Talk:Racism

For older talk, please see:

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
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. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 21:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sam -- I appreciate it. BCorr|Брайен 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. 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 above on this page. 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:

MSAB sets campus-wide anti-racism as long-term goal, May 4, 2001 (http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/2001.05.04/features/story01.shtml)
'Power + prejudice = racism' equals an inadequate definition, October 26, 2001 (http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/2001.10.26/per6.html)
Dissent: Understanding the definition of racism, November 11, 2001 (http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/2001.11.09/per1.html)

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.... BCorr|Брайен 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 :) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 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... 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, BCorr|Брайен 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. - pir 23:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I hadn't realised "racial discrimination" could mean "positive discrimination"... 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. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 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. 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. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 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, 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"... 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"? Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 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. 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. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 17:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

from article

In its modern form, racism evolved in tandem with European 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. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 15:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Such forms of racism have in these enlightened times been defined out of existence. Very Verily 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. Slrubenstein

Two words: Caste system. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 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. 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. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 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. --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. -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.

El_C

It's been a week with no proposals for improvement save deletion. I'm deleting the section. -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). 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. P0M 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. 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? 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"... -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. 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 13th Amendment. 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?

--Mr. Brown 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. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 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.

-- 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. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 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. Slrubenstein | Talk 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. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 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. Slrubenstein | Talk 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. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 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. This link has a reasonably good summary of it. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-19-99/vo15no15_swiss.htm) 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. CPS 08:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please, be bold and add the appropriate material. Thanks, -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 (contribs) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Panterka) BCorr|Брайен 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. --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, Race Denial: The Power of a Delusion (http://www.amren.com/0306issue/0306issue.html#article1), 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. --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. 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. --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 equal space, they should be acknowledged or linked to at least occasionally, and identified as such with genuinely fair language. My identifying the source as "pro-white", (with the slightly disparaging scare quotes no less), constitutes sufficient such warning. Finally, the fact that the article specifically sought to refute the film in question, rather than being a vague and only slightly relevant article, made it interesting and relevant. Your attempts at viewpoint censorship are highly inappropriate. LeoO3 23:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Questionnaire

http://www.my3q.com/go.php?url=meiosis/accusedracism

I deleted this addition because I could not see how this odd questionnaire gave information to the reader, or even accomplished a legitimate academic purpose. -Willmcw 22:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I donno about you, but it brought tears of laughter to my eyes ;) Sam Spade 01:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is this post relevant to this page? Why are you not spamming? LeoO3 23:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has a stake in any proposal to change a policy, especially people who might be opposed to it. I am obliged to publicize this as much as I can. It is not spamming because it is neither a stupid nor pointless message. The point is: people should know that there is a proposal. It is there choice whether they want to check it out, and their right to voice any opinion, pro or con. But they cannot do that if they do not know about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

About the picture...

By definition, wouldn't that picture be slightly inappropiate. It is an example of racism - but more precisely, an example of segregation. I am new at editing articles, and cleaning things up - so instead of just deleting the picture, I decided to ask you all first.

Spam

In the Canada section there is a spam-link to "http://buyphentermineonline.t35.com" - could it please be removed? --Kristjan Wager 19:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Racism"