Talk:Racism

Racist policies in China

Many governments are run by racist policies, like Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, modern China, and the United States before the Emancipation Proclamation, and South Africa during apartheid. Is modern China run by racist policies? I'm quite sure it's not. Fafas (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove, you could say that some racism exists, but without sources it should be removed immediately. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pic Signed With JDL

There is no proof this text was written by the JDL, or the JDL even had just something to dit with it. If it is not the work of the JDL it has nothing to do at the article of JDL. Everyone can write JDL on a wall with some racist texts above it. Probably the work of opponents of JDL. If you add it to the article like you want to do, the reader will see it as the work of the JDL. Which it most likely is not; i.e. there is no proof it is.

I can write some terrible racist stuff about black people on the wall and then sign it with "George W. Bush", make a pic of it and add it to the article about George W. Bush. That would, of course, not be accepted. Here happens the same. There is no proof at all that the JDL wrote this racist text, so one cannot link it to the JDL, neither in a quasi 'subtile' way. SwedishSven (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Gas the Arabs

Is there any valid reason this picture is being pushed here? Apart from the good point SwedishSven makes above, how is this related to Racism? Last time I checked Arabs were not a distinct race like whites, asians or blacks are. Is there a reason for this? Surely there are other pics available. O boy, now User:Mr. Berty will definitely have me blocked!--Kalsermar (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Kalsermar, now that Mr. SwedishSven and his sock puppets are blocked, in how many places are you going to have this discussion? Talk:Jewish Defense League. --Whaledad (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. Whaledad, is there ever going to be a substantive reply by you that deals with the issues at hand or only ad hominim attacks? Just asking.--Kalsermar (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Kalsermar. I have told you before elsewhere that the "dad" part of my name indicates that I'm a Mr. Also please stop accusing me of "ad hominim attacks", especially right after you place one yourself (targeting Mr. Berty). Thirdly: playing the "they are not a race"-card when talking about Arabs is at the very least controversial (e.g. [1]) and borders on discrimination: denying a distinct group of people the right to claim being the victim of racism, when they clearly are attacked in such a vicious way. While there is no "we have a video-tape of the person spray painting the wall and have a copy of his passport identifying him, and have a membership list of the JDL (and the Jewish counterpart Kach), and have identified him/her as a member of the JDL" kind of proof that a JDL-member has written this, it is highly likely that this is the case. It is highly unlikely that Arab themselves around their own living area go around and spray paint these: [2]. Also note that the caption says it is signed JDL, not that it was done by JDL. Also note that on EN-Wiki there was consensus after changing the caption to:

   "Gas the Arabs" painted on the gate outside a Palestinian home
 in Hebron by Jewish settlers. The persistent graffiti in Hebron calling
 for the expulsion or killing of Arabs
 has been characterized as Kahane's legacy.

I hope this is clearly enough about the content for your taste. --Whaledad (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. Whaledad, unless one of two things happen, namely 1)you send me a copy of your passport indicating gender or 2)you cease adressing me as a "Mr.", I will continue to adress you in the best way I can just like I would start a letter to an unknown person with "Dear sir/madam". Also, I will note here that you are accusing me of racism in a backward way. Very clever.... or so you'd think, but really, isn't this sort of tactic very transparant? To the issue at hand now, it is irrelevant what is likely or what is probable. The issue is that this picture is, in my opinion, not the best picture available to illustrate the term "racism". I have given some alternatives below and there is at least one other person who would replace the offending picture with one of those or another suitable candidate. Your insistance in the face of this makes me wonder even more what your true motives in defendig this picture are. If there are clearly delineated arguments against an illustration and clear and uncontroversial alternatives, what is the point in prolonging the argument?--Kalsermar (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Kalsermar, (if I'm mistaken and this should be Ms. or Mrs., please let me know; I won't require evidence) Answering politeness with pettiness, seems to show your true nature. --Whaledad (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, If I wanted people to adress me in either way I would indicate gender on my user page or something. I have asked you to stop adressing me with Mr. and you still persist and yet you call it politeness. Strange world we live in.... --Kalsermar (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The picture shows a graffitti on a wall, presumably in an urban area; which is attributed to the Jewish Defense League, based on the letters "JDL". If you look at the two other "pictures" we have in the article, they are a poster from an election in an US state, of the second half of the 19th century, and a poster, classified as "propaganda" in the second world war. If we replace this picture by another one, it should meet the following criteria, imo:

• Be no older than say 25 years (that is to say "current")
• Be easily recognised as "racist" (that's what it is supposed to illustrate)

Just also to illustrate: According to the FBI, the Jewish defense league is a terrorist organisation, and responsible for at least one terrorist attack; they have a history of violence against "neo-nazi" groups.

