Talk:Racism/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 7 |

Archive 8

| Archive 9 →

Hong Kong

"It is not so much about skin color, because Chinese are people of color also, but rather it is inadequacies or insecurities of the Hong Kong Chinese men."

Why would so-called "people of color" be less capable of discriminating based on skin color than White Europeans? And why is a Wikipedia article taking an unbiased, nonfactual stance on what the Hong Kong Chinese men are supposedly thinking when they make racist remarks? To say that they are inadequate and insecure is clearly a value judgment; why is that acceptable, while my own (made-up) value judgment -- that the foreigners are sub-human, ape-like savages -- is immediately deleted? This is not a place for liberal propaganda. The passage should be changed.

Please sign your postings.

The statement may reflect "personal research," but to have an unbiased view would require a great deal of work. From my personal observations some Chinese people irrationally equate darker skin color with being dirty. It is also common, in my experience, for Chinese women to attempt to avoid having their skin darken due to UV. Their rationale may be that people with darker skin are those who labor outdoors (which is indeed one good way to get a good tan), and that it is undesirable to be categorized as "lower class." P0M 15:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Denmark

How on earth are the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of *MUHAMMAD* racist in nature? And since when did Muslims become a racial group? Ridiculous!

European / American Focus

This article is heavil focused on Americans. Do you seriously believe that you are the only people alive on this planet? Its truly sickening!

No one is stopping you from editing the article. If you are unhappy with it, why don't you improve it? It's probably heavily focused on Americans because only Americans bothered to contribute to it. 66.35.138.9 08:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What some people consider racist

Wanting to preserve race is NOT racism.

Yes it is. Preserving one specific race excludes other races within a country from priveliges, rights, freedoms, etc. Saying that wanting to preserve a race is not racism is like saying that nazi germany was not racist. -Alex 12.220.157.93 13:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC).

How would you feel, then, about standing idly by while the !Kung (Bushman) people are driven into extinction? Their group comes closer to being an example of what the article on Race tries to justify as a meaningful category. They are more different from other groups in genetic, linguistic, and other cultural ways than any other group I can think of. Helping them continue to exist doesn't strike me as racist. It's the idea that such a group of people is not worthy of protection that strikes me as racist. P0M 21:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a horrible analogy alex. Nazi germany wanted to ELIMINATE a race. The reason race exists in the first place was because people were separated and also because of racialism; people SPECIFICALLY choosing their own race to marry because race is important to them, not because they think they are superior. If an arfrican-american man specifically chooses to be with an african-american woman because of her race, that is racialism, NOT racism. If a korean-american usually wants to be with koreans to preserve the racial identity, that is racialism. Honestly, my comment may be deleted for this, but this is something that white people can usually never relate to. Alex, if you have EVER used a racial label in your life, you are a hypocrite. You are confusing racial supremecy with good people (usually not white) who care about their ethnic identity. --anonymous contributor

Please sign your postings. When you don't it looks like what you write is part of what somebody else has said.

The term racialism is misleading. Since it can be too easily confused with racism (this article is good evidence of that) sociologists use the term ethnocentrism instead. Beyond that, wanting to preserve one's ethnic identity is only meaningful when one examines the extent to which a group assimilates itself--or is allowed to be assimilated--into a multiethnic society. Another way to look at this is the extent to which a society is pluralistic, or separated by group.

