Talk:Racism/Archive 7

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 6 |

Archive 7

| Archive 8 →

Racist or Racialist?

racism is "the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race". Racialism is "the belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being." (Oxford English Dictionary Online Edition) Therefore I'm very confused at this passage in the article:

Racialism is a term often found within white separatist literature, inferring an emphasis in racial origin in social matters. Racism infers an assumption of racial superiority and a harmful intent, whereas separatists sometimes prefer the term racialism, indicating a strong interest in matters of race without a necessary inference of superiority or a desire to be harmful to others. Rather their focus is on racial segregation and white pride.

Is it me or have the white separatists got their definition completely the wrong way round? According to the Oxford English Dictionary it is the term racialist which infers an assumption of racial superiority not racism, so by using this term they are actually emphasising the racial superiority aspect not reducing it! See Talk:Racialism

boxers, algerians and hindoo's not racist?

What makes you think extremists of these ethnicities were not racist, but white supremacists or nazi's or nationalists are/were? Sam [Spade] 02:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What next? are you going to claim that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was an expression of Jewish anti-German racism? - pir 02:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not following your progression, strikes me as a slippery slope. Trying to get rid of ethnic minorities is the same everywhere, regardless of race, its always racist. Sam [Spade] 02:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope. When that ethnic minority is exploiting and oppressing you, it's not racism. - pir 02:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And what did Hitler say the Jews were doing? And what do hammerskins say minorities are doing? And what does front national say immigrants are doing? "When that ethnic minority is exploiting and oppressing you, it's not racism" = none of these groups are racist. Thats a faulty conclusion, based on the faulty premise your providing. Sam [Spade] 02:37, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't care about what the racists say. The fact is, Jews were not exploiting and oppressing Hitler's Germans. Same for your other examples. Completely different for my examples. - pir 02:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Based entirely on your opinion, one which strikes me as racial in nature. I sternly question your assesment of these particulars. Sam [Spade] 02:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? Which part do you question? - pir 02:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Generally. I don't see your conclusions here to be based on any sort of consistant reasoning or premises. Sam [Spade] 02:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I can help. Look at the internationally accepted definition of racism (from the UN convention): racism is "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

So racism is about having equal rights and freedoms. Were white Brits discriminated against and had fewer rights and freedoms than brown Indians when they were colonised? Quite the opposite. Were white colonialists discriminated against and had fewer rights and freedoms than the Chinese during the boxer rebellion? Quite the opposite. Were Jews discriminated against and had fewer rights and freedoms than the Germans during the Third Reich? Yes. I feel my reasoning and my premises are consistent.

Maybe a little thought experiment will help further. Imagine the Iraqi army invades Texas, takes over oil installations and then Iraqis make lots of money selling Texan oil. Texan folk of all kinds of political persuasions start fighting them and killing them. Why? Because they want control over their country back - their motivation is not that they all hate Arabs. -pir 03:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now were getting somewhere. Motivation is the key. Have you read up on the "white devil" propoganda used in the boxer rebellion. Sam [Spade] 03:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda doesn't necessarily tell you anything about motivation. Propaganda serves a political purpose and is therefore not an accurate reflection of motivation.

More importantly, motication is not the key (it's easy to read all kinds of motivations into people's actions)- the key is the relationship between the two ethnic groups: is it a relationship of equality where both groups have equal rights and freedoms?

Also, you didn't respond to any of the above. Do you see how I'm being consistent, not just with myself but also the generally accepted understanding of racism- pir 12:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see that the definition of racism which you provide is unhelpful due to the portion which states "equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms", something which is ridiculously difficult to define. I for one don't believe in equality at all, and even for those who relish the concept it is notoriously difficult to define. Also, what is a "fundamental freedom", or "human right"? Sam [Spade] 16:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you adopt a personal defintion of racism that contradicts the universally accepted one, that's your own business and fair enough with me, but I suggest you stop editing the racism article then, or at least attribute your edits. You could also create racism according to Sam Spade.

There is nothing ridiculously difficult about equality in terms of rights. The laws of of every state grant their citizens certain rights ; if these rights are not granted to all ethnic groups in an equal way, it's a racist state ; if the judiciary does not apply these rights equally to different ethnic groups, it's a racist judiciary ; if a party calls for certain ethnic groups to have inferior rights, it's a racist party (note that I'd agree with you that Affirmative Action is racist).

Fundamental freedom is a bit nebulous, but I suspect it designates free speech, the freedom to travel, the right to assemble and form groups, etc. Wikipedia has an article on Human rights, but what's important here is not any particular rights, just that different ethnic groups within a soceity enjoy the same (equal) rights. Also, you seem to confuse equality with egalitarianism. - pir 17:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

§ Uh, before this discussion marches completely off stage right, what discussion does Sam's "What makes you think extremists of these ethnicities were not racist, but white supremacists or nazi's or nationalists are/were?" go back to? The section heading mentions "Boxers, Algerians, and Hindoos (sic)" (I have taken the liberty of capitalizing these proper nouns. "Hindu" is the currently accepted spelling.) Sam's own question brings up one important consideration. He mentions "these ethnicities", and it has been a matter of consensus that the Chinese are "ethno-centric" rather than racist. We may be splitting hairs to discuss this, since the fundamental problem is not especially [race] against [race], but some kind of more general "my group" against "your group" thinking that involves blanket indictments against the outsiders.

§ My guess is that the Boxers hated anybody that could be perceived to be an alien, a member of "those invaders," and that the hatred probably applied equally to saints who were there only to provide medical aid and to the absolute drek that were there to take advantage of people and secure all kinds of satisfactions of base motives. I would even call Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles (San Min Zhu Yi) "racist" in an imprecise way because he depicts the Chinese as superior to all other groups. The problem is that the Chinese divided the world into "us" and "them" but didn't bother to divide the "them" into different races. They wouldn't have, before arrival of Western ideas, because the barbarians that they had the most contact with were pretty similar "racially", and they were already adequately distinguished by tribe and nation, i.e., by ethnicity. But I think discussion of whether it was "racial" or "ethnic" tension is discussion that spirals down to incoherence.

§ I am less clear about the Algerians, but my guess would be that the idea of [race] may have become commonplace among them through long contact with Europeans and their thought systems, and they may have perceived their problems to be not with just French people, or Romance language speakers, or... but with all white people. I think the salient empirical question would be what percentage of them failed to distinguish between people like Schweitzer, who went to Africa to practice medicine and to try to do good (as he understood it), and the people who went to Africa to take whatever they could. Or, turning the question around, what percentage of them would have been willing to discriminate between innocent people and oppressors?

