Jump to content

Talk:Racism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quinkysan (talk | contribs) at 12:56, 3 August 2014 (→Prejudice + power (again)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Rephrasing the last Intro Paragraph

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. 98.227.138.148 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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, Meclee (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We really need an RfC on this to get more input. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for that to be posted, then. Meclee (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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). Meclee (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done See Talk:Social_stratification#Racial_and_Ethnic_stratification. Meclee (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Inayity (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, irrelevant book for this topic, and for most other topics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:

" 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"

This sentence overall is very misinformed and frankly racist. Because I do not have the authority to remove it I feel someone else should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.157.116 (talk • contribs)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.128.179 (talk • contribs)
It's not a Twitter thing, it's from sociology, gender studies, critical race theory, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Inayity (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point it would be against wikipedia policy. :)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jews have more power than White people man for man so White people cannot be racist. 210.92.171.47 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Mike, that is the problem with the prejudice plus power argument. It works for anyone who claims victim status. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Meclee (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The idea only that the hegemonic racial group cannot can be "racist" is prevalent in social sciences. There's no reason to remove it. Your own opinion doesn't matter here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I started typing "The idea that POC cannot"... then edited it and messed it up. Fixed now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is not "prevalent" in the social sciences, but it is in society. 74.192.227.151 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is actually.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
74.192.227.151 it is. All the scholarly work on it is from those fields. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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). Meclee (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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? Quinkysan (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Although racist ideologies have been widely discredited after World War II and the Holocaust,"

Where were they discredited? Where are the links?KevinFrom (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try the whole fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and nuero-biology. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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..." Meclee (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@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..." EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too many edits happening to make my change. Maunus, what do you think of it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel strongly enough between my suggestion and your version, so if no one else cares, the current version is fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything about this topic becomes controversial! The current change is fine with me. Meclee (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Inayity (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discredited is the better word here as they've been shown to have no scientific basis. And I agree that Meclee was a bit out of line with that comment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not that 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 Inayity nor anyone else should go in and arbitrarily make a change to something others had already agreed to. However, I am not, unlike Inayity and EvergreenFir, willing to begin an edit war over it. Meclee (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. Maunus added it when rewording the sentence. I said I didn't really care. 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Inayity (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. Meclee (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'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

What are 'racial markers'? I thought race classification was based on overall genomic/phenotypic similarity or shared ancestry? Would 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? FrankRamsbottom (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to 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.

"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."

I think editors introducing Western bias. Further some Western scientists support the race concept. FrankRamsbottom (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice+Power

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.17.143 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Inayity (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.25.65 (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

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." 108.59.113.100 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It's sourced. User offers no reason to remove it other than WP:IDLI EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice + power (again)

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. Quinkysan (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Inayity (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. JamieA350 (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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? talk page for ease of use--Inayity (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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?" Quinkysan (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's been reverted a third time with no engagement with my point by 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. Quinkysan (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Inayity (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism&oldid=619669724"