Showing an in-group preference is a facet of ethnocentrism. The tendency to view your own group as superior is universal; consequently, there is a universal tendency to view in-group marriage as the norm. Do not, however, confuse this with racism. If you want to examine intermarriage in a multiethnic society, while a little beyond the scope of this article, examine assimilation/pluralism. The degree to which members of one ethnic goup (since racial categories are arbitrary, the term ethnic group often replaces the term racial group in literature) intermarry with members of another ethnic group is based on the level of assimilation or pluralism in a given multiethnic society. In a pluralistic society, particularly in an inequalitarian pluralistic society (where custom and/or laws prohibit such unions), one may see racism at work. But even in societies that generally strive for assimilation, like the USA today, a legacy of inequalitarian pluralism reinforced by racist beliefs can resonate into everyday social interactions. Including the tendency to marry outside one's group. Niko481 21:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to delete your comment about White people. I think it is wrong, however. Even if you think about things in terms of the survival of the human race, there are probably some reasons for favoring diversity. Genetic diversity is good because some little group might be the only one to have some genetic trait that made it resistant to a new disease. If a pandemic of the new disease was ravaging the whole population of the world, it would be good to have a resistant population somewhere. Similarly, no one culture has the best ways for doing everything.

As somebody with an Irish surname and supposedly an all-Irish cast on my father's side, there is part of me that wishes that I could have been "pure Irish." I see the possibility that eventually everybody looks pretty much like everybody else, and I think that maybe such a world population will be a little boring. On the other hand, if I wanted to be "pure Irish" I guess that should mean that I would subsist on culinary items like kidney pie and be forbidden from enjoying Chinese and other world cuisines. I wouldn't mind listening to traditional Irish music, but I wouldn't want to be denied the pleasure of listening to Miriam Makeba either.

I am rather unhappy with the way "racism" is distinguished from "racialism" in the article. For one thing, I might be counted a racist in the U.S. if I made decisions affecting other people on "racial" grounds, but then when I move to China and can no longer support the illusion that as a white person I am in the majority, do I suddenly cease to be a "racist" and become a "racialist" despite the fact that only my geographical location has changed?

We are all members of one or another minority group. We just think we are in the majority when we are in a place where there are more people similar to us than people that are more like each other than like us. On 52nd and Market in Philadelphia a white person is very much in the minority. Going to Rittenhouse Square only makes it seem that something has changed.

The crux of the matter, where racism is concerned, is not how badly one's group (however one conceives it) is outnumbered by other people, but whether one feels one's own culture, one's own identity, one's own ego to be threatened by the fact that other people look different and do things in different ways. If I feel defensive about my own self worth, then I may seek to bolster my self worth by convincing myself that my appearance and my ways of doing things are better than those of other people. Then when people in some other group fail to look less attractive, fail to think less well, etc., etc., that threatens my feeling of self worth. It is at that point that I may try to put other people down. Sadly, people in any group may behave in this way. The best counter-move for the individual may be to acquire the ability to accept one's lack of superiority with good grace, and, ultimately, that means learning to accept oneself for what one is. It doesn't hurt to learn to accept other people for what they are, either.

Alex said, "Preserving one specific race excludes other races within a country from privileges, rights, freedoms, etc." Preserving a race does not mean doing things to disadvantage other groups. It is privileging one group that means giving other groups a raw deal. No groups should secure advantages at the expense of another group. P0M 03:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"No need to delete your comment about White people. I think it is wrong, however." Too bad you can't back up your statement. We live in a white man's world. Whites do not have very well defined traditions because almost the entire world is westernized. White culture is no longer unique. White people face no cultural burden so they are more willing to date any race (as long as its not black).

"White people face no cultural burden so they are more willing to date any race (as long as its not black)."

Funny, where i live (London), whites are more likely to date Blacks than any other race.

You mean whites in general, or white WOMEN? There is a HUGE difference.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a white guy, and the most beautiful intelligent girl I know is black! I would date a girl of ANY race. Skin color and race are not factors. Oh and also, this "preserving" thing is a load of nonsense. We are ALL part of the human race. Aside from the fact that there are billions of people on earth, and any one race will not be disappearing any time soon.

---

List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics.

This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.

This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated.

Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?

This list cover a period of about 48 years since independence (1957).

List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):

(1) Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays

(2) 99% of Petronas directors are malays

(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese

(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays

(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status

(6) 0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies.

(7) 5% of all new intake for government police, nurses, army, is non-malays.

