Talk:Racism in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Racism against Muslims?

This article has a section dealing with racism against Muslims. Islam is not a race - it's a religion. I suggest the section be removed, since discrimination on the basis of religion is different to discrimination on the basis of race. (Same applies to discrimination against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Arab, Iranian, Afghan and South Asian immigrants from Muslim nations aren't treated any better if they're Hindu, Sikh or Christian. Racists will simply assume that they're Muslim before even talking to them, and even if they do know the difference, will often be suspicious of them as "potential terrorists" or such. When Virgil Goode said he wanted to stop immigration from the Middle-East, he wasn't limiting himself to Muslims. 147.9.201.163 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That also is true for The UK and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.136.109 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging

I think Racism in the Southern United States should be merged with this article. Toothpaste 4 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)

• I agree, but there isn't very much worthwile there. I say merge whatever's really relevant and accurate (most of it is not really), and make Racism in the Southern United States a redirect.--Pharos 4 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but I think that the article should also be divided into, Western U.S., Northern U.S. and Southern U.S. because the forms on how Racism were conducted were different and each more or less had its own history. Falphin 4 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Also agreed, but i think the article should be divided up into Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western United States. Also I HATE the KKK!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.28.196 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Racial discrimination nowadays

I think the article should contain examples and problems faced by minority groups in the United States and the United Kingdom nowadays, especially those African-American and Chinese American because these two ethnic groups form the majority of ethnic groups in these two countries. For example, the article should discuss racial discrimination in US and UK communities and the lower possibility for them to enter top universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard etc. Besides, can they merge themselves into white communities without being treated unfairly and unequally should be a highlighted issue in the article. I suggest dividing the ariticle "racism" into two seperate ones, one discussing racial discrimination in western history while another one concerning racial discrimation nowadays in Southeast Asian and Western countries like US, UK, Malysia and Indonesia etc. It is better to provide more information about racial discrimination against students who are studing abroad in UK, US and Australia, such as their status in high schools and colleges compares to that of White.

Um, this article is on racism in the United States, not the UK, not Australia, etc. We should stick to teh US here, and link to other country articles when appropriate. Elefuntboy 01:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

stelletje mierenneukers

Looking at the UK article, you'd think there's no racial discrimination. I know better. I lived there for 7 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.136.109 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The problems African Americans faced form the basis of much of the study of US history; no attempt to discuss anti-Black racism in America can succeed because it must include at least two different topics, slavery and Jim Crow, each worthy of at least a monograph. Problems Mexican Americans faced, including involuntary emigration, qualitatively differed from those African Americans faced. Irish Americans had different problems than Italian Americans. Jews faced antipathies as respects race and religion, including numerus clausus regulations and charges that they caused wars, that no other minority faced. Native Americans have a very complex history, which cannot simply be labelled racism: the notion of the noble savage had racist implications that in some ways protected Native Peoples from genocide; expansionism (manifest destiny) with resultant genocide was something no other minority experienced and was also not entirely racist in intent, although it obviously was in result; plagues effected by differing immune systems that largely destroyed many tribes were not racist. These, of course, are just examples, not intended to be a comprehensive list of minorities who faced problems. Instead of attempting to give a broad brush to the problems faced by each group, better would be links to a series of articles, each containing information about prejudice against a specific group, or, better yet, the history of the group within America.

Race (U.S. Census)

The article should include information on why the USA government classifies its citizens by race.

It also looks quite common for any speaker/writer to say/write African American, Asian American, etc. Why?

Are those expressions of an underlying cultural racism? Or not? - Nabla 2005-07-08 19:32:56 (UTC)

I'd argue that the terms African-American, Asian-American, et al are the most inclusive terminologies that people outside of those cultural-ethnic groups can use; I don't think it is an underlying cultura racism so much as an understanding of different heritages. Elefuntboy 8 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

It is not my intention to argue about it here. I'm simply pointing that as a reader I would expect those subjects to be included in this article. Nabla 21:00:15, 2005-07-09 (UTC)