§ "Hindus" may constitute a single group in our eyes. I'm not sure how homogeneous a group that word actually refers to. Biologically, the group may be pretty diverse, and ideologically it may also be very diverse.

§ I wonder what the real issue is here. Is it, perhaps, something like the view that Larry King once advanced on his radio show, that Group A could be racist toward Group B, but group B could not be racist toward Group A because group A had the upper hand in terms of power. He would not tolerate argument from his caller on that show, and I could see his point, but then what do you call the irrational hatred of members of group B for any and all members of group A -- a group that is identified by [race]?

§ A high percentage of the population of my home town is German-American. During World War II, they fought German soldiers and German soldiers fought them. The issue between them was not [race]. The other major population group in my home town is Irish. (And then there are all of the kids that have already come out of the biological melting pot.) The Irish fought Germans soldiers and the Germans fought back. Did the issue suddenly become "racial" for that part of the population? The Irish were getting along pretty well with the Germans where I come from. The German soldiers were not checking for the marker traits of Jews and Catholics before they shot them. I suspect that French would have shot French sympathizers of Algerians, and Algerians would have killed Algerian collaborators with equal avidity. Oppression seems to polarize groups -- around [race], but also around religion and lots of other factors. One of the interesting things about Chinese ethnocentricits is, according to the historians that study this kind of thing, ethnocentricity got worse each time China suffered a conquest dynasty. China was very "cosmopolitan" during the Tang dynasty, and got more ethnocentric in the aftermath of Mongolian, Manchurian, and Western conquests. Their negative attitudes may not have been directed against any particular [race]. Maybe, for them, anybody who was not Chinese was given an equal "handicap" when it came to their grading of groups and individuals. Maybe if we insist on using the word "race" we have to say that for them there were just two [races], the Chinese [race] and the non-Chinese [race]. But the salient fact was that they had prejudices against individuals because of their "marker characteristics." (All that being said, the Chinese are about as hard on sub-sets of their own [race], members of different provinces for instance, as they are on wai guo ren (outside-the-country people, "foreigners," "aliens"), and their "racism", if my seven years long experience in Taiwan is any measure, is far, far less virulent than, e.g., "pure white" American racism directed against "blacks" or even "75% white" Americans. ) I think anybody has a right to be upset if somebody takes offensive action against them simply because they possess some set of marker characteristics, and they also ought to be upset if they are treated unfairly well because of their possession of some of those extrinsic characteristics. P0M 19:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow... thanx for the input! Our debate was based in this edit/revert, but extended far more broadly, being appropriately encapsled by your statement

"something like the view that Larry King once advanced on his radio show, that Group A could be racist toward Group B, but group B could not be racist toward Group A because group A had the upper hand in terms of power"

Responding to pir's insinuation that I am attempting to insert some bizarre personal definition into the text in rejection of the commonly accepted one, I refer him to [1], [2], and [3], all identical, and all in agreement with myself.

I am sorry if you find the U.N. to be a good source of information in definition of concepts or terms; I won't go on regarding that, but suffice to say it is another can of worms.

Racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". That applies to boxers too.

Sam [Spade] 22:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam, on your user page you call affirmative action "government sanctioned racism". Does this mean you believe that the US government thinks that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial minorities in the US have an inherent superiority ?

I suspect that's not what you believe. Instead you probably believe that individuals from any ethnic group should have equal rights and that's why you call affirmative action racist.

Your definition is not bizarre, I take that back. It is the old-fashioned definition of racism as an abstract ideology. The UN definition is a definition of racism in practice, i.e. the social consequences of racism. The latter definition is far more useful when you're looking at real situations, because a lot of racism does not have an explicit ideological basis (which became a bit of a taboo with the demise of the Third Reich). For example a lot of racist far-right parties in Europe claim not to be racist, saying they believe all races to be equal but that they should live seperately (which according to your outdated definition would indeed mean they are not racist) ; but they then go on and demand that non-white Europeans should be thrown out of their country, i.e. they deny them the right to live in the country that has become their home, which makes these parties racist.

The Boxer Rebellion was not an orgy of racist violence, it was an "uprising against Western commercial and political influence in China" as the Wikipedia article correctly states. If white people in China at that time had been a integral part of Chinese society, the Boxer rebellion would indeed have been racist. However, that's not what they were: white people went to China to dominate and exploit. - pir 23:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"White people went to China to dominate and exploit" is itself a racist comment. I do not think the definitions I provided ([4], [5], and [6]) are outdated. I do think the US government is racist (affirmative action is but the most contemporary of a long history of race based policies). Sam [Spade] 00:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a bit frustrating that you don't respond to my reasoning. To call my comment racist is ridiculous. - pir 00:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand how answering each of your questions equates lack of response. Clearly I don't think my statements are ridiculous. How is refering to them that way a valid response to my reasoning? Sam [Spade] 00:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You didn't respond at all to my criticism of your definition. -pir 22:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I don't think my definition is in any way outdated. I think your definition is wrong. I think the U.N. is a joke, w no place to talk. Clearly I prefer the unanimous definitions provided elsewhere. I don't think racism is only an abstract ideology, in fact I think it is generally an informal opinion. I think the idea that only a powerful group or person could be racist is ludicris and a seeming attempt to redirect human thought thru changing our language (see Newspeak/Political correctness). Sometimes I will humor such unfortunate redefinitions if there is a concensus among cited references, but there is clearly none here. All of this could more easilly be summed up in person by me thumping my dictionary on the table ;) Sam [Spade] 22:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again, you don't respond to my criticism of your definition my defence of the UN definition. You just state you opinion. (your view of the UN is the view of a very minority btw.) Let's be more concrete. The BNP say they are not racists, that they don't believe in any kind of racial superiority. Their stance is a kind of "separate but equal", stating a desire to preserve the "British race, and not to interfere with others" : ""... while the BNP is not racist, it must not become multi-racist either. Our fundamental determination to secure a future for white children is restated, and an area of uncertainty is addressed and a position which is both principled and politically realistic is firmly established. We don't hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal." Of course their political agenda includes kicking out non-white Brits out of the UK. So: are they racist according to Sam Spade? Why? - pir 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Pir

I have noticed that our discussions are suffering somewhat. I get the clear impression that you think of racism as something done by the strong against the weak, or by the numerous against the few, or something done by "whites" (I personally find the terms "White" and "Caucasian" offensive, but I understand this is a very rare POV) against other races. I clearly believe otherwise.

