qaeda should be included or not is open for discussion, butif they are included I see no reason to reduce the number of informative wls related to them, which is what recent edits on the subject have done, afaik. 07:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) : Al-Qaeda's fight is purely based on ''religion'' not ''racial'' bias. There is no reason to mention it in this article. : -- User:Egg 11:39, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC) Well an argument can be made that they are racist in their anti-semitism, and in their persecution of westerners. (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 18:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) == explanation for revert == Someone changed "African-American" to "black man" because (so the edit summary says) not all blacks are from Africa. I reverted for two reasons: first, not all "blacks" are black -- labels such as these are almost never meant to be taken literally. Moreover, African-Americans don't "come from" Africa. They are born in the US and as American as anyone else. (If they had just come from Africa they would more likely be called "Nigerian-American" or "Liberian-American.") They are called "African American" because at the same time that the ancestors of Whites were coming from Europe, their ancesters were coming (or forcibly removed from) Africa. User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 17:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Your missing out on the amerocentrisn in saying "african american". Black man may not be perfect, but african american needs to be replaced w something not focused on america. Aboriginies in australia are black, but didn't come from africa at all. (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 18:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sam, I agree that when talking about "people of color" most generally, we shouldn't just use "African-American." But the passage I reverted was ''specifically'' and ''explicitly'' concerning African Americans. User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 19:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Ah, ok, nevermind then. I find the phrase "people of color" disturbingly divisive, btw, but I guess theres not much point in discussing that. (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 21:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Switzerland == I am a Swiss citizen and I just read the article about racism in Switzerland. It says that Black people "experience frequent public humiliation" but I have never witnessed such an event. I do not either feel that it is accurate to say that "Racism based on skin colour today is a widely accepted norm" in Switzerland, notably given that there are explicit laws against racism. Furthermore the reference to a "recent study" is incomplete. I could not find the referenced publication since the link points only to the general website of the Federal Commision against Racism. -cedric If the Swiss would start paying off the life insurance policies on the Jews that were murdered in the 1940s, then I might give your arguments some creedence. 3 Mar 05 Ordinarily, I don't like to start things like this (and my complaint is with the Swiss Banks and Government, not people) but if the banks/government had routed and punished the offending persons concerning the stolen WW2-era accounts rather than simply rectifying a few files, then they might not be in the situation they are in today. [http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-19-99/vo15no15_swiss.htm This link has a reasonably good summary of it.] User:Sweetfreek 04:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) This is irrelevant. That section is about racism, not about cynicism or greed. My point is that this section is highly subjective, misleading and of poor quality. Now you are welcome to add a section about the problem of the Jews' gold. -cedric, Apr 12 2005 == Spain == I find it odd that there is no mention of Spain on this entire page. Not only is modern racism and white supremacy rooted in the concept of "limpieza de sangre", but Spain today is one of the most racist societies in the Western world. User:CPS 08:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Please, be bold and add the appropriate material. Thanks, -User:Willmcw 09:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) == removed disputed tag... == The article hasn't been disputed for a while, and the tag was added by User:Panterka, who has made no related edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Panterka (contribs)] User:Bcorr|User talk:Bcorr 20:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Darwin and racism== The Darwin section is wholly incorrect and has nothing redeemable. If made correct, it would not be relevant to this page. Line by line... :Charles Darwin's most famous work on evolution is titled in full The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This has long been misunderstood to include human races. Although Darwin was racist by modern standards (in that he believed that the white man was in general superior to all other types) he did not see other races as subhuman. No, the use of "favoured races" in the title did ''not'' refer to human races. This is quite clear if one has done any work on Victorian naturalism. In Darwin's day, "race" meant the same thing as "variety", which was generally taken as being the taxonomic level below "species". ''Origin'' did not talk about human evolution ''at all'' except for the famous last line ("shed light upon the origins"), so it is absolutely ridiculous to assert that the title of the book had anything to do with human evolution. This is the sort of misinterpretation that reflects a purposeful ignorance both to the ideas of Darwin but also the history of racism and racial theory. As for Darwin's own racism -- he did not generalize for the "white man"; he, like many Victorians of his political stripes, thought instead of the "civilized races" vs the "savage races". He often doubted whether "savage races" could become properly civilized. But it wasn't a black/white distinction. It is true he did not see other races as subhuman but that doesn't explain his position at all: Darwin was a monogenist (he believed all races were of the same species) in an era where anthropologists were usually polygenist (believed to be separate species). The large part of ''Descent'' was