I agree with Nabla. There should be some explanation.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a note on these terms. I'm not sure if the same goes for other X-American groups, but I know that inside the community there is a difference between saying "African-American" and "Black." Go to any neighborhood of Haitian immigrants in Boston or New York and you will quickly find this out. The terms should be used carefully and precisely. It's more important to be worried about historical accuracy than political correctness, and often the term "Black" is more favorable when you're talking about northern industrial racism. Conversely, in the US South in the 1920s Black Americans who spoke Spanish would sometimes pass themselves off as Cubans to gain equal treatment on rail transportation, etc... and once again the distinction between racism against Blacks and racism against African-Americans becomes very important. All African-Americans are Black, not all Black people are African-Americans.Billy P 14:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Old hippie here: Black is beautiful. I like the capitalization, it re-asserts the regal nature of this beautiful color. Everybody's afraid of the dark when it means "absence of light." But pigmentation is a different thing altogether. In terms of light, white is all-inclusive, but in terms of pigmentation, black is all-inclusive. They're different things.

Organizing all racism in the US articles

...into a table. Anyone experienced with creating tables?

This is a massive topic - perhaps several COTW tasks merged into one article. The best we can do is better organize the overall theme.

lots of issues | leave me a message 9 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

what are you picturing for this table? Elefuntboy 08:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

nvm, I don't think we have enough related major articles to form a "series" table. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I really think we could do a series, either on Racism, or American Racism.Billy P 14:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Debate in the Watermelon article

Watermelons were strongly associated with racism, as the text in watermelon mentions, for many decades in America. But should the watermelon article include a representative caricature of a black person eating a watermelon, that some find offensive? There's a strawpoll going on at Talk:Watermelon#Straw poll on watermelon caricature image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 11:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

citations, anyone?

Most of the information here is probably true, but there's a real lack of citations. This passage, for instance:

So from that time on, the wealthy landowners determined that only Africans would be used as slaves - and white colonists were promised whatever benefits would have gone to Africans had they continued to be indentured servants

Were these promises in writing somewhere, or is this just the analysis of historians later? With no citation whatsoever this should be removed. Just on the face of it these "promises " don't address the cause of Bacon's rebellion. The typical reward for indentured servitude was payment for your passage and not a whole lot more anyway.

--155.91.19.73 22:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No comments so I'm removing the Bacon information. There's a lot more in here that should be removed if citations don't show up. --155.91.19.73 00:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

About image

The image of the white kid punching a "minority asian" clearly looks staged and/or photoshopped. Even if it's not, it doesn't really fit with the article. I'm going to remove it if there are no objections. --BWD ^(talk) 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mexican versus Latino/Latin?

I have a few problems with the changing of Mexican-American to Latin-American in the Zoot Suit Riots; the riots were direct against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, not at a generalized Latin-American target. Elefuntboy 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but racism in the US is as often directed towards people who look like Mexicans, so Latino (or hispanic) is more appropriate.Emmett5 02:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; it's not still a pan-Latino discrimination per se, so much as a discrimination against those people particularly because of a pserveived Mexican identity. Elefuntboy 23:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But the way the article is written currently i think is adequate in its treatment of Mexican-Americans as the target and Latin Americans as the actual recipient, so I guess that's okay, eh? Elefuntboy 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

my reverted edits in Hate Groups

Thats a really fair NPOV. Its nice to see how i tried to show how there are other hate groups in the US and my edits were reverted to only show white hate groups in the US. Sure whites are the only people who hate others. 71.131.245.179 00:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a small cite to reflect the SPLC research. The issue, 71.131.245.179, is that most of your edits on this and the many other pages you have edited in the last two days are uncited POV that dismisses white supremacy and antisemitism. Very unencyclopedic. This is not a blog. Please read the Wiki help pages on how to write for an encyclopedia. --Cberlet 14:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No I didnt. Black Panthers are listed as hate groups on other pages. Secondly what gives the SPLC authority to declare what groups are hate groups? The last two days I tried to establish equilibruim because most pages only say that whites are hate groups when this is clearly not the case. I am just trying to make the article more balanced. Secondly I put the world "alleged" hate groups because these groups claim that they do not hate anyone based on their race but beleive in racial identity. That is like saying Islam is a hate religion because a small percentage of extremists make it look like a hate religion. That is unfair and unencyclopedic to make a statement as a fact like that. What group would be given authority to declare to the world that Islam is a hate religion? Personally I question Islam and have my own opinions but the reader needs to make up their own minds. Wiki is supposed to present both sides and all information and that is it. Wikipedia should stop shoving opinions down peoples throat. We have to conform to NPOV policy by not picking a side.