(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960

(9) 2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%

(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960

(11) 95% of government contracts are given to malays

(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Taxi permits, Approved permits, etc

(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers

(14) 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. UTC, UMBC, MISC, etc

(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses

(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given

(17) 0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)

(18) 8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period

(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000

(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000

(21) 2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000

(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%

(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible

(24) 10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays

(25) 5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004

(26) Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years

(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"

(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired i.e. Medicine (in 2004)

(29) 10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays

(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003

(31) 25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957

(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957

(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago

(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas

(35) 3 million Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status.

(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenships compare with the Chinese and Indians

(37) 5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is rich or poor

(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget

(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names

(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort

(41) 0 temples/churches were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built

(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No temples, no churches are required to be built in housing estates

(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004

(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)

(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins

(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less

(47) 10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969

(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed

(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s

(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960

(51) 0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s

(52) 20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200

(53) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record

(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays

(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum

There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism.

Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated.

Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.

If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.

Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish.

We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays.

---

depressed by comments

I have tried to read this page and some of the comments. It is very depressing. I think that this page will ultimately mention one type of racism for each individual on this planet... Why not try to forget what your ancestor did to my ancestor 10 centuries ago (or vice-versa) and start again with some fresh new ideas...

Thank-you for reading

Alain Michaud 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Human beings are frequently pretty depressing. Solving a problem in one generation does not mean that it won't crop up again in another generation or two. Fresh ideas would be good. How can we educate young people so that they are open to people doing things in other ways, speaking other languages, etc.? As Daoism, Zen, Sufism, and other such technologies of the spirit move into the West our lives will be enriched by our being facilitated in our efforts to free ourselves from preconceptions, prejudices, playing old tapes, etc.

That being said, there are some structural features that operate whether we want them to or not. One of the factors is power as analyzed by Adler et al. A subset of power is economic power. Hardly anybody is "immune" from the desire to have at least enough resources to survive comfortably. Most people are selfish in the sense that they look primarily to their own economic wellbeing, and are less interested in the economic wellbeing of other people. Some people are so enamoured of wealth that its pursuit seems to dominate all else. Power also facilitates sex, so you can throw Freud into the mix with Adler.

A second structural feature that operates strongly is the need that all societies have to get and keep people under control. If a society is in a state of anarchy it is not really a society. People need certain things from a society, and one of the most important things is enough stability and security to be able to maintain one's own safety, raise one's kids with a fair chance of seeing them to maturity, etc. Individuals in different societies take up different ways of getting a handle on the behavior of their own children. Some of these ways get enough done with the kids that they do not get killed by the neighbors for rustling horses or other antisocial behavior but are nevertheless damaging to the overall success of the individual.

Societies use (1) shame, (2) guilt, (3) corporeal punishment, (4) self culture (xīu yǎng), etc. Cultures that create negative self images usually create a need to compensate for these negative feelings. One way to compensate for feeling bad (shameful, guilty, etc.) about yourself is to be able to view yourself as at least better than members of some other group.

When the desire for wealth intersects with the desire to put somebody else down so you can stand on him and raise yourself half a foot, you get a potent recipe for privileging your own group and dumping on another group. Communism has not worked out in practice, and in the U.S. earlier attempts to keep capitalism from recreating the early capitalist hell are being eroded. So the economic utility of keeping one group down in a way that gives economic advantages to another group is still a powerful actor. Humans continue to be given bad self images, and frequently they get no way to build themselves into people with better self images. To give people better self images would lessen the power of people who get status, power, and wealth by salving the bad feelings of their followers. In addition, people frequently just get off on having perceived power over others. So all of these factors act together to encourage degrading one group.