responding to this debate, as Darwin and the other Darwinians of the Ethnological Society saw this as essential for their theory of human origins (against the polygenist Anthropological Society). Anyway, long story short: if this paragraph were made correct, it would become irrelevant -- Darwin's view of races was not widespread nor did it lend itself easily to the sorts of typologies which would come later (black/white etc.) :It is interesting to compare these two extracts from The Descent of Man: ::At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [...] will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [2] (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-06.html) Yes, "it is interesting" to take quotes out of contact. Darwin's concern with the "extermination" has nothing to do with racism or eugenics, it has to do with humanitarianism. The Ethnological Society grew out of the Society for the Preservation of Aborigines (or something like that, I don't seem to have my George Stocking directly at hand), and it was common for those of the Prichardian ethnological persuasion (which Darwin clearly was) to believe that English colonialism was forcing many of the great "savage races" into extinction or absorbing them into larger civilized societies. Darwin was responding to the fact that the Aborigines in Australia, the Native Americans in the USA, and many other populations which "mysteriously" dying off when in contact with "civilized races of man" -- disease, genocide, whatever. Darwin's "hierarchy" of races existed in a sense but was far more limited that the quote implies: all in the species evolved to ''homo sapiens'' from a single origin, long diverging from the other anthropomorphous apes. The biggest end of his gap comes from the extinction of the apes -- if all that was left was the baboon, in his view, that would be quite an evolutionary jump indeed. So: if we correctly add context to this passage, what do we get? A long, long explanation which has no bearing on the history of racism. This sort of thing will be covered in depth at the entry on ''Descent of Man'', where it belongs. ::The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate. [3] (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-07.html) This is a fairly transparent statement: Darwin was struck that all three dissimilar peoples, from widely different places on the globe, were of the same species. How is it relevant to this page? The "full-blooded negro" was a man who lived down the street from him, a freed slave, who taught him taxidermy as a child. :However, this work did later seem to give scientific legitimacy to the notion of the inherent inferiority of nonwhite races. Darwin's ''Descent'' was neither popular nor influential. Its primary goal was to introduce the notion of sexual selection, which it was not terribly successful at (many of the Darwinians thought sexual selection unnecessary). Darwin's work was one which attempted to disprove the already existing scientific trends arguing for a much "harder" racism, one along purely biological lines (the work of Knox, Gliddon, Morton, Nott, Agassiz, etc.). When racists wanted scientific proof for their beliefs they did not cite Darwin directly -- there were so many other scientific racists to cite. Now, there is another phenomena in this, though: the tying of many beliefs to "Darwinism" because it was seen as being chic and scientific in its day, even if they had little to do with Darwin's actual theories. Herbert Spencer is quite notorious for this: Spencer's version of what is now known as "Social Darwinism" is built on a purely Lamarckian conception of evolution. The point of me saying this is not to exonerate Darwin, but to point out that one can indeed find many people appealing to Darwinism at a later point, even if it is not in the original text. You can similarly find many racists at an earlier point appealing to the Bible as a justification for their views. Does this mean that the Bible logically provoked racist thought? Or that it was used as a justification? If anything were to be mentioned along either lines, a careful distinguishing in agency would need to take place. :Darwin openly supported eugenics, and his most outspoken proponent in Germany at the time was Ernst Haeckel, the ideological father of Nazi notion of an Aryan "master race." Further, the notion that blacks are more like gorillas than human beings remains a prevailing theme in white supremacist thought and rhetoric to the present day. Darwin was indeed somewhat favorable to his cousin Francis Galton's early ideas towards the selective breeding of humans. He has a long section in ''Descent'' though where he goes back and forth over it: if we give out charity, does it encourage less 'fit' people to reproduce? But if we don't give out charity, aren't we giving up one of the best evolved traits we have, our moral nature? He leaves it ambiguous. In the conclusion of the book, he has a more forceful statement which looks like it was taken right from Galton. In any event, at this point Galton had only written ''Hereditary Genius'', which argued not for the social programs or government intervention which made 20th century eugenics so infamous, but for changing "social mores" to be more conducive to "good breeding". Neither Galton nor Darwin's political inclinations would have ever led them in the direction of asking for the sort of "negative" eugenics characteristic of the Nazis (both were 19th century political liberals who believed in a non-interventionary government). The statement would be more accurate if it said, "Darwin ambiguously agreed with the early forms of what would after his death be called 'eugenics', which had little resemblance to the programs of the 20th century." That is, it would be long and uninteresting and not relevant to this article. Darwin's advocacy or disavocacy of eugenics had nothing to do with the future of eugenics. Haeckel was indeed an early proponent of Darwin in Germany, and was indeed quite problematic in his racial views (though the "master race" ideology is usually traced to Gobineau, not Haeckel, but no matter). However the causality of that has little to do with Darwin. As for gorillas, return to what I said before about Darwin's hierarchy. He did have one but it was far more vertically limited than any of the other "scientific" hierarchies of the day. The gorilla/"Negro" association was made long before