If my edits are to stay people are still going to think the KKK is a hate group but the only difference is the reader will come to the conclusion on their own without wikipedia telling them what to think. Also I made a few changes to make the article balanced and fair but I urge you to reconsider by labeling the hate group section as "Alleged Hate Groups" and then include in the body of the article that they are hate groups according to the SPLC, ADL, etc. --Jerry Jones 19:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not rewrite history and current reality to claim that white supremacy is not the major form taken by race hate groups in the U.S. Wiki has a focus on what the majority of scholars say about a topic--not marginal complaints and views.--Cberlet 20:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says "Today" hate groups are white supremacy. Even wikipedia states that these groups have pretty much died. They have the same amount of membership as other groups such as Black Supremacists. Heck there are more hispanic pride groups then white pride groups. I am not trying to rewrite history especially considering white supremacy groups were dominant in the past but we are only focusing on white supremacy groups today and to state they are the only people who practice racial supremacy is inaccurate. Jerry Jones 20:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry buddy but you are wrong on a number of issues, full marks for hyperbole though. Where do you get the idea that there more hispanic pride groups than white pride groups? or that most white supremacy groups are dead today? I would love to see what kinda source you would cite for these claims. By the way you shoulkd never cite another wikipedia article as proof for your claims- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

I understand that Islam is a religion, but Islamophobia is often based on race--just as Jews are not a race, but antisemitism is often based on (a false notion of) race.--Cberlet 01:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gringo as Racist Attack?

The wording here seems very off. An attack? Not so much as a descriptor term, which i don't think is as loaded as other terms. Thoughts? Elefuntboy 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on the context. Just about every racial slur started out as an innocent "descriptor term." But the way in which they were used made them slurs. Likewise, gringo is frequently and increasingly derogatory.--Bibliophylax 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Organization

I don't know if this article has always been this way, but it's terribly organized. I'm tagging it for attention because it needs it. I don't see why there should be a geography category (especially if there's only one article, which is also in the wrong place); if so, then respective articles on the north and the south (possibly southwest, too) should accompany the "west coast" category. Racism against specific minorities should be grouped together under one heading. A section on American Indians should be put in, and discrimination against (east) Asian-Americans should be dissociated from the West Coast section and possibly separated further into Japanese/Chinese/Korean sections. Perhaps an article on more recent developments of putatively racist origin (e.g. the Minuteman Project, new immigrant groups like Somalis, Chai Vang, etc) could also be put in, maybe in a chronological structure.

Here's a possibile restructure:

• First Section: Racism by race
  • Maybe a subsection for inter-race relationships, describing particular animosities between races (as opposed to the predominant trend of white v. minority other) that are commonly assumed / described, e.g. African-Americans and Koreans, Hispanic Americans and African Americans, others people care to add
• Second Section: Racism by region (?)
• Third Section: "Kinds" of racism (better term for "Kinds" needed)
  • this may encompass institutional racism and racist laws
  • profiling both for police and terrorism,
  • concepts such as white privilege, affirmative action, maybe educational racism as well
  • housing (white flight and gentrification)
  • immigration (Minutemen, others?)
• Fourth Section: Anti-racism--divvy up into smaller bits than just a broad "Anti-racism," poss. retitle to "Counter-racism" or create a diff. section?
  • Organizations
    • "Mainstream" (ACLU, ADL, SPLC, others)
    • "Grassroots" (ARA is all i can think of right now)
    • "Fringe" (Black Panthers, the Aztlan movement, others)
  • Policy
    • historic (14th amendment, Brown v. Topeka, etc)
    • current (anti-bias curricula, anti-racist mathematics, maybe affirmative action
• Fifth Section: Modern Hate Groups

plus any others people can think of.

alternately,

• First section: Historical racism in US
  • by race
  • by policy
• Second section: Modern racism in US
  • by race
  • by policy
• Third section: Anti-racism (see above)
• Fourth section: Modern hate groups

or some combination of.

Please post suggestions / comments! I am willing to help rewrite parts, if wanted. SReynhout 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this. This is well done. Elefuntboy 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Native Americans

I posted a very rough beginning to encourage more work on this. Have at it. --Carwil 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! I just glanced through it, but I will try to work on it. I just started an anthropology class last week focusing on Native North Americans, so I can probably help out there. I have a bad tendency of getting lazy and/or forgetting things though, so it may take a post on my talk page to remind/motivate me. (Favorite quote from the teacher--"This should really be Anthro 334: Guess Who Got Screwed? Or as I like to call it, Anthro 334: Don't Bend Over"). Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Canada???