Personally, I am not concerned very much with what some group thinks about the intellectual, moral, etc., characteristics of my parents. I care less what they think about my grandparents, and I have so little mental connection with my great grandparents. But it still matters a great deal to me how people treat me because of my own personal characteristics. Going to a foreign country and being examined by children who are fascinated by differences in skin color, etc., is not unpleasant or threatening. Being in any place where my personal characteristics subject me to economic deprivation, physical danger, offensive comments regarding smell, etc. is not something that I can afford to ignore. I can try to rationalize my self image. I can regard people who find me an anomaly because my nose is not shaped like their as victims of ignorance and fear. But I cannot afford to ignore threats to the safety and success in life of myself or my family and friends when faced by the economy/power/ego-sop conglomerate that we call racism -- and I cannot expect anybody else to cheerfully ignore being pushed off the sidewalk, lynched in the back alley, deprived of education, ruled out of some occupations, "preferentially" sentenced in criminal trials, etc., etc. P0M 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Racism in America

See the following article on racism in America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tanbo

Racism

The racists are removing comments they don't like from the article. How can they say this is as accurate as Britannica? It probably is as that's likely to be written by racists too.

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.

I belive that racism is a easy way out of some people's problems

Nasir Al-Sady

My apologies for writing this here and if it remains here tomorrow I shall remove it. I just wanted to alert you that your entry is very dated indeed. It requires an update with the new conceptualizations of Modern (symbolic) and aversive (automatic and not conscious) froms of racism (both which are extremely widespread. Pease get one of your experts to add this. Thank you.

Racial Discrimination Nowadays

I was suprised to see only so little about Racial Discrimination Nowadays is mentioned in the article. Besides, I hope more about modern racial discrimination in US or UK communities can be added. For example, whether students studying abroad in US or UK would be discriminated because of their races and heritage.

One clear unaduterated example of racism, modern, aversive is very much demonstrated in how whites decide and dictate what Blacks will be called and known as in America, be it African-American, Black, Colored(still used in the South) or Negro, and as an inner circle game for themselves, but insulting to the race, they alternate between said terms, and change it every 15 to 20 years, while the term "AFRIMERICAN", created by, used by, and most accurate for the race is ignored, not only by White America and the corporate, political, and media status qou system members, but whites of like mind, conditoning, and racism world wide.

Afrimericans are not given an outlet, or acknowledgement until said whites approve, and while one can argue Afrimericans have mediums of exposure for matters of importance to them, they don't have the combined wealth, political, media connections to compete or effectively oppose the white dominated systems of same, and while Afrimericans and Blacks worldwide have issues unique to the country they live in, with little means or influence with issues affecting Negroid people worldwide, the institutions of white supremist, aversive, negative racism is shared and fueled, and insulated by whites worldwide to keep the system as is, and sadly, and sorry to say wikipedia, and it's multi-nationed administrators, by demonstration of exclusions, are part of the describe system of racism they speak and promote they are against, and I see it, as do others, as is evidenced by the fact it is the sights that deal with Afrimericans, i.e. African-Americas, and/or Black Americans, that get deleted, or edited and/or rewritten the most, and any article that disputes what the status mongers favor or desire in those areas of thought, like the Afrimerican article, is deleted no matter how many times written, or how objectiovely written.

Modern aversive, exclusionary racism is alive and well in/on the pages of wikipedia, by wikipedia.

I see what you mean. On a similar note, perhaps we should include the contemporary trend of highlighting racism towards white people. There is a growing concern (who knows how this made it to the top of america's priority list) for showing that white people can also be victims of racism. For instance, we have the view of affirmative action as "reverse-racism." Although it is true that racism can be directed towards whites, the extensive emphasis on (and fascination with) this idea in films (die hard with a vengeance, white men cant jump, etc) and popular culture and politics is extremely irresponsible in my humble opinion. It is irresponsible because it gives people the idea that racism is somehow taking as much of a toll on white people as it is on black people. The notion that racism is racism no matter who its directed towards is simply a lofty and idealist way of looking at things. For all practical purposes, white people aren't exactly set back very much because of any supposed "racism" towards them. Anyways, thats enough of my ranting, I may edit something into the page along these lines (with a bit more NPOV of course, haha), what do yall think?

i 'gree ya gotta b balistic 2 b'leve dat racist crap anyhow!