My position is best phrased "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others".

I will cite an example, an (postulated) impoverished gypsy who hates all Germans because his family line was nearly eliminated by Nazi racial policies, living in modern Germany today (a G8 nation, and leading member of the EU, perhaps the loftiest of all superpowers). This man is racist. When he hates Germans as a group, hating those who do indeed discriminate against him (perhaps he is beaten by neo-nazi's, if this helps illustrate the point better) as well as those who do not, he is racist. When he decides, "all Germans are bad, they are all the same, because they are German" he is racist. His and his opposition’s respective stations are not relevant. Only his racial opinions are. Sam [Spade] 01:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prejudice is not racism. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right.. Prejudice involves a prejudgment, but does not necessitate a continuation of bias despite evidence to the contrary. Racism is a deeper sentiment, maintained despite evidence to the contrary. How this is germane to the statements I made I have no clue, but your welcome anyhow. Sam [Spade] 19:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all your postulated old Gypsy's beliefs are rooted in his own experience to which he gives his own private explanation, rather than a racist ideology. Secondly, his beliefs don't seem to have a detrimental effect on the Germans, the potential victim group of his alleged racism. You could arguably call him a racist, although I'd call him a sad old man. If you wanted you could use this definition consistently and classify people as racists/non-racist.

The point is that you would miss the social reality of racism. Millions of people's lives are affected detrimentally every day because of racism, racism is a much-discussed problem in many places, and the root of the problem is not the occasional old man who harbours resentment against those who committed great injustice against him. Nor is the problem limited to the few groups who still openly propagate the belief of racial superiority, because, as I said above, racism continues to exist in the absence of explicit ideologies of racial superiority. If you want to understand the problem of racism, you need to look at the effect it has on the victims' lives, not just the racists' stated beliefs. And for that the UN definition (which pretty much includes the definition you gave above) is very useful. - pir 22:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, if we must give so much focus to this view by the U.N., let us at least consider the motivation, the intent. The UN is an (notoriously ineffective) international body. They are clearly going to place their focus on the areas of greatest concern, if they intend to have some effect (like say, Sudan, or Rwanda). Now, as an observer (I read the news maybe 5-10 times a day, usually google news), I have some general impression of their methods and intents. Their focus in on nation states and world leaders, not private individuals. Our focus is not restricted in this way; we are to consider all aspects of a given term, both in its micro (my example Rom above) and its macrocosm (something like Rwanda, or S Africa). The UN definition has a place in discussions within the article, but would be a very poor basis for understanding racism generally. Sam [Spade] 23:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying the definition is bad, because you think the UN is bad? That's a very weak defence of your position. Again you don't respond at all to my reasoning. - pir 23:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear from the above exchange that we have one word with a multitude of meanings. Whenever that kind of thing happens people are likely to be talking along skewed lines. Just to make things even more interesting, or frustrating, consider a situation in which a population of a billion or so A people keeps a minority population of a million or so B people down. The minority population lives in several large enclaves of several hundred thousand. In those cities there are sometimes enclaves of a few hundred people of group A -- people who may get mistreated if they do not move around in large groups. Who are the racists? P0M 01:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This example is not difficult to deal with at all. I never said that racism is something exclusively done by a large group to a smaller group. In your example, if A and B don't have equal rights, or if one group prevents the other from exercising those rights, it's a clearcut case of racism. Both groups could be racist. Of course, this is according to the UN definition (which, btw. has been adopted by every single UNGA member state, pretty much every country in the world). With Sam's definition, it would only constitute racism if one group (or both) explicitly justifies the abuses with an ideology of racial supremacy. - pir 09:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thats not an accurate summary of my position, which is:

"Racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Sam [Spade] 11:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The two statements in your definition are connected by and, i.e. both need to be fulfilled. Therefore if there is no claim of racial superiority, your definition does not apply.

As I said I'm quite frustrated that you are a bit evasive and don't respond to my reasoning. I laid out my case why the UN definition is better than yours, and I would really welcome it if you compared the relative merits of the two definitions. I'm not saying that your definition is wrong, on the contrary, but I think it is very insufficient to understand the reality of racism. I'm very interested in your opinion on this. - pir 11:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pir, I think I halfway understand what you are saying, but your terminology doesn't match mine so I am left a little at sea. I take it that you mean that Sam's "postulate" is of the logical form:

Statement A == (Statement X && Statement Y)

and that means that his contention is true only if Statement X is true and Statement Y is true. Have I got it right so far?

Yes, exactly. But I was just being pedantic, and what I really want to say is that it is absolutely correct but not sufficient to look at ideology. pir 10:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If so, I still have to figure out how to parse Sam's long sentence (Clinton help us). To me he is actually making a definition, which is somewhat different from a postulate. (I'm getting hung up on what you mean by "need to be fulfilled" because nothing needs to be fulfilled in a definition.) His definition, stripping off all the extraneous quotation marks for the moment, would seem to be:

"Racism is a belief that (1) race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and (2) that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

So his definition of the word "racism" involves people having two kinds of beliefs at the same time, coordinated if you will. I would not define the word "racism" that way, and neither would Larry King. But I can't tell Larry King that he has no right to define the word the way he wants to. I will just argue with him that it encourages a way of talking about things and of acting that will be highly problematical, and hope that I can persuade him to lighten up and at least stop excoriating people who favor other definitions. (Nobody ever made him Word Czar, and only in France do they even have anything approaching that job description.)

We need not worry about Word Czars. Everybody is free to come up with the definition they think is best. Consensus will then support the definition which explains the phenomenon of racism best. - pir 10:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's look at the utility of his definition. There clearly are people who believe that "race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities." And I know from bitter experience that there are people who believe that "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." It's also clear that you can't hold the second belief if you don't hold the first belief.

I completely agree. pir 10:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So what does his definition of the word "racism" fail to do? You, Pir, will have you answer, and I'd like to hear it in hopes that it will dispell some of my confusion. My answer is that an "ism" is typically understood to include not only a component of intellectual conviction, an ideology if you will, but also an element of practice. So to me a racist is not kindly old Aunt Nellie, who believes that each and every Sardinian is one of the hidden masters of the age, a spiritual light casting its soft glow over the entire world, but who has never even seen a Sardinian and who continues to squash cockroaches with delight and cheat on her taxes. A racist has to be somebody who believes that there are at least two races of unequal value, and who takes actions in the real world that are grounded in that belief -- even if it's nothing more than treating each and every Ainu with the most extreme form of deference and respect.

