Question: Which group was there no systematic program for their elimination?
About the article "The Holocaust", section "Persons of color".

Candidate passages:
The number of black people in Germany when the Nazis came to power is variously estimated at 5,000–25,000.
It is not clear whether these figures included Asians.
According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C., "The fate of black people from 1933 to 1945 in Nazi Germany and in German-occupied territories ranged from isolation to persecution, sterilization, medical experimentation, incarceration, brutality, and murder.
However, there was no systematic program for their elimination as there was for Jews and other groups."
Meanwhile, Afrikaaners, Berbers, Iranians and Pre-Partition Indians were classified as Aryans, so not persecuted (see main article).
Racial restrictions were relaxed to the extent that Turkic peoples, Arabs and South Asians were recruited by the German military due to the shortage of manpower.
Each race has a number of predetermined non-elimination legs, in which the last team to arrive at the Pit Stop is not eliminated and is allowed to continue on the race.
In all seasons except the third, the first leg was a non-elimination leg.
By comparison, the fifteenth season of the American version was the first season to have the first leg being a non-elimination one, although there was an elimination at the start of that season's Race.
Before this, the first leg had always been an elimination one.
The first season that has a non-elimination leg in the of the American one that has no one being eliminated at first is season 18.
In season 1, teams arriving last on a non-elimination leg had their money confiscated and did not receive any money prior to the start of the next leg.
In seasons 2–4, two non-elimination penalties were in use.
Teams were either "marked for elimination" (wherein they are required to arrive first in the next leg or face a 30 minute time penalty), or were required to surrender all of their money and would not receive any in the next leg. 
In each episode, the chefs compete to win money for their charity.
The Elimination Round winners are awarded cash donations ($10,000) for their charities.
For each of the first four episodes, five or six chefs compete out of the twenty-two and two chefs of their group move forward to the Champions Round.
Episode format:Each episode consists of a Quickfire and an Elimination challenge.
The Quickfire is a short, simple challenge that can vary from cooking, tasting or a food-related task (e.g., peeling a certain amount of apples to certain quality standard in a limited amount of time).
The Elimination challenge is a more complex challenge which usually requires cooking a meal for many people with certain requirements.
The chefs are scored based on how well they execute in the Elimination and Quickfire challenges.
Scoring:Unlike Season 1, where the Quickfire was scored on a scale of one to five stars, there are no stars won during the Quickfire, and instead, the winner(s) of the Quickfire will receive $5,000 for their charity or charities.
The Elimination challenge is scored on a scale of one to of 20 stars (five stars given by the tasters, and fifteen given by the three critics).
A chef can thus win a maximum of 20 stars.
The two chefs with the most stars at the end of the Elimination challenge are considered the winners and move on to the Champions Round.
The eight total winners then meet up for the final weeks when one person will be eliminated in each episode until the finale where one winner is crowned "Top Chef Master."
The winning chef receives $100,000 for his or her designated charity. 
In commutative algebra and algebraic geometry, elimination theory is the classical name for algorithmic approaches to eliminating some variables between polynomials of several variables.
The linear case would now routinely be handled by Gaussian elimination, rather than the theoretical solution provided by Cramer's rule.
In the same way, computational techniques for elimination can in practice be based on Gröbner basis methods.
There is however older literature on types of "eliminant", including "resultants" to find common roots of polynomials, "discriminants" and so on.
In particular the discriminant appears in invariant theory, and is often constructed as the invariant of either a curve or an "n"-ary "k"-ic form.
Whilst discriminants are always constructed resultants, the variety of constructions and their meaning tends to vary.
A modern and systematic version of theory of the discriminant has been developed by Gelfand and coworkers.
Some of the systematic methods have a homological basis, that can be made explicit, as in Hilbert's theorem on syzygies.
This field is at least as old as Bézout's theorem.
The historical development of commutative algebra, which was initially called "ideal theory", is closely linked to concepts in elimination theory: ideas of Kronecker, who wrote a major paper on the subject, were adapted by Hilbert and effectively 'linearised' while dropping the explicit constructive content.
The process continued over many decades: the work of F.S.
Macaulay who gave his name to Cohen–Macaulay modules was motivated by elimination.
There is also a logical content to elimination theory, as seen in the Boolean satisfiability problem.
In the worst case it is presumably hard to eliminate variables computationally.
"Quantifier elimination" is a term used in mathematical logic to explain that, in some theories, every formula is equivalent with a formula without quantifier.
This is the case of the theory of the polynomials over an algebraically closed field, and "elimination theory" may be viewed as the theory of the methods making quantifier elimination effective (algorithmic) in this case.
Quantifier elimination over the reals is another example, which is fundamental in computational algebraic geometry. 
Tversky and Kahneman (1981) demonstrated systematic reversals of preference when the same problem is presented in different ways, for example in the Asian disease problem.
Participants were asked to "imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people.
Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed.
Assume the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows.
"The first group of participants was presented with a choice between programs:In a group of 600 people,  Program A: "200 people will be saved"  Program B: "there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved, and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved" 72 percent of participants preferred program A (the remainder, 28 percent, opting for program B).
The second group of participants was presented with the choice between the following:In a group of 600 people,  Program C: "400 people will die"  Program D: "there is a one-third probability that nobody will die, and a two-third probability that 600 people will die" In this decision frame, 78 percent preferred program D, with the remaining 22 percent opting for program C. Programs A and C are identical, as are programs B and D. The change in the decision frame between the two groups of participants produced a preference reversal: when the programs were presented in terms of lives saved, the participants preferred the secure program, A (= C).
When the programs were presented in terms of expected deaths, participants chose the gamble D (= B).