Recent edit

Good recent edit, Bcorr. Sam [Spade] 21:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sam -- I appreciate it. BCorr|Брайен 21:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for writing this here and if it remains here tomorrow I shall remove it. I just wanted to alert you that your entry is very dated indeed. It requires an update with the new conceptualizations of Modern (symbolic) and aversive (automatic and not conscious) froms of racism (both which are extremely widespread. Pease get one of your experts to add this. Thank you.

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:

1. MSAB sets campus-wide anti-racism as long-term goal, May 4, 2001
2. 'Power + prejudice = racism' equals an inadequate definition, October 26, 2001
3. 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.... 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 15:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Two words: Caste system. Sam [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. 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] 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)

Since Israel is a country founded on a country for a category of people defined as 'Jews' (racially), does that not make it inherently, institutionally racist? And are all citizens treated equally under the law if they are differentiated according to race/religion? That doesn't seem to follow in my eyes.

What happened to the entire section on rascism in Israel and Palestinian Territories? The truth of the matter is that Israel like all other countries has some very racist hidden ideologies.

From the above, it appears someone removed it as they thought it was biassed/inaccurate. If you can reply to this criticism, and the best way is to improve the article so that it is NPOV, then do so and reinstate it. There is plenty of documented evidence in Israel of racism, just as there is in all other countries of the world. Wallie 20:21, 19 November 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

I´ve deleted the section on the underground railroad because it doesn´t have anything specific to do with racism in Canada. Homagetocatalonia, 8:07, 11-08-2005

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. Sam Spade (talk · 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)

This, perhaps, isn't the best area to leave this comment, but I believe that radical Muslim beliefs should be included, as much of their tenets draw from the religion strong elitist belief, discerning what is true Muslim and the place of the Arabic world in it. In some ways, the article seems too Western focused.

I disagree; radical Islamic tenets are focused on political and religious ideology, not racism. There are members of Al Qaeda from African and other non-Arab countries, for instance. Perhaps you can label some of the "pan-Arab" views and tendencies as being racist; but then again, these views are mainly held by seculars and not religious revolutionaries.

Yogensha 15:52, 15 March 2006 (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)

People of colour? As opposed to people of America? Or transparent people?

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

Cedric. I have been an auslander living in Switzerland. As mentioned below, I have modified the article. The bit about hate stares towards black people gave me a laugh. I find that most Swiss kids think they are cool. As for people not sitting on the train beside black people... This doesn't happen on my train, the S5. Any free seat is like gold, and would be grabbed immediately. Wallie 20:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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. 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

Incessant politically correct gibberish by the holier than thou left. Such inaccurate tripe about Switzerland.! Kj

Kj, please note our policy on no personal attacks and refrain from attacking people in this manner in future. Please also remember to sign your posts in the agreed format. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Could you include some references that evidence that Spain is "one of the most racist sociesties in the Western world"? Because I live in Spain and, I think it´s as racist as most western societies come. You could say that, for example, France is a bit more racist than Spain is (after all the National Front there is an important political force, advocating covert racism). In Spain as I see it, racism is not towards black or asian people for example. Its geared more towards Roma people ("Gitanos") and Muslim people ("Moros"). Also I don´t believe modern racism and white supremacy are based on the "limpieza de sangre". As I see it, the "limpieza de sangre" was more related to religious issues, considering anything which was not catholic christian to be strange to the spanish people. I don´t understand why do you consider it the basis of white supremacy (given that most spanish people don´t really look THAT white in comparation with anglo-saxons, for example). I would definitively see it as the basis for modern christian fundamentalism, more than white supremacy. Violenciafriki 15:55, 26 July 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) 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)

While Darwin shared many of the views of his contemporaries, I for one, find it hard to call him racist, in large part because of the stance he took over the Governor Eyre controversy (see Bernard Semmel's Jamaican Blood, Victorian Conscience: The Governor Eyre Controversy for a description of how the British intelligentsia split on an issue in which race played a central part). fledgist 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)