What if some group of rather dark-skinned people had an ideology, a superstition, a religion, or whatever, that said that albino people are accursed and must be driven from the community and stoned to death. When the first Swede comes on the scene they stone him to death. Is that racism? They would presumably react to every tow headed Swede the same way, but only somebody who already had the idea of race might miss the fact that they are not responding to the presumed family background of these "white" individuals, to the genetic heredity of the Swedes, but only to their color. So I think that racism has to have an ideological component, whether it is made explicit or not.

You ask: So what does his definition of the word "racism" fail to do? Suppose a black man is murdered by a gang of a handful white youths, without provocation. The murderes are known racists, with a documented record of racist attacks and stated racist beliefs. Is this racism according to Sam's definition? Yes, absolutely. In come the police. They doubt witness statements that the victim was murdered by racists, and instead suspect that the murder is the result of a fight between black drug gangs. All of their inquiry is directed towards this hypothesis. They don't arrest or interview any of the white attackers. They interview at length the victim's (black) friend who was at the scene, but they don't believe his description and instead try to find a link to their drug gang hypothesis. In short: they mess up the inquiry. When the case finally comes to court, the murderes are found not guilty.

Are the police officers racist according to Sam's definition? Their actions are clearly rooted in racist assumptions and stereotypes. However, they never state any racist beliefs - of course they never would, because they would lose their jobs. They may not even believe in any racist ideology, they probably just think that most black people are criminals (which is quite different from a belief in the validity of racial categories and racial superiority). So no, according to Sam's definition this is not a case of racism.

But according to the UN definition, it is a case of racism: the police failed completely in their duty to provide an adequate inquiry, and this is because the victim belonged to an ethnic minority. A careful study of police actions will establish that the police don't treat different ethnic groups equally but that they are prejudiced. So the police's actions can be shown to be racist (according to the UN Convention), despite the fact that the police force, just like other sections of the British government, is quite clearly is opposed to any kind of racist ideology.

Does this matter? Unlike Sam's postulated resentful old Gypsy and your Aunt Nellie, my example is real: Stephen Lawrence was murdered in South London in 1993 and his murderers are still free today because a racist police force failed to conduct a proper investigation. It was a huge public issue in the UK over the last decade. One newspaper took up the case and called the five white youths racist "murderers" on its front page, asking them to sue for libel to provoke a new trial (they never did). The example is by no means atypical - there are even several cases where black or Asian people were killed by police in custody, and these police officers were never convicted. A recent undercover investigation by the BBC unmasked the racism of some police officers. Of course I am not saying that all police officers in the UK are racist, it's only a small minority. But some of them are, and they go unpunished.

What's important is that, apart from individual racist police officers, the effective actions of the British police force collectively is demonstrably racist. There was a public inquiry ([7])into the Stephen Larence case, and it came up with this finding, and the term "institutional racism", which it defines as "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin." Things like institutional racism are a reality faced by ethnic minorities, and they exist in the absence of any explicit racist ideology. Therefore I maintain that Sam's definition is absolutely correct, but insufficient to understand and deal with racism. - pir 10:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

§ As I said above, "an 'ism' is typically understood to include not only a component of intellectual conviction, an ideology if you will, but also an element of practice." In the case of the UK police that Pir brings up, there is the clear presence of the element of practice, but the element of ideology is submerged because the policemen do not admit to their motivations. They might not be consciously aware of their motivations. In the course of human history, the presence of crippling misconceptions has always been a problem and beginning with Zhuang Zi in the -4th century there have been methodologies known and used to free ourselves from these prejudicial elements. The trick, even in dealing with oneself, is to create self-awareness and recovery from these error conditions. Anyway, Pir, why don't you try to modify Sam's definition so that it does bring in the element of practice? P0M 22:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If he were to do so it would become a new word. Pir states

"We need not worry about Word Czars. Everybody is free to come up with the definition they think is best. Consensus will then support the definition which explains the phenomenon of racism best."

This is not only fundamentally untrue, unhelpful, and anti-intellectual, but it is also the inverse of why I love encyclopedias and other sources of reference. There is an expert source of definitions of words. It is called a "dictionary". See [8], [9], and [10]. Another source would be an encyclopedia. Neither are a place for individuals to create idiosyncratic personal definitions of terms and concepts. Personally I feel there is never a place for that sort of thing (its one of those things I find particularly aggravating, and I generally either end a conversation, or end up banging my dictionary upon the tabletop when it occurs).

As far as breaking up my statement, when you have the 1st concept ("a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities") alone, you have racialism. Understanding how the second ("that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.") occurs appears to be the confusion here. I understand why you feel that quantifying it by basing it on real world abuses is helpful, but it isn't. When you try to do that you fail to understand what racism actually is.

Racism is not when a police officer becomes used to dead black males in his district having been related to drug or gang related violence after working there a few years, and that having been the case 90+ % of the time. That is called a generalization, or a statistics based hunch. Occom's razor, if you will.

Racism is an opinion, sometimes resulting in an action, other times not. The opinion is defined quite astutely in the sources which I have cited, and if the U.N. fails to agree, that would likely be due to their focus (world politics, not semantics) and their background (mainly consisting of non-native English speakers, along w many who don't speak English at all), all of which clearly limiting their abilities to define words with any sort of precision. In conclusion, we are not here to redefine words, nor is the U.N. The U.N.'s job is to provide a safe place for world leaders to send diplomats so that they can presume to dictate world policy (with a resounding lack of success, IMO ;). Our duty is to accurately collect, digest and regurgitate information in a neutral manner. I am perfectly happy to mention any verifiable opinion on what racism means or how it is defined, but the general English language consensus is to be found in reliable, citable books of reference, not amongst ourselves. :)

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 11:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam, I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. The dictionary links you provide all say the same ; racism is:

"(1) : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
(2) : racial prejudice or discrimination"

The definition in the UN convention is nothing more than a more precise description of (2). The two meanings are not contradictory, they are very closely linked: (1) is racism as an ideology ; (2) is the consequence of (1), the effect in the real world. Just like P0M said, (2) is the "element of practice" of the racist ideology. So even according to your dictionary definitions, your statement that "racism is an opinion" is wrong, or rather, incomplete. Moreover the UN convention has been adopted by every single country in the world, so any suggestion that I'm trying to "re-define the word" in contradiction to the English language consensus is ... inaccurate, I'm just regurgitating the universally accepted concept of racism in a neutral manner.