Darwin and long after. He was not influential along these lines except in the general sense that people would use evolutionary notions towards this interpretation. The work of non-Darwinians like Nott and Knox was far more influential along these lines. :There is a great deal of controversy about race and intelligence, in part because the concepts of both race and IQ are themselves difficult to define. I have no idea what this has to do with Darwin. The notion of IQ came long after his time. In short, these passages look like they were written by someone either innocently ignorant of the arguments about Victorian racial theory, or someone who is ideologically trying to link Darwin and racism (a common Creationist tactic). While I am not opposed to explaining Darwin's views on race (and sex), they were not influential in a larger sense. One could, however, talk about the ways in which Darwinism was taken up as a way to justify racism (certainly true) in the way that many belief systems were at various times called into action for that purpose. However that would be quite a different section than this one, a much shorter one at that. To correct the current section would be to render it irrelevant to the current article, so I have deleted it for now. --User:Fastfission 15:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Vlaams Belang == I slightly disagree with the data on "Vlaams Belang" (the former "Vlaams Blok"). I am Belgian, Fleming, but don't vote for this party and think I have a more or less neutral opinion regarding this subject. There is more than one party in Flanders who advocates complete separation of Flemish and Walloon parts, and indeed, a confederalist attitude with as much individual autonomous power for Flanders as possible is the current stance of all Flemish parties and the whole of Flemish politics. So it is rather silly to single out "Vlaams Belang" in this regard. This has nothing to do with racism whatsoever. Furthermore, "Vlaams Belang" has never been sentenced for racism. Its predecessor, "Vlaams Blok", has had several non-profits found guilty of discrimination. "Vlaams Belang" does have a hard stance on immigrants, perhaps harder than most would like, but this is a far cry from what constitutes 'racism' or a conviction therefore for the current party. It's a controversial subject locally, and one may wonder if this discussion or the party itself belongs in this article. However controversial, I think it's not the best example of racism. wvh =="Rebuttal"== I removed this link that was added after the PBS link: :And from American Renaissance, a "pro-white" publication, [http://www.amren.com/0306issue/0306issue.html#article1 Race Denial: The Power of a Delusion], a detailed critique seeking to refute the film. Now this is not because I don't believe that counter-points should not be given or heard out. But AmRen is not a scientific organization and they are known for their racist advocacy. The link is not high quality in any sense, it appeals to the basest conceptions of race and racism, with a marginal understanding of the science behind such distinctions. If we want to provide counter-points, let us make them worthwhile ones. Otherwise there is little justification for not including Neo-Nazi "counter-points" to every statement in this article. That's not how NPOV works. There ''are'' "serious" critiques of the anti-racialist approach, let us use them if any. --User:Fastfission 17:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :It's hard to imagine what could constitute serious opposition to mainstream anti-racism but would also pass muster under your criteria. PBS and California Newsreel are not scientific organizations either. However, like AmRen, they have marshalled scientists and opinion writers to help put forward their views. Ironically, AmRen has often been evaluated with alarm as more dangerous than other groups by anti-racists because of the quality of its writing and its calm and scholarly tone. In any event, your subjective assesment, heavily influenced by your personal opinions on the subject matter, of whether AmRen's view of race is "worthwhile" or "base" or whether the piece's writing is "high quality" is not sufficient grounds for removal. You will simply have to tolerate the occasional link to an article you disagree with, even strongly. I will restore the link soon unless given an convincing reason why not. User:LeoO3 20:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::There are plenty of scientific sources out there which argue for the meaning of the term race. The PBS site was composed with the insight of experts from a wide variety of disciplines. The AmRen article was written by a guy without enough accountability to use his real name while publishing. If you are not familiar with actual scholarly work on the concept of race, I suggest taking a look at the article Race, which cites quite a bit of it on all sides of the debate. Your ignorance of the scope of the literature and what counts as a realistic critique does not entitle you to inserting links to poor articles. The article you want to link to does not even come up to the standards of some of the worst of the racial science. I'm not sure you really know what my personal opinions on the subject matter are, by the way. I'm a historian, and I spend a lot of my time reading articles on all sides of this debate. There are better pro-race articles and arguments out there. If you restore the link, I ''will'' revert it. Your time will be better spent finding a better-quality link. --User:Fastfission 21:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::None of this is convincing. You are correct that the biologist author's use of a pseudonym detracts from its credibility and accountability. However, one can imagine a reasonable motive for his doing so (fear of negative career consequences for asserting highly controversial opinions), rather than leap to assume a desire to avoid subjecting shoddy research and writing to criticism. Your flat assertion without evidence that I am ignorant of other writing on the topic, or have not read Wikipedia's race article, is rude. Unlike you, I have not characterized any participant in this debate in a positive or negative way; you tipped your hand to your agenda long ago. Let me recommend that you read or re-read Wikipedia's NPOV article. While widely rejected opinions held by a small minority should not necessarily command