Jump to content

Talk:Racism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Quinkysan (talk | contribs)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|ethics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject History |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject History of Science |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|importance=high}}
}}
{{controversial}}
{{afd-merged-from|Race baiting|Race baiting|09 September 2010|date=September 2010}}
{{afd-merged-from|Race baiting|Race baiting|09 September 2010|date=September 2010}}
{{Old merge|otherpage=Prejudice plus power|discuss=Talk:Racism/Archive 27#Proposed merge of Prejudice plus power into Racism|image=[[File:Merge-arrows.svg|50px]]|date=11 May 2022}}

{{FailedGA|2006-05-27, 16:41:46|oldid=55422490}}{{To do}}
{{To do}}
{{Trolling}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{controversial}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Society|class=B}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=no|1=
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=B|importance=top }}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=B|importance=top }}
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=B |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|class=b|ethics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=High|class=b }}
{{WikiProject Crime|importance=High|class=b}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Top|class=b}}
{{WikiProject Genetics|importance=high|class=b}}
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=mid|class=b}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=High|class=b}}
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=mid|class=b}}
{{WikiProject Human Genetic History|importance=Top|class=b}}
{{WP1.0|class=B|importance=mid|category=category|VA=yes }}
}}
{{FailedGA|2006-05-27, 16:41:46|oldid=55422490}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 95K
|maxarchivesize = 95K
|counter = 22
|counter = 27
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 7
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(91d)
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Racism/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Racism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Refideas
| {{cite book |last1=Essed |first1=Philomena |title=Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory |date=1991 |publisher=SAGE Publications |location=Newbury Park, Calif. |isbn=978-0-8039-4256-1}}
| {{cite book |last1=Feagin |first1=Joe R. |last2=Vera |first2=Hernán |last3=Batur |first3=Pinar |title=White Racism: The Basics |date=2001 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=978-0-4159-2461-0 |edition=2nd}}
| {{cite book |last=Garner |first=Steve |title=Racisms: An Introduction |date=2017 |publisher=SAGE Publications |location=London |isbn=978-1-5264-1285-0 |edition=2nd}}
| {{cite book |last1=Graves |first1=Joseph L. |last2=Goodman |first2=Alan H. |title=Racism, Not Race: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions |date=2021 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-55373-5 |jstor=10.7312/grav20066.8}}
|| {{cite book |last1=Hill |first1=Jane H. |title=The Everyday Language of White Racism. |date=2009 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |location=Chichester, UK |isbn=978-1-4443-0474-9}}
| {{cite book |last1=Miles |first1=Robert |last2=Brown |first2=Malcolm |title=Racism |date=2003 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=978-0-4152-9677-9 |edition=2nd}}
| {{cite book |last1=Moore |first1=John H. |title=Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, Volume 2 |date=2008 |publisher=Macmillan Reference USA/Thomson Gale |location=Detroit |isbn=978-0-0286-6020-2}}
| {{cite book |last1=Solomos |first1=John |title=Racism and Society |date=1996 |publisher=Macmillan |location=Basingstoke |isbn=978-0-3335-8439-2 |doi=10.1007/978-1-349-24735-6}}
}}
{{clear}}


==Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160C==
== Rephrasing the last Intro Paragraph ==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Ottawa/CMN2160C_(Winter) | assignments = [[User:JiangLyn|JiangLyn]] | start_date = 2022-01-13 | end_date = 2022-04-16 }}

As a common reader I feel that the final paragraph really needs to be rephrased. I feel that the emphasis should be that racism is used, and has been used, as an excuse for many actions but that things like slavery can rarely be accredited solely to racism. I feel that the last paragraph should change from saying slavery was caused by racism to the more accurate idea that discriminatory ideas were used as excuses to ease consciences regarding slavery and the slave trade. Also, I feel that Wikipedia should refrain from implying that racism is solely from White to Other when it is really any race to any race. [[Special:Contributions/98.227.138.148|98.227.138.148]] ([[User talk:98.227.138.148|talk]]) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

== Racial/ethnic stratification - same as racism or not? ==

Please see a discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology#Racial.2Fethnic_stratification_-_same_as_racism_or_not.3F]]. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 09:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not an identity. Stratification results as a combination of factors, two of which may be ethnicity and race either as socially identified with status or as intervening variables in economic status. I would re-direct both to [[social stratification]], adding a note to the talk there that these topics need to be better developed in that article (which is pretty poor quality as it stands). In fact, I'll add it to my 'to-do' to check back here for further discussion then perform those tasks myself. I'm winding up my Spring and am not teaching Summer so will have some time. Regards, [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 15:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:We really need an RfC on this to get more input. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
::I'll wait for that to be posted, then. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 17:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
*Not the same but closely related. Racial stratification is impossible without racism, but racism is possible without stratification.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