You misunderstood my "We need not worry about Word Czars" comment. I was describing the general process of how human knowledge and understanding progresses, not how Wikipedia should function (we only reproduce this knowledge and understanding). I would argue that your position that words are written in stone and that their meaning never changes -must never change- is "untrue, unhelpful, and anti-intellectual". With time, as we understand things better, the meaning of words evolves. Educated people do research, come up with new findings, they debate, re-assess earlier ideas etc. Sometimes an initial definition may even be found to be inadequate and insufficient and it may be improved. That's the scientific method. History tells us that the scientific method, which adjusts beliefs to observations, is far superior to the method of dogmatic ideologues and self-appointed theologians who never change their initial beliefs but try to adjust and re-interpret observations to fit their rigid beliefs.

Your description of the U.N.'s aims is extremely skewed as well. The UN was founded after WW2 as an instution to solve conflicts between countries in a peaceful manner. (If the UN has been rather unsuccessful to achieve this aim, it's not the UN's fault, it's because the most powerful members, the permanent member of the UNSC have prevented it from achieving this aim.) The gigantic destruction WW2 and the mass-murder of the holocaust made people realise that they needed new institutions and international conventions if the human race was to survive. So another consequence was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is absolutely central to the UN. Racism is one form of a fundamental violation of the human rights declaration, the UN racism convention is based on the declaration, so the UN text is probably more relevant than any other text. Oh, and your suggestion that the UN text is flawed because of the many "non-native English speakers" "clearly limiting their abilities to define words with any sort of precision" is .... let's say ethnocentric , and based on ignorance (the UN has six official languages - Chinese, English, French, Russian, Arabic and Spanish - and all conventions are produced in these six languages).

So I think some of your positions here are simply wrong. Institutional racism is a widely recognised and important form of racism. best, - pir 11:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

areas of agreement

Perhaps suprisingly, we appear to be disagreeing less than would earlier have appeared to be the case. You clearly agree with me that the U.N. definition is divergent from that presented in books of reference, even if you feel the difference is one of "precision". What you refer to as "precision" I see as an unhelpful generalization of definition, but the important point is where we agree, that the two definitions are not synonymous. Yes, "racial prejudice or discrimination" can include Institutional racism, but "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" clearly includes racial opinions. Also "racial prejudice or discrimination" clearly does not exclude "opinions" in favor of institutional racism exclusively.

I assure you I am well aware of the long term fluidity of language (being an amatuer etymologist), but am also a strict advocate for precise meaning and common definition. The dictionary (as well as the encyclopedia) is an invaluable resource for those who wish to communicate with precision (as I do).

The statement "UN convention has been adopted by every single country in the world" is one at which I scoff, and would enjoy some citation of elsewhere (what is N Korea's stance, pray tell?) but that, along with most of the comments regarding the U.N. are out of place in this discussion. The simple conclusion, which I assume we will all eventually agree to, is that the U.N.'s definition is one definition amongst others, not the definitive definition. Sam [Spade] 12:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad our debate does seem to go somewhere eventually. I share your desire for precise meaning and definition (don't know what you mean by "common definition"). It's a very good idea to start by what we agree on. Do we agree on the following statements:

(a) A complete definition of the term racism includes on one hand an element of ideology and on the other hand an element of practice as expressed in the 1936 Merriam-Webster entry [11]:

rac·ism Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-

(b) (2) is the consequence of (1) being applied to a social context ;

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

(c) institutional racism is one form (among others) of (2)

(d)the (partial) definition from the UN convention is a definition of (2) - pir 13:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By common definition I mean one which we share, which we have in common. If we define terms differently any debate is likely to founder, and if we share terms in common we can eventually agree to disagree, assuming we have a disagreement other than semantic :).

Regarding the above, yes, I do disagree. I do not think the the term "racism" requires an action, much less an institutional or state sponsored one. Specifically, I do not agree with:

(a) A complete definition of the term racism includes on one hand an element of ideology and on the other hand an element of practice

and

(b) (2) is the consequence of (1) being applied to a social context

I do agree with:

(c) institutional racism is one form (among others) of (2)

and

(d)the (partial) definition from the UN convention is a definition of (2)

I hope that is intelligible and helpful. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 14:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh no! I was hoping we were progressing.... Can you explain why you disagree with (a) and (b)? You contradict blatantly what you've been saying all along, because all the dictionary definitions you gave have got (1) and (2). And to be clear, I don't think this definition means that in each and every single case (1) and (2) must be fulfilled simultaneously ; it means that racism as a phenomenon has both an ideological and a practical component, and a complete definition must include both. - pir 15:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand you at all. Your conclusions do not seem to be based in our agreed upon premises.

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

and

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Do not lead to

(a) A complete definition of the term racism includes on one hand an element of ideology and on the other hand an element of practice

and

(b) (2) is the consequence of (1) being applied to a social context

Do you have some sort of reasoning other than statements like

"You contradict blatantly what you've been saying all along (how so?), because all the dictionary definitions you gave have got (1) and (2). (how does that lead to a or b?)

Sorry, but I'm at a loss as to how we should progress, perhaps a re-reading of the previous discussions might assist you? Sam [Spade] 15:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You've been constantly telling us how great dictionary definitions are and that we must never change them (personally I think that in general these definitions are important but not written in stone, and that they sometimes become inadequate and need to be upadted, but let's stick to your reasoning for a moment). All the dictionary definitions of racism you referenced here include both (1) an ideological element (a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race) and (2) a practical element (racial prejudice or discrimination). Hence a complete definition of racism needs to include both elements, which is what I called statement (a). If you disagree with (a) you contradict your earlier claims that we must rigorously adhere to dictionary definitions. - pir 10:24, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A disagreement over reasoning

I don't disagree with the dictionary definition, nor my own statements. I clearly do disagree with your reasoning, and leap of logic from such to your statements (a) and (b), neither of which are to be found in any reference source (other than your U.N. reference). An action, or an ideology is neither implied nor excluded. There can be racist actions, and their can be racist ideologies, and their can be racist opinions not involving either ideology or action. Sam [Spade] 11:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Racial discrimination is not Racism

I removed the {{merge}} [[racial discrimination]] note -- because racism is not simple racial discrimination, but discrimination combined with the power to negatively affect the lives of the group that's discriminated against -- that's the classic definition if racism as it is used today. Before the word was introduced to mainstream U.S. society by Black activists in the civil rights movement in the the 1960, people talked about "racial discrimination" -- and "racism" was a new formulation to talk about a new concept. See power and Black power for more background about some of the thinking behind this (at the time) new formulation.