I don't think the section on Canada should be included. If anything, that's religious persecution, and Candaians are not a racial group. If no one has any effective complaints, I'm removing it. Elefuntboy 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's full of misspellings and is poorly sourced. 207.178.224.50 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Racism Today

Racism has certainly changed from what it once into now present day. In America it has become less racism but a extreme nationalist pride. There is less racism towards African-Americans in the south, replaced with a hatred of hispanics and other immigrant groups being protrayed shockingly by both black and white people. In fact everywhere you go you hear about racism suffered by blacks in the past but you see a hate towards those viewed as non-Americans in the prominent cities. Just the other day on a flight from Atlanta to Chicago a man refused to sit next a person of either pakistani or Indian descent and chose to sit next to a black woman. Overheard discusions of racial stereotypes where heard the whole flight. This is outrageous, its almost like Americans are joining together in their bashing of europeans, hispanics, muslims,east asians, and Africans. This is also as prevelant in children someone being foreign is labeled as being funny, weird, or socially unacceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.142.106 (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Racism in the US and racism against Americans

Just some thought:

I think there is a wrong picture of racism in America. Many people in the world think that Americans are very racist and this probably helps create racism against Americans in turn.

Who are to blame:

1. The American media

2. Hollywood.

1. The American media are making a issue of race all the time. Anyone who sees this will be compelled to thinking: well that must be an incredible racist country.

2. Hollywood movies have a long tradition of bashing non-Americans: from Germans, to Russians, to Chinese, to Mexicans, to Arabs or whatever. At the end of the day, Americans are not liked very much by all those peoples, which ends up being almost the entire world.

Yet, I think there is a huge difference between reality and perception here. I am from Spain and have not seen a single case of obvious racism in the United States in a 8 year stay (I cannot say that of my own country and I could venture to say that Spain is one of the least racist countries in Europe). In the US I have seen many cases on TV, yet not a single one in person.

In short, although racism exists in the US, my personal experience tells me that most Americans are much less racist than most people think. In fact racism is usually restricted to some small circles of radicals. It is not representative of most Americans. Unfortunately for Americans, their media and Hollywood do not give a good and realistic image of what Americans really are. On the other hand, that odd and ugly custom of classifying people in "races" in official documents as if people were cattle does not help either. 72.144.166.196 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what part of America you visited. Places where racial tensions are high, such as the South or California...--Kirby♥time 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Will James

"The circus-style lynching of Will James, Cairo, Illinois, 1909."

This caption from a picture on this article is vague to say the least. This mysterious "Will James" has no link on Wikipedia, and therefore should have his own Wikipedia page if he is this important. I'm not the most experienced of users, so I'll leave this up to another member.

Thanks.

10/12/2010 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jane_Elliott read this link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.233.58 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Were missing one thing

We need a section with racism aganist whites, just so everyone is included. 151.202.78.70 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Asians are included either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Germanic

I haven't made any changes to the article; I like to talk about things first. I have problems with the phrase "(though predominately Germanic and Christian Protestant)" in the introduction.

Germanic is a very broad term best left to the field of linguistics. It encompasses at least nine different ethnic groups, who historically did not perceive themselves as having anything in common with one another. For example, Ben Franklin was afraid the Germans would assimilate the English in America. Also, if you add up all those ethnic groups you get only 90 million of the 193 million non-hispanic whites. (Remember the Irish, Scotch-Irish, Scottish and Welsh are Celtic.) At best you have a plurality, which is itself very ethnically and religiously diverse.

Protestants are a majority in the United States; however, non-hispanic whites are far less likely to be Protestant than African-Americans. In many states, Protestants are a minority among the white population. Also, Protestant is a very broad term encompassing groups who fought and persecuted one another (at least in Europe) nearly as much as they did Catholics and Jews.

I could be wrong, but I think the 'Germanic/Protestant' phrase muddies the water and should be omitted. 209.178.210.100 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no one objected to my comments, I'm going to remove the phrase from the introduction. 209.178.210.100 18:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased?