:If you could stub (DYK?) the related topics, it would be great, [[User:Meclee]]. PS. Technical note: Cam we copy those comments to WT:SOCIO? Splitting a discussion into two forums is not that good, I think.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 02:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

== Rf redirects ==
Currently racial stratification (28k GBook hits) and ethnic stratification (32k) redirect to racism. Proposed is to re-direct both to social stratification, adding a note to the talk there that these topics need to be better developed in that article (which is pretty poor quality as it stands). [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. Ethnic stratification clearly should, in my view; and racial stratification, likely as well. Even better, as suggested, would be to begin to develop these into articles in their own right. [[User:DASonnenfeld|DA Sonnenfeld]] ([[User talk:DASonnenfeld|talk]]) 09:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Per DAS. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 08:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} See [[Talk:Social_stratification#Racial_and_Ethnic_stratification]]. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 20:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

== Racism a driving force? ==

"In history, racism was a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade, and behind states based on racial segregation such as the U.S. in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid." - It strikes me that this statement gets progressively truer as it goes along. Is it really accurate (or is it in the source?) to say racism was a driving force behind the slave trade? I had always supposed that economic factors were the driving force, and racism was a justification. [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:I think it is true to the extent that racism was the driving force behind the fact that the transatlantic slavetrade was white people trading in brown and black people. In a non-racist world there could still be slavery, it just wouldnt be based on color or ancestry. Racism gave was the driving force behind the form that the slavetrade took, I think is what is meant by that phrase. If you think you can give a clearer or more accurate wording please go ahead![[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

== Further Reading Diamond? ==

As much as I love Diamond, Jared (1999), "Guns, Germs, and Steel", Why is this in the further Reading section for Racism? Surely books directly related to the topic, Like Asante Erasing Racism would be better.--[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 17:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
:Agree, irrelevant book for this topic, and for most other topics.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

== Reference six and the sentence that accompanies it should be removed ==

The sentence in question is "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon.". This is not an accurate view off racism. No power is required to be racist.

The sentence is also referencing a study entitled, "Only white people can be racist", which in it self is a racism thing to proclaim. The exact reference is here:


== Correct historical definition of Racism ==
" http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/mcs/article/view/1075/1605 "Only White People can be Racist": What does Power have to with Prejudice? Pooja Sawrikar and Ilan Katz"


Racism and Racist are words that were coined in the early 1900's and described a field of study that was based on a theory that human races could be placed in a hierarchy of superior to inferior based on the different attributes of the races. A racist was/is someone who believed in the theory. Based on the theory different types of research and additional theories were purposed and many different studies all in an effort to support the theory. For example, one theory thatcwas suggested evolved around the human skull. It was purposed that skull size and other factors were connected to race and determined the intelligence of the race. Such thing has the bumps and ridges on one skull. A whole field of study sprang up based on this theory. None of the "scientific" research however were ever able to actual prove the claims of the theory, but that didn't stop those supporters of the theory from claiming that their scientific experiments did in fact prove the theory.
This sentence overall is very misinformed and frankly racist. Because I do not have the authority to remove it I feel someone else should. {{unsigned|156.34.157.116}}