Also see [http://www.racematters.org/blackslackpowertoberacists.htm In bigot versus bigot, white racist is winner] -- an editorial by Leonard Pitts, Jr. on the topic -- and also [209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/606957/posts Black bigotry, white racism differ] -- an interesting discussion on FreeRepublic.com after someone posted the article there.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thats not accurate, Racism has nothing to do w power, see lengthy convo above, Thanx. Sam [Spade] 15:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is your point of view. Many people believe racism has a lot to do with power. That point of view must be reprsented in the article. Slrubenstein

Including verifiable POV's is great, stating them as fact is wrong. Sam [Spade] 16:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you believe this, then why did you state a point of view -- "racism ha snothing to do with power" -- as if it were fact? Practice what you preach. Slrubenstein

As I had understood it, racial discrimination was discrimination based on race. Racism is not liking or being liked based on one's race, which may create discrimination, violence, or simply agitation solely in the minds of racists. Hyacinth 16:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are many different things that people mean when they talk about racism. The commonly used definition of racism (used by the mainstream majority-white population in the U.S. at least) is "hatred based on race."

The often-cited definition of racism from the 1936 edition of Webster's Dictionary is: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

My Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (published 1961) has the following definition:

rac•ism 1 : the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : RACIALISM

And "racialism" in turn is defined as:

ra•cial•ism 1 : racial prejudice or discrimination : race hatred 2 : RACISM

Then my Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (published 2002) has the following definition:

rac•ism 1 : the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usu. coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others 2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles b : a political or social system founded on racism 3 : RACIALISM

And "racialism" in turn is defined slightly differently as:

ra•cial•ism 1 : racial prejudice or discrimination 2 : RACISM

And one more in-depth piece from African-Canadian Harvey Millar is at http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~hmillar/racism.htm and says in part:

In addressing racism, it is extremely important that we have a clear definition of what racism really is. One definition of racism I subscribe to is: Racism = Prejudice in collusion with Personal and Institutional Power. Prejudice may be defined as judgment or opinion formed before hand without due examination. Due to 'human intelligence', one may argue, on the basis of this definition, that humans have the propensity to "second guess", or to form opinion upon superficial examination. Hence the natural existence of prejudicial behavior. Further, we note that prejudices are of different types: race prejudice, class prejudice, cultural prejudice, and so on. The word power, on the other hand, may be defined as " the ability to do anything - physical, mental, legal". On the basis of this definition, one can argue that there are several types of powers, and that not all individual possess all powers. Further, it must be noted that some types of power can be acquired, political power for example, while some are innate, for example cultural power.

Going back to the definition of racism, one concludes that racism is an acquired power - the power to impose one's racial prejudices with the conscious or subconscious objective of subjugating and exploiting another race. This definition has numerous implications. The hurt that African-Canadians feel as a result of racism is not merely due to race prejudice, but rather, the power that the offender has impose it, and the powerlessness that the victim appears to have to eradicate it. Further, in examining acts that one may consider racist, it is not sufficient to challenge the attitude of the offender. The system of power that supports and perpetuates these acts much also be challenged. Being an acquired power, there is the potential to eradicate racism.

So -- more grist for the mill....

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr very accurately sums things up with the above. The generally accepted definition (the one in books of reference) has nothing to do w power. The "new" definition, which I agree is growing, and is worth mentioning (albeit not in any way other than as a POV) is that it is entirely power based. IMO this is rooted in reverse racism, and a desire to be able to use the lable "racist" solely against those seen to be White, but thats my POV. The fact is the definition currently has nothing to do w these newspeak mental gymnastics and the article would do a mighty disservice to the reader if we suggest otherwise. In summary, include POV as POV and fact as fact. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 10:13, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 2002 definition includes a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others - so the definition clearly sees it as a question of power. Racism was invented by Europeans to legitimise European conquest, colonisation and thievery in much of the rest of the world, and to legitimise things like slavery. Since then it has been found to be an excellent tool to marginalise and exploit groups of people, or to unite one's own group behind oneself and against another group (especially in wartime, examples are too numerous to even begin listing them here). I haven't got any references to hand, but I'd be very surprised if racism hadn't been recognised as such a tool of power from the very beginning. - pir 11:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes -- I have to agree with pir. The 2001 Webster's definition -- especially "2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles" -- clearly involves power, and that is neither newspeak or mental gymnastics, IMHO.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it clearly does not involve power, even in your cherry picked definition. As far as what pir states above, my immediate response is "thats insane!", and while I know thats not terribly polite or productive, I must admit a momentary disadvantage due to my complete suprise and confusion as to how anyone could possess such ideas. Suffice it to say that if anyone intends to state within the article space that europeans "invented" the very concept (rather than the word) of racism as a tool of conquest, this article will need its factual accuracy disputed. Obviously I find the very suggestion breathtakingly absurd, and doubtless I am not alone in such an appraisal. I think I'll give you some time to rethink, as I am suspicious you might not have ment precisely what you said. Sam [Spade] 11:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's very interesting Sam - could you also explain your position rather than just stating it? - pir 12:01, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And for your information, the article states what I said in more detail and formal language: "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 " - pir 12:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam -- even though the construct "race" was used to codify physical and cultural differences by European colonizers during the early 1500s, it expanded into a worldview and ideology that justified European domination as many European countries conquered and colonized large parts of Africa, Asia, and the Americas in combination with the creation of slavery as a social and economic system based on race. Over the centuries, the concept of race has continued to change and in each period has served to perpetuate and justify systems of privilege and power. BCorr|Брайен 12:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Privledge and power