In short, if you find a picture on commons that can meet the criteria, we can replace the "gas the arabs" graffitti...--Eptalon (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Eptalon, thank you for your reply. While the racist poster from Georgia certainly qualifies the anti-Japanese one is more suspect but is atleast directed at a race different than the attacking party. In the case of the anti-Arab picture, no race is being attacked and there are an infinite amount of pictures on that subject available, anti-Arab and anti-Jew alike and the inclusion of this particular picture is, in my humble opinion, not meant to illustrate racism but anti-Jewish sentiments but that is my POV only of course. It is my understanding that simple:wiki is meant for persons who may not be as proficient in English and it is therefore even more important that we be clear as we can be in what we are trying to convey.

I did a quick search on Commons, and there are many excellent pictures available there on this subject. Two that I found in the first few minutes of searching are this one and this one. Both are undeniably of a racist nature and illustrate the subject well. Another option is to balance the two existing pictures with an anti-racism demonstration or some other anti-racism image. Thank you, --Kalsermar (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You might of got that a bit wrong. I'm only here because of the terror that was put upon me on en. The one and only...Mr. Berty! ^talk~_stalk 15:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(<-) Personally, I think of the two proposed the second is better (but there are probably better pictures if you want ot rely on "white supremacy groups" as being "racist". From the point of view of our audience, "less text" and "more graphic" is probably better; you need ot keep in mind that many of our readers have a limited grasp of the English language. (And no, I don't want to comment on pro-palestinian, anti-semitic, anti-arab...)--Eptalon (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the second one is better because of the reasons you state. Unless there is a better alternative I suggest it gets placed into the article. --Kalsermar (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

since there has been no further comment, I have changed the pic to the second one of my earlier suggestions.--Kalsermar (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Do we or don't we believe that claims and statements should be based on reliable references? This is such a poor article on such an important topic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I have now revised the intro to make clear that racism is not directly the cause of wars or slavery, which the previous unreferenced text had claimed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect and much is due, I believe you overreacted. In your haste to remove someone else's opinion, I believe the article now violates NPOV in the other direction. You chose to add a great deal of information, including an entire paragraph in the opening, diminishing racism's effect on both slavery and war. The statement that "racism is not directly the cause of wars or slavery" is an opinion, one many historians would disagree with, and shouldn't have a prominent place in a Simple English article. You added information about wars and slavery that weren't caused by racism. To a casual reader, the inclusion of this information makes no sense, as it has nothing to do with racism, by its own admission. How can we fix this?--FPTI (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree with much of this. I have removed most of the material which might be peripheral. I offer something rather unusual: Aristotle's unbridled advice to Alexander, as the latter set off to conquer the known world: "be a leader to the Greeks and a despot to the barbarians. Look after the former as after friends and relatives, and deal with the latter as with beasts or plants". (Green, Peter 1991. Alexander of Macedon. University of California Press, 58–59). Pretty shocking to the modern liberal mind, but I don't think there is any evidence that Alexander took notice of it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Related pages

Hello, I think we need to take a closer look at the "see also" section. In my opinion, there's no use re-listing pages there, that should be linked in the text above. This probably applies to most of the pages currently listed. Rather, we should use the section to list other pages, which may be related, but which weren't discussed in the text above. In that context, I have removed the pages, that I think should be linked above (or close to the terms linked). I have opened this section here, so that we can discuss. So if you feel some removals are inappropriate, pelase discuss here, rather than simply re-adding them. And keep in mind the topic is controversial. --Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. That's why I removed two more links that are already linked in the text above. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Social Darwinism

The way Social darwinism is described needs to be looked at: As it is often used as a gorunds to justify racist beliefs, it did not end after World War II: The Khmer Rouge did ethnic cleansings (genocide, mass murders) as late as the 1970s (The Cambodian genocide happened in 1978), the persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma/Myanmar, or the persecution of the Uyghurs in China clearny need a framework such as Social Darwinism to explain. In South Africa, there were racially motivated killings in the 1960s, and as late as 2011. I dont know to what extent the Viet Cong used nationalist/racist ideolgies, when they captured the rest of Vietnam. So stating that Social Darwinism ended after WWII is just plainly wrong, and needs fixing. --Eptalon (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

same amongus innit— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.80.1 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)