The word Racism DID NOT ever mean, discrimination (discrimination means discrimination there is no need for another word), or racial hatred (there is a word that already means that and it is Bigotry). The word Racism has been weaponized by parts of society for a very specific reason. And that reason is to shut down those who disagree with the person/people who misuse it the for political purposes.
:Well, be that as it may, it is a view that a lot of people hold. Nothing in that sentence deals with the correctness of the view. Whether or not a minority view like that should be featured so highly in the article just because it's currently trending on twitter is another thing. {{unsigned|128.252.128.179}}
::It's not a Twitter thing, it's from sociology, gender studies, critical race theory, etc. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 19:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
*Regardless of whether you agree with the view the view exists, is prominent within studies of racism and therefore needs to be included.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
::And that is the thing. Racism is not defined by one person to the exclusion of another. As long as people who know what they are talking about, say something then it is represented. Racism Requires power is such a popular concept esp among non-White people to ignore that view would be racist. --[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 15:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
:::More to the point it would be against wikipedia policy. :)[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 15:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
::::Jews have more power than White people man for man so White people cannot be racist. [[Special:Contributions/210.92.171.47|210.92.171.47]] ([[User talk:210.92.171.47|talk]]) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yeah Mike, that is the problem with the prejudice plus power argument. It works for anyone who claims victim status. [[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Since Racism is at is core a belief system it is impossible to know it someone in facts holds those beliefs, unless they tell you. But in todays world simply saying something like "all blacks can dance" would be called racist, especially by white middle and upper middle class young people. When in fact their is nothing inherently racist in that phrase. Not to mention it isn't true, but it does feed into a stereotype. But stereotypes are also not inherently racist, in fact most aren't even close to being racist. Lets look at the phrase again. Being able to dance is a skill that requires a number of different skills and talents. Hearing the beat, keeping the beat, being able to move your body in time with the beat and rhythm of the music to name just a few. Those who natural have such a talent or who have developed this talent are looked at as inferior humans nor superior humans. People may marvel at the skill and talent but no one places them on a scale suggesting they are superior or inferior beings. And since the word was created to describe races as being superior to inferior in the context of the total racial group, calling this phrase racist is nonsensical.
There is nothing wrong with the CCSJ article and reference, per se. It is a published view and is therefore valid to discuss in this article. Moreover, one has to understand this from the correct view. [[Prejudice]] (an idea) does no harm until it feeds into [[discrimination]] (action). My thoughts harm no one -- except for myself, perhaps. Only my action can harm others. The more power I have, the more my actions can be harmful. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 16:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Another aspect of the words racism and racist that have grown into the misuse ofvthe words has to do with the element of emotion. Which is also nonsensical. If a person is in fact a racist it doesn't mean that such a person hates the people of the race that is thought to be inferior. As I have already stated hating people based on their race already has a word to describe them. A person could hate people of another race without considering them inferior. People can also think a certain race is inferior without hating them. In fact, today the most truly racist things being said are by those who through their words and positions on issues are actually making the claim that a policy, or law being considered is racist because of their own view that the affected racial group is simply unable to comply with the proposed law. Take voter ID as an example. ALL the people who shout and protest against any and all boter ID laws are of two types. They are white or they are people in politics or academic racial minorities who are either in positions of power or are trying to advance into su h positions (note- all of these people have the require ID already, they needed it for the job they have, to get into college, drive a car, open a bank account,cash a check from any source etc etc etc.) Yet what is left unsaid in their position and cries of Racism, is that they either belief that all the other peoples of racial minority nor only lack any form of ID but that they are simply so limited mentally to be able to figure out how it get the required ID. It is interesting to listen to white college students claim that voter ID laws are racist and listen to there reasoning. What they always totally fail to under stand is that there argument agaist requiring voter ID is in fact an argument from rasism. [[Special:Contributions/152.86.89.51|152.86.89.51]] ([[User talk:152.86.89.51|talk]]) 03:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
[[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. The idea only that the hegemonic racial group <s>cannot</s> can be "racist" is prevalent in social sciences. There's no reason to remove it. Your own opinion doesn't matter here. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 19:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
:See [[WP:NOTAFORUM]]. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 03:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::I think you are writing it backwards. The idea is that only hegemonic groups can be racist, because while minority groups have prejudice they are not able to act on it, or create structures of discrimination.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
:Do you agree that this would be a better article if the second sentence was
:::You are correct. I started typing "The idea that POC cannot"... then edited it and messed it up. Fixed now. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 20:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
:“Modern [[science]] regards race as a [[social construct]], an [[Identity (social science)|identity]] which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning. The concept of race is foundational to [[racism]], the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.”
:The idea is not "prevalent" in the social sciences, but it is in society. [[Special:Contributions/74.192.227.151|74.192.227.151]] ([[User talk:74.192.227.151|talk]]) 16:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
::I think it is actually.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
:This is from the article on race. [[User:Kanchan M Mahon|Kanchan M Mahon]] ([[User talk:Kanchan M Mahon|talk]]) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:You are simply stating your beliefs. What we need is unbiased reporting of data. This is an encyclopedia after all! It’s called Wikipedia and its only purpose is to educate and inform. There is no need to discuss how to decide if someone is a good or poor dancer! It doesn’t matter if you have a racist presumption whether or not its purpose is to put people down or to be complimentary. Saying that someone has such and such trait because of race is simply wrong. Race is a social construct! Period. Therefore you yourself are being racist and are mixing up the concept of political correctness with being unbiased. Being unbiased means not making assumptions based on facts that are irrelevant. The color of my skin has nothing to do with how good I am anything other than getting a suntan! [[User:Kanchan M Mahon|Kanchan M Mahon]] ([[User talk:Kanchan M Mahon|talk]]) 23:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::74.192.227.151 it is. All the scholarly work on it is from those fields. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 20:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
:If one is saying that one idea prevails over the other in the social sciences, that statement is not correct. Theory in this area is divided with some falling on the one side and some on the other as to whether or not "reverse racism" or some similar mechanism of discrimination can exist. Overriding that is the theory of power, which definitely states that the social category with the most social power has the ability to exert the most effective social control over other categories. Therefore, whatever prejudices a minority category may hold would be "sterile" in terms of the power necessary to institutionalize action (discrimination). [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 22:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I have attempted to move this sentence to its proper place, which is under the section that deals with academic viewpoints; as the "prejudice+power" is not a viewpoint that is universally accepted by social scientists. It keeps getting moved back into the main text with weak justification. Can we get some attention to this? [[User:Quinkysan|Quinkysan]] ([[User talk:Quinkysan|talk]]) 12:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2024 ==
== "Although racist ideologies have been widely discredited after World War II and the Holocaust," ==