These are things that can be influenced by racism, or can be entirely seperate from racism. There is no positive correllation between privledge/power and racism. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. The disempowered, disenfranchized, chronically poor are far more likely to develop strong racist opinions than the rich. The poor are more tribal in general. And that is the true root of racism: tribalism, xenophobia, and ethnic rivalry. Look into the Southern Poverty Law Center, or Nizkor sometime. Sam [Spade] 16:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tribalism, xenophobia, and ethnic rivalry are expressions of racism, not its roots. The social roots of racism are social conflicts. Just look at the paradigm of political and ideological racism: National Socialism. With the economic disaster of the 1920s, there were huge conflicts within German society (like elsewhere). Capitalism as a system was widely discredited and Communism was increasingly popular, to the extent that there was a realistic risk of them taking power. In that situation the Nazis gained the support of wealthy industrialists (the most famous being Fritz Thyssen, who, by the way, had a good relationship with another famous and very wealthy family in the US [12] ; see also IG Farben). The Nazis' racist theories of the Jewish World Conspiracy, i.e. that "the Jews" were the reason for the economic collapse and that "the Jews" were also behind Bolshevism, came to be seen as the anti-dote to Communism. Although at least some of these wealthy Nazi-supporters weren't racists themselves (if I remember well, some of them were actually Jewish), the massive and highly efficient Nazi propaganda campaigns convinced many Germans from lower social classes, i.e. those who suffered most under the economic crisis - note that there is a difference between being racist and using racism as a tool. See National Socialism#Ideological competition and also the paragraph after that. Racism prevented Germany from becoming Communist, racism allowed the country to become united again after all the social conflict, and racism hlped ensure that the heirs of IG Farben (Agfa, BASF, Bayer, Hoechst) are still successful businesses today. So basically racism was an effective tool of power and privilege, as it always has been and always will be. Another obvious example for this that comes to mind is apartheid South Africa.

In Western societies today, the most viciously racist groups within society are normally the lower middle class, not the poorest social strata. They are the main supporters of racist parties, they are the ones who are most worried about illegal immigrants etc. The reason for that is that the social status they have achieved is most under threat esp. from immigrants who are trying to make it. If you want to keep them down, racism is the way to go. Racism empowers the racist and disempowers the victim, it's really quite obvious. - pir 21:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seems obvious to me that the elite promote a racial harmony, celebrate diversity, gay pride parade atmosphere, and the poor become working class skins and make rude comments about "white boys" on the bus and spray paint "fag" on the wall after their hippity-hop concert. Nazi ideology was not, is not the prime example of racism. It was a unique social experiment in Führerprinzip, which happened to occur during a time of nearly universal racism. There was nothing unusually racist about Nazism at that time, what was unusual was the Führerprinzip. Heck, in the 1930's, slavery hadn't even been over in the USA for all that long. A good example of racism is the Palestinian-Jewish conflict, or the Pakistani-Indian one, or the hootu vs. tootsi in Rwanda, or the darfor conflict in Sudan. These are situations where people actively hate one another in a deep and committed way, not some ideological manipulation of morality for the benefit of some elites. I understand how your conception of bourgeois manipulating the working class w racial ideology is appealing to a Marxist worldview, but its completely bogus in our modern society. People are racist because they think race is a good indicator of character, not because of their politics or their economic class. They haven’t been "fooled by the man, Mr. White T", they have been fooled by their own life experiences (and lack thereof) as well as by their loved ones/peers. Anywho, back to the article... Sam [Spade] 21:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Third Reich was by no means the first or the last highly authoritarian regime. Although racism was very common at that time the Nazis were are unique in the way they used racism to take control of German society, just as they were uniquely "successful" in whipping up racism to the point where Germans developed industrial methods to kill 6 million Jews and Gyspies because of their ethnicity. As for the Palestinian-Jewish, the Pakistani-Indian, and the Hutu vs. Tutsi conflicts, they are all three very interesting examples of political groups and their leaders using racism to further political projects, to unite "their" people behind them and to preserve their power and privilege. It's a shame you don't actually engage with the argument I made but just state your opinion. Racism isn't like a virus, people don't catch it like the flu. Neither is it a necessary and essential aspect of "human nature". Racism is so pervasive because it has served powerful interests in the past and to some extent continues to do so. - pir 22:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Different definitions?

I haven't looked at this article for a bit, when I came back noticed the intro now says, "combined with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against." This is not neutral. Some authors use this definition (and make a racism/prejudice distinction); others, and probably most native speakers, do not. How did this POV get put in? V V 01:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow, big problems. Folks, this should be neutral. "Extreme hardship" is more flowery than objective. V V 01:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since there is clearly not agreement on the definition of racism, it seems very reasonable and NPOV to use a major dictionary's current full definition at the beginning, rather than a slight paraphrasing of the same dictionary's definition from 78 years ago (see above). Even though Sam Spade removed it with the edit summary, "wtf, wikipedia is not a dictionary", I propose leaving the current version with the 2002 definition until we can reach agreement about a definition. I added in the part that VV finds POV months ago (and I must note that most African Americans agree with the definition as I had left it, so it's definitely not a "native/non-native speaker" divide, BTW), so clearly the Webster's definition isn't my idea of what racism is, so I hope that all can see this as a compromise. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, well maybe it's been there for months, but it's still POV. I realize that many authors use racism = prejudice + power, but many do not, and that's certainly not what I mean when I use the term in conversation. My use of the "native speaker test" was not to say it's a problem with non-native speakers but rather that that's where we go to get the meaning. (Also, could you cite a survey of blacks as to what the word means to them?) I'm not thrilled with W3's approaches in general, and this instance in particular, but I see where you're going with this and it may be the best way. I also generally agree with your comments in respect to Sam Spade's edits, in that I don't think use of a dictionary definition constitutes making Wikipedia a dictionary; what I'm not sure of is what constitutes "fair use", since IANAL. V V 00:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course not, in what way is that any sort of compromise whatsoever? Also, how would you know what most african americans think? Do you know any? Do you have a cite? I am a poll buff, and know dozens of african americans personally, and I don't go around claiming to know what most afro-americans think. Also, even if you were correct, what possible difference would it make (regarding the definition of the word) what most african americans thought? Would that make it correct? It would make a potentially noteworthy cited factoid, but that is all. (originally posted on Bcorr's talk responding to a nearly identical statement, since deleted, now moved here by myself Sam [Spade] 12:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Sam [Spade] 14:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sam -- I was deeply troubled by your last edit and edit summary, which I found bordering on dishonest, although that may have been inadvertant on your part. You once again removed my replacement of the 1936 Webster's definition with the 2001 Webster's definition, claiming that you believed that it was a copyright violation, and replaced it with a link to an online definition -- [[13]] with the edit summary "cripes, isn't it plagerism to just dump websters definition in here? at least link to it, for crisakes"