I am curious as to why it would seem that the U.S was singled out for a complete page on national racism? - I have yet to find a page dedicated to racism in other countries such as Africa, Britain, Mexico, Brazil, Iran, etc etc.

Why is it that a whole page is dedicated to racism in the U.S as if it is/was the only country to marginalize persons by race?

I believe that this page should be merged into a general page of world racism, or just be deleted altogether, it's a little more than "biased" in my opinion. Orasis 03:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See Racism by country. We deal with the "bias" of missing articles on Wikipedia by writing new articles. See WP:CSB if you want to help provide a more global view. By the way, people who say Africa is a country might raise a few hackles among other editors writing about racism.--Carwil 15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And for that matter, when the hell has Africa been a country? Sheesh. Elefuntboy (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The situation in the United States is unique in terms of its special brand of racism, the completeness of the...the campaign against Native Americans, the special circumstances surrounding the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the particularities of this version of slavery, the premises and outcome of the Civil War, and especially the complex time period following emancipation. This period is fairly unique in many ways, including but not limited to the fact that a bifurcated society developed with the former slave class developing in parallel alongside the former slave-owning class with visible distinctions in terms of melanin and linguistic distinctions resulting from the circumstances of the previous centuries, the long process of segregation, Jim Crow, the rise of African-American influence on mainstream American culture, KKK, White Citizens Councils and lynchings, and the long drive for the abolition of Jim Crow and the securing of the right to vote not only on paper but in practice, and the fact that many of the goals have been achieved, though how thorough this achievement has been is still a topic of debate. Most historical precedents result in one race wiping out the other, either by killing or displacement. To merge this article would be like merging an article on the Second world War into a general article on War, or merging the article on Homo Sapiens into an article on mammals. It makes no sense. The truth hurts, but it's still the truth. This is a website for facts.

I see where you hesitated with the ellipsis. The American campaign against the Natives involved such things as biological warfare, enslavement, mass rape, forced migration, and ordinary massacres. It was nothing less then genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.84.67 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Honestly, even Fredrickson (Racism, A Short History ISBN 0691116520) called the United States is called the "most racist country on earth." The United States definitely has more to do with racism than, say, India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blootix (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

POV statements

This version.

• "For example, the 2005 California 6th grade statewide examination contained the question Patio comes from the Spanish word meaning what?. Including questions such as these provide opportunities for non-native speakers of English to have greater educational access."

This example only benefits Spanish speakers, and at a cost to other students. The second statement acts as if this was a fair and overall beneficial situation, and so all such situations are always for the best.

• Affirmative action: "This policy has frequently been critisized because it keeps the racial divide as opposed to uniting citizens."

This is saying, "Because affirmative action divides citizens racially, people criticize it." The problem here is obvious. This statement gives a POV opinion of affirmative action, and thus there is undue weight on that side of the debate. In fact, the whole affirmative action section should be reviewed. --68.161.152.145 05:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Another reason why the "Affirmative Action" part needs to be rewritten: "Affirmative action is a set of policies, practiced by many employers and most universities, which explicitly attempt to maximize the admissions of racial, ethnic, or religious groups considered to be non-dominant, at the expense of groups considered dominant. These policies range from outreach efforts that target minority communities, to overt preference for applicants from a particular background over equally-qualified (or more-qualified) counterparts from other backgrounds." Some affirmative action policies are meant to prevent white people from getting hired over, say, equally-qualified black people. This does happen, and here are links about one of those sets of studies: [1][2]. You can also search for the names of the researchers and see the report for yourself. So not every person who loses a job to an affirmative action policy is more qualified than a person who gains a job through the same policy. --68.161.152.145 06:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it since it wasn't improved. --149.4.211.159 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be appropriate to have a section, or at least a link, to the Duke "rape" incident in this article about racism in the U.S., as it seems this was a rather racially-charged/motivated event in recent history, which would have been wholly unremarkable if not for the race issues involved?Jeffhall318 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond... The Duke incident (2006 Duke University lacrosse case) quite appropriately includes an in-text link to race relations. No reason a differently written article couldn´t link to here. However, it isn't a notable part of Racism in the United States, and is certainly less so than many other such incidents of similar scale (like the Emmitt Till case, or even Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings). Racism in the United States is wholly remarkable (and a better article) without including a link to everything that it makes important.--Carwil (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)