{{edit extended-protected|Racism|answered=yes}}
Where were they discredited? Where are the links?[[User:KevinFrom|KevinFrom]] ([[User talk:KevinFrom|talk]]) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to clarify this issue with the inclusion of the following statement (from the article titled “Race”)
:Try the whole fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and nuero-biology. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 19:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


After the first sentence I propose that we add the following statements:
:Good point, actually. Ideologies really cannot be discredited. Changed to read: "Although theories of distinct biological racial markers in the human genome have been widely discredited since World War II and the Holocaust..." [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
::I disagree with that change and will revert it. What is meant is not only that the theory of biological race has been rejected, but also that racism is now considered politically, morally and ethically wrong.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 20:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
::{{re|Meclee}} That changes the meaning of the sentence and does not match the rest of the paragraph. I believe a more appropriate change would be to "Although theories of racial superiority and inferiority have been widely discredited since..." [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Too many edits happening to make my change. {{U|Maunus}}, what do you think of it. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 20:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
::::I think it is better than the original, but still prefer my version. Could go as a compromise though if the other editors agree.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 20:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::Don't feel strongly enough between my suggestion and your version, so if no one else cares, the current version is fine. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::Everything about this topic becomes controversial! The current change is fine with me. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 21:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::I changed it to discrediting and was told by an editor I cannot make changes to the article. That is strange b/c i did not see that in the Wikipedia guide. But I did see this [[WP:CIVIL]]. repudiated vs discredited, please explain why one is better. based on dictionary definitions of course. --[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 19:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Discredited is the better word here as they've been shown to have no scientific basis. And I agree that {{U|Meclee}} was a bit out of line with that comment. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::My comment was not that [[User:Inayity|Inayity]] should not edit, but should not do so without reading the talk page and seeing that three other editors had already agreed on the "repudiated" language. That is not an uncivil remark and I still maintain that [[User:Inayity|Inayity]] nor anyone else should go in and arbitrarily make a change to something others had already agreed to. However, I am not, unlike [[User:Inayity|Inayity]] and [[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]], willing to begin an edit war over it. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::{{U|Meclee}} - First, AGF. Do not accuse others of edit warring when they have not. Second, you don't know if Inayity read the page or not. Third, there wasn't board consensus for repudiate over discredit. {{U|Maunus}} added it when rewording the sentence. I said I didn't really care. {{U|Inayity}} pointed out it was not the best word. I agree. In reality, Inayity is restoring older wording that had more consensus than the current one that's been on the page for a whole day. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 20:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::It is uncivil because the tone is very disrespectful to someone who has been contributing to this article for such a long time. Actually it is just wrong period and does not create a good atmosphere, esp when I do not think we have opposing beliefs. AGF, I actually did not realize something so small was an issue when I made the changes. And I did not edit war over it. I did not read the TK page that deep either.--[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::My apologies as I intended no disrespect. I still consider it disrespectful to reverse an edit without reading the talk page and looking for the consensus -- however loose -- we had. "Discredited" is used several times in that same section and becomes redundant. "Repudiated" still seems the better term in this sentence. Ideologues only dig in deeper in face of facts. Social pressure from other ideologies -- in this case, equality and social justice -- can bring ideologues into disrepute, however. Certainly, racism itself as an ideology is still alive and well in the world and is considered not only credible but "the way things are" in much of the world. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 12:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
'Changed to read: "Although theories of distinct biological racial markers in the human genome have been widely discredited since World War II and the Holocaust..."' User:Meclee


“ Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[3][4][5] While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][6][7] The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. [[User:Kanchan M Mahon|Kanchan M Mahon]] ([[User talk:Kanchan M Mahon|talk]]) 15:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
What are 'racial markers'? I thought race classification was based on overall genomic/phenotypic similarity or shared ancestry? Would [http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500.g003&representation=PNG_M these] be considered racial markers? (they are recently selected genes (not junk DNA) which most differentiate triplets of global populations whichever are sampled and strangely also fracture in ranges commensurate with traditional race groups) I wonder what they code for. And what on Earth does 'the Holocaust' have to do with this? [[User:FrankRamsbottom|FrankRamsbottom]] ([[User talk:FrankRamsbottom|talk]]) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}: please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> <span class="nowrap">—[[User:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''TechnoSquirrel69'''</span>]]</span> <small>([[User talk:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''sigh'''</span>]])</small> 17:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::The only way I suggested to change the article was to use the wording and the reliable sources that go with them FROM ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA PAGE. So that you can see the sources from where I suggested it:
::Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[3][4][5] While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][6][7] The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.
::Why not add that? It has 7 reliable sources listed! It’s from another Wikipedia article!
::Please do not ignore this request again because it is very important and needs clarification and correction. It is a disgrace to the scientific community to be putting forward such biased content. This is completely consistent with the way these topics are covered in institutions of higher learning! Anthropology says that race is not a scientific fact but a social construct. As a physician, a medical doctor, I am appalled by the way this is being presented. I graduated from college many decades ago before the internet, but if I encountered this article in an encyclopedia in the 1980’s, my anthropology professors and sociology professors would be alarmed by the content. It is very biased. It is exactly the kind of information that people who criticize Wikipedia are looking for because it confirms that when there is no oversight on information, there is also no accountability for the actual content. [[User:Kanchan M Mahon|Kanchan M Mahon]] ([[User talk:Kanchan M Mahon|talk]]) 23:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah dude, the sources are there. If they're good enough for another page on Wikipedia, than they're good enough for here. Did you...read what he wrote? At all? And that you haven't responded in a month really suggests bias to me. Do better. [[Special:Contributions/2600:100F:A110:693:2510:D32B:8019:414D|2600:100F:A110:693:2510:D32B:8019:414D]] ([[User talk:2600:100F:A110:693:2510:D32B:8019:414D|talk]]) 06:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes! Thank you, the sources are there! And I wrote this request in November so please consider including the information that I provided and the associated links.
:::I am not asking for much! Please show that you are trying to be fair and honest. [[User:Kanchan M Mahon|Kanchan M Mahon]] ([[User talk:Kanchan M Mahon|talk]]) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Correction it has 6 reliable sources: 3,4,5 and 1, 6 and 7. Also I can’t figure out how to change the request for another try to change it. I saw that the edit request was denied. Can anyone help me figure out how to reactivate it? Thanks in advance for your assistance and support! [[User:Kanchan M Mahon|Kanchan M Mahon]] ([[User talk:Kanchan M Mahon|talk]]) 23:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== Racialism should not be included in here. ==
According to [http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Anth-09-0-000-000-2007-Web/Anth-09-1-000-000-2007-Abst-PDF/Anth-09-1-073-078-2007-422-%20%8Atrkalj-G/Anth-09-1-073-078-2007-422-%20%8Atrkalj-G-Tt.pdf?q=the-concept-of-race-race this] the race concept is still supported by many scientists. It is only in the West where the race concept has been discredited and/or pseudo-scientifically attacked for possibly political reasons.


Racialism was not necessarily racist, it was a popular though simplistic theory superseded by genetics. The racialists around Nietzsche's time, at least Nietzsche was, were largely arguing there were differences between certain populations that made them more suitable for certain tasks. For instance, the British made great logicians, while Germans were more suitable for Continental Philosophy.
"ABSTRACT The race concept dominated the study of human biological variation for centuries. Prior to, and especially after, the Second World War, a number of anthropologists questioned the scientific value of the concept, initiating a debate over ‘the existence of human races’. Research suggests that the debate has still not been resolved, as significant differences exist among anthropologists from different countries and regions of the world. In some places the concept of race seems to be falling out of favour (e.g., the USA and Western Europe), while in others it is generally accepted (e.g., China and Eastern Europe). The reasons for these differences are many and complex. They are of a scientific, ideological and professional nature. Furthermore, it would appear that chance, especially in smaller countries, plays a significant role in the attitudes of biological anthropologists towards the race concept."