The problem is twofold, as I see it at this time. First, the link you provided is not the same definition that I had put in, but basically the one I replaced, so that is part of why the edit summary could appear dishonest. Second, the previous definition could have been considered plagiarism as it is almost identical to the older Webster's and was not even cited, which again could lend the appearance of a less-than-honest edit summary. I hope that you will honor my previous request and leave the compronise version until we can actively and successfully resolve our differences at this page -- and I sincerely hope and assume that we can do that amicably and in the spirit of cooperation and wikilove.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 00:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Why do you think your particular version of webster is superior? Why are we obligated to accept that as some sort of bizarre "compromise"? And what did I do wrong by questioning the legality of copying material from a non-open source site and pasting it here? Also, why do that at all when we can just link to a dictionary definition if need be? And why place3 a dictionary definition here at all? This is a Encyclopedia, if the reader wanted to look into what webster said, they can go find a dictionary. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Sam [Spade] 12:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No Sam, you're wrong here. (1)Adding a dictionary definition to the article doesn't make the article into a a dictionary entry. The aim is to get some clarity on the generally agreed definition. (2) your action could be seen to be dishonest because you've always been lauding dictionary definitions. The one which BCorr provided is best because it is the most recent one from a widely used dictionary. It's clearly not illegal to quote it here. (3) there is no link to this definition to be found on the Internet, and anyway a link can't replace the quote here. - pir 16:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External conversations

User_talk:Sam_Spade#User_talk:Pir.23.3F

User_talk:Pir#.3F

User_talk:Bcorr#.95_ad_hoc.3F

Sam [Spade] 14:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Much of the above discussion, I hate to say, does not seem useful. A dictionary definition is not an authority for an encyclopedia and is not NPOV. Let me also point out that researching for an encyclopedia article by reading a dictionary is a pretty bad method. Like encyclopedias, dictionaries are themselves the results of research and editorial decisions. They are not primary sources by any means. To rely on them instead of real research is simply lazy, and a way of defaulting on our work to someone else's judgement. Moreover, the researtch that goes into a dictionary is very very different from the research that goes into an encyclopedia, and is no substitute by any means.

Sam, have you done any research into race and racism? Have you read Oliver Cox or Marvin Harris, for example? Have you read any of the host of articles in sociology and social psychology? Or is al of this just your opinion? Let me remind you that we are writing an encyclopedia here, this is not a chat room or list-serve. Slrubenstein

I agree with what you say, but only to some extent. It is absolutely essential to have a clear but complete definition of a term if we are supposed to write an article on it. When it comes to racism, there is a lot of obfuscation what the term means. Even racists try to hijack the nearly universal rejection of racism to their advantage. Modern fascists and neo-Nazi parties in Europe (e.g. the BNP in the UK, or the French Front National) claim to be opposed to racism. They state that they believe all "races" to be equal and then argue for ethnic seperatism to "end" racism and achieve "true" equality of "races" ; they claim that e.g. white Britons are discriminated "against" through political correctness and "reverse racism" ; in their fight "against" racism they want to end all non-white immigration but have no objections to white immigration ; they also oppose "miscegnation" and claim, in their heroic fight "against" racism, that they feel really sorry for all these poor children that have lost their ["racial"] identity; their real political aims are of course to re-define nationality and the right to live in the UK/Europe, to marginalise all non-white inhabitants, in particular immigrants and asylum seekers (and these fringe neo-Nazi parties have been remarkably successful in furthering these racist political aims in terms of the policies that many European governments have adopted policies, as well as the debate in the media). I think it is important that the definition we will ultimately adopt here is one that allows readers to discern racists from anti-racists. This is a minimum requirement really. I'm not sure what the public debate on the issue of racism is like in the US, but I got the impression that it's actually worse than here.

So, to start off with a definition from a modern dictionary seems like a very sensible idea to me, because dictionaries reflect both current usage of a word and scientific understanding. Of course, it is only a temporary solution until we find a formulation that finds consensus. I suggest we assemble some definitions from relevant sources (and please not pre-WW2 or even pre-1960s definitions! we might just as well quote from Mein Kampf), try to find a common element that goes right at the beginning of the introduction, and then deal with the differences between these definitions. - pir 18:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

material for the definition

OK, I here's some useful material from the website of one of the world's most respected human rights organisations, amnesty international. This if from the introduction of a paper written for the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, so it's pretty up-to-date as well. Just quoting some relevant paragrphs[14]. Unfortunately it is not a succinct defnition, but rather a description of racism as a social phenomenon in the world today and as a historical consequence. However it gives a very useful overview of some of the essential elements of racism (which I tried to bold), and we need to put these into the definition:

Racism is an attack on the very notion of human rights. It systematically denies certain people their full human rights just because of their race, colour, descent, ethnicity, caste or national origin.

Racism manifests itself in different ways according to the nature of the society. However, racism is invariably linked to broad economic and social issues, such as poverty and lack of education. In the modern globalized market economy, the poor and the marginalized are frequently members of racial or ethnic groups whose position has been determined by generations of exploitation, oppression and discrimination. Racism then reinforces the inequalities -- people from ethnic minorities impoverished and disenfranchised by historical developments are viewed as somehow inferior and then blamed for their own deprivation. Such racist attitudes then act to further block their access to education, land, jobs and positions of influence.

As the concept of race has no biological basis, racial categories are inevitably arbitrary and are often used for political ends. Moreover, the meaning of race and the expression of racism change over time and across continents. Racism may be used by those in power to divide and rule, or may be an expression of alienation and despair among the powerless, including victims of racism.

The right not to suffer racial discrimination is one of the most fundamental principles of international human rights law. The principle appears in virtually every major human rights instrument as well as in the UN Charter.

And yet racial discrimination persists in every society. Around the world people continue to suffer human rights violations simply because of their racial identity. Some have been victims of genocidal onslaughts. Some have suffered "ethnic cleansing". Some have had their land stolen and been thrown into destitution.

Around the world, racism is being nourished by increasingly xenophobic responses to immigration. Immigrants, migrant workers and asylum-seekers who have left their homes in search of a life with basic dignity and security are often met with racist ill-treatment and denial of their rights by officials in the countries to which they travel. This is happening in the north and south, in the east and west, and in developing as well as industrialized countries. - pir 20:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)