Nietzsche definitely had quotes about certain races being more built for physical feats, while others were fit for intellectual pursuits. He was kind of right since different ethnic groups have different tendencies in terms of IQ and physical prowess. A portion is definitely cultural, but genetics has a huge influence over IQ and athletics. He also wasn't arguing these features made them superior, but different. He was extremely opposed to racism and antisemitism, and wrote about it in his many books. He did define certain people as being superior for standing out from the crowd, which both includes artistic geniuses and great athletes.
I think editors introducing Western bias. Further some Western scientists support the race concept. [[User:FrankRamsbottom|FrankRamsbottom]] ([[User talk:FrankRamsbottom|talk]]) 00:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


Basically, anyone who was unique was considered an Overman by him. Taking the relativistic nature of his work both Napoleon and Christ were great men, but he hated their followers for aping them. His racialism was more based on [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck|Lamarck's]] theories of evolution.
== Prejudice+Power ==


If I recall correctly about 15 to 20 years ago the Racialism article went into the nuances of the subject, and before being merged into here it was vastly simplified. [[User:Zarathustraaa|Zarathustraaa]] ([[User talk:Zarathustraaa|talk]]) 09:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Could the "prejudice+power" section be edited to add that such a definition would essentially make "institutional racism" redundant, and "individual racism" an oxymoron? I think that would help clarify what the position is. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.48.17.143|108.48.17.143]] ([[User talk:108.48.17.143|talk]]) 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:We use reference to get the sources for what the sentences say. And I am afraid i do not see your connection, since individuals (like Henry Ford) have power. --[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 16:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
:Frankly it should be removed. The sources are biased and unscientific. The brief mention of this concept isn't explored at all further on in the page. It is entirely out of place, an unneeded excess and an intrusion of needless pseudo-scientific politically charged language.
:: The point that you're not understanding is that with this definition of racism, all racism is thereby deemed "institutional" in nature and racism cannot, by definition, be aligned against one individual and not his class or social strata. So the point is that this definition of racism goes against absolutely every single working understanding of racism that we currently have. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.201.25.65|72.201.25.65]] ([[User talk:72.201.25.65|talk]]) 08:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Do you have any arguments based in sources to contend with those cited in the article? Soapboxing in itself is not productive. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014 ==


== "Racism" as a modern subject? ==
{{edit semi-protected|Racism|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Please remove this heap of bullshit from the article "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon."
<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/108.59.113.100|108.59.113.100]] ([[User talk:108.59.113.100|talk]]) 23:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> It's sourced. User offers no reason to remove it other than [[WP:IDLI]] [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 23:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


The article currently says "Racism is frequently described as a relatively modern concept, evolving during the European age of imperialism." Surely humans have discriminated on physical differences for millennia. How should this sentence be understood? Can/should it be clarified? [[User:Pete unseth|Pete unseth]] ([[User talk:Pete unseth|talk]]) 01:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Prejudice + power (again) ==


:The modern concept of race is a recent invention, like sexual orientation. Discrimination existed (eg Pliny's descriptions of Ethiopians) but not based on these modern notions. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I have attempted to move the line "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." from the opening paragraphs into the section "Academic variants" as this is not a mainstream definition of the term in the social sciences. It has been reverted twice with the justification "no-one agrees with you [that it should be moved there]". However, in this talk page, there seems to be quite a lot of discussion about this very sentence and its validity. Certainly, I think there is ground to move this definition into the section that has been created to for exactly that purpose. It is difficult to argue for any good NPOV reason for this view to be repeatedly promoted to the main paragraphs.
::Perhaps the page should be updated to explain that. Problem would be finding a reliable source that'd give specifics, I think. [[Special:Contributions/2600:100F:A110:693:2510:D32B:8019:414D|2600:100F:A110:693:2510:D32B:8019:414D]] ([[User talk:2600:100F:A110:693:2510:D32B:8019:414D|talk]]) 06:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
[[User:Quinkysan|Quinkysan]] ([[User talk:Quinkysan|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
:This issue has been discussed. If you would like to read that you are welcomed. But your changes have been reverted. You do not have any consensus on this TK page for the change so then why are you pushing it? --[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 12:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
::The point of the section it is being moved to is alternative views. It belongs there. Telling someone they're wrong about something only makes the point your trying to push less strong. [[User:JamieA350|JamieA350]] ([[User talk:JamieA350|talk]]) 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
::This issue has been discussed. Its popularity as a valid definition has yet to be disproved. Why are you moving it? No serious argument. If you would like to read that you are welcomed. But your changes have been reverted. You do not have any consensus on this TK page for the change so then why are you pushing it? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racism/Archive_21#Racism_Relationship_with_Power talk page for ease of use]--[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 12:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Its popularity has yet to be proved as well. The citations provided prove that it's an academic view; not that it is the mainstream view. Indeed, most other sources on this page use a different definition, which should be reason enough to accept that the line is best placed in the "Academic views" section. To paraphrase you: "You do not have any consensus on this TK page for the line's current status so then why are you pushing it?" [[User:Quinkysan|Quinkysan]] ([[User talk:Quinkysan|talk]]) 12:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, it's been reverted a third time with no engagement with my point by [[User:Inayity|Inayity]]. I will not revert again because I don't want to start an edit war, but I invite comments and third-party commentary on what I consider rather blatant POV-pushing. There are severalcomments on this very page pointing to the problematic nature of this line, some using rather more pointed language than mine. There is room for a discussion here, which Inayity seems unwilling to engage in. [[User:Quinkysan|Quinkysan]] ([[User talk:Quinkysan|talk]]) 12:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
::Any accusation of POV pushing needs a rationale of what exactly is being pushed. I do not get why someone is moving something placed in the lead to a hidden part of the article? It is a pretty important def considering that most discussions of racism are "academically" defined. It is a very popular def in Critical race theory, in Afrocentrism, in Whiteness studies and beyond. So read what your position is, then you leap frog to POV pushing. --[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 12:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
::: The prejudice+power definition is a view within certain areas of academia as you mention, but it is not a mainstream view. Unless and until you can justify your claim that it is, the line belongs naturally in the section that is made for the varying academic views on racism. That section is not "hidden" any more than any other subsection of any other Wikipedia entry. By forcing it into the main article, it is being elevated to the status of a consensus view within social science, which it is not.

Latest revision as of 21:20, 8 January 2025

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160C

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JiangLyn (article contribs).

Correct historical definition of Racism

[edit]

Racism and Racist are words that were coined in the early 1900's and described a field of study that was based on a theory that human races could be placed in a hierarchy of superior to inferior based on the different attributes of the races. A racist was/is someone who believed in the theory. Based on the theory different types of research and additional theories were purposed and many different studies all in an effort to support the theory. For example, one theory thatcwas suggested evolved around the human skull. It was purposed that skull size and other factors were connected to race and determined the intelligence of the race. Such thing has the bumps and ridges on one skull. A whole field of study sprang up based on this theory. None of the "scientific" research however were ever able to actual prove the claims of the theory, but that didn't stop those supporters of the theory from claiming that their scientific experiments did in fact prove the theory.

The word Racism DID NOT ever mean, discrimination (discrimination means discrimination there is no need for another word), or racial hatred (there is a word that already means that and it is Bigotry). The word Racism has been weaponized by parts of society for a very specific reason. And that reason is to shut down those who disagree with the person/people who misuse it the for political purposes.

Since Racism is at is core a belief system it is impossible to know it someone in facts holds those beliefs, unless they tell you. But in todays world simply saying something like "all blacks can dance" would be called racist, especially by white middle and upper middle class young people. When in fact their is nothing inherently racist in that phrase. Not to mention it isn't true, but it does feed into a stereotype. But stereotypes are also not inherently racist, in fact most aren't even close to being racist. Lets look at the phrase again. Being able to dance is a skill that requires a number of different skills and talents. Hearing the beat, keeping the beat, being able to move your body in time with the beat and rhythm of the music to name just a few. Those who natural have such a talent or who have developed this talent are looked at as inferior humans nor superior humans. People may marvel at the skill and talent but no one places them on a scale suggesting they are superior or inferior beings. And since the word was created to describe races as being superior to inferior in the context of the total racial group, calling this phrase racist is nonsensical.

Another aspect of the words racism and racist that have grown into the misuse ofvthe words has to do with the element of emotion. Which is also nonsensical. If a person is in fact a racist it doesn't mean that such a person hates the people of the race that is thought to be inferior. As I have already stated hating people based on their race already has a word to describe them. A person could hate people of another race without considering them inferior. People can also think a certain race is inferior without hating them. In fact, today the most truly racist things being said are by those who through their words and positions on issues are actually making the claim that a policy, or law being considered is racist because of their own view that the affected racial group is simply unable to comply with the proposed law. Take voter ID as an example. ALL the people who shout and protest against any and all boter ID laws are of two types. They are white or they are people in politics or academic racial minorities who are either in positions of power or are trying to advance into su h positions (note- all of these people have the require ID already, they needed it for the job they have, to get into college, drive a car, open a bank account,cash a check from any source etc etc etc.) Yet what is left unsaid in their position and cries of Racism, is that they either belief that all the other peoples of racial minority nor only lack any form of ID but that they are simply so limited mentally to be able to figure out how it get the required ID. It is interesting to listen to white college students claim that voter ID laws are racist and listen to there reasoning. What they always totally fail to under stand is that there argument agaist requiring voter ID is in fact an argument from rasism. 152.86.89.51 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTAFORUM. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that this would be a better article if the second sentence was
“Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning. The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.”
This is from the article on race. Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply stating your beliefs. What we need is unbiased reporting of data. This is an encyclopedia after all! It’s called Wikipedia and its only purpose is to educate and inform. There is no need to discuss how to decide if someone is a good or poor dancer! It doesn’t matter if you have a racist presumption whether or not its purpose is to put people down or to be complimentary. Saying that someone has such and such trait because of race is simply wrong. Race is a social construct! Period. Therefore you yourself are being racist and are mixing up the concept of political correctness with being unbiased. Being unbiased means not making assumptions based on facts that are irrelevant. The color of my skin has nothing to do with how good I am anything other than getting a suntan! Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2024

[edit]

I would like to clarify this issue with the inclusion of the following statement (from the article titled “Race”)

After the first sentence I propose that we add the following statements:

“ Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[3][4][5] While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][6][7] The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I suggested to change the article was to use the wording and the reliable sources that go with them FROM ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA PAGE. So that you can see the sources from where I suggested it:
Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[3][4][5] While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][6][7] The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.
Why not add that? It has 7 reliable sources listed! It’s from another Wikipedia article!
Please do not ignore this request again because it is very important and needs clarification and correction. It is a disgrace to the scientific community to be putting forward such biased content. This is completely consistent with the way these topics are covered in institutions of higher learning! Anthropology says that race is not a scientific fact but a social construct. As a physician, a medical doctor, I am appalled by the way this is being presented. I graduated from college many decades ago before the internet, but if I encountered this article in an encyclopedia in the 1980’s, my anthropology professors and sociology professors would be alarmed by the content. It is very biased. It is exactly the kind of information that people who criticize Wikipedia are looking for because it confirms that when there is no oversight on information, there is also no accountability for the actual content. Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah dude, the sources are there. If they're good enough for another page on Wikipedia, than they're good enough for here. Did you...read what he wrote? At all? And that you haven't responded in a month really suggests bias to me. Do better. 2600:100F:A110:693:2510:D32B:8019:414D (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Thank you, the sources are there! And I wrote this request in November so please consider including the information that I provided and the associated links.
I am not asking for much! Please show that you are trying to be fair and honest. Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction it has 6 reliable sources: 3,4,5 and 1, 6 and 7. Also I can’t figure out how to change the request for another try to change it. I saw that the edit request was denied. Can anyone help me figure out how to reactivate it? Thanks in advance for your assistance and support! Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racialism should not be included in here.

[edit]

Racialism was not necessarily racist, it was a popular though simplistic theory superseded by genetics. The racialists around Nietzsche's time, at least Nietzsche was, were largely arguing there were differences between certain populations that made them more suitable for certain tasks. For instance, the British made great logicians, while Germans were more suitable for Continental Philosophy.

Nietzsche definitely had quotes about certain races being more built for physical feats, while others were fit for intellectual pursuits. He was kind of right since different ethnic groups have different tendencies in terms of IQ and physical prowess. A portion is definitely cultural, but genetics has a huge influence over IQ and athletics. He also wasn't arguing these features made them superior, but different. He was extremely opposed to racism and antisemitism, and wrote about it in his many books. He did define certain people as being superior for standing out from the crowd, which both includes artistic geniuses and great athletes.

Basically, anyone who was unique was considered an Overman by him. Taking the relativistic nature of his work both Napoleon and Christ were great men, but he hated their followers for aping them. His racialism was more based on Lamarck's theories of evolution.

If I recall correctly about 15 to 20 years ago the Racialism article went into the nuances of the subject, and before being merged into here it was vastly simplified. Zarathustraaa (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any arguments based in sources to contend with those cited in the article? Soapboxing in itself is not productive. Remsense ‥  09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Racism" as a modern subject?

[edit]

The article currently says "Racism is frequently described as a relatively modern concept, evolving during the European age of imperialism." Surely humans have discriminated on physical differences for millennia. How should this sentence be understood? Can/should it be clarified? Pete unseth (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The modern concept of race is a recent invention, like sexual orientation. Discrimination existed (eg Pliny's descriptions of Ethiopians) but not based on these modern notions. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the page should be updated to explain that. Problem would be finding a reliable source that'd give specifics, I think. 2600:100F:A110:693:2510:D32B:8019:414D (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]