Talk:Racism in Argentina

message: Is it true that Argentineans call Americans "yanquis de mierda"? lots of forums, they seem to hate and bash americans a lot...are we welcome down there, or is the racism really that bad for tourists? Sonia Parrish (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans 

message: This Wikipedia article is so wrong on so many ways. 
First of all: "negro", "negrito", "cabecita negra", "grone", "caco", and "groncho" ALL mean the same thing.
We use it as a derogation, but it isn't racial. We dont have legit Black people in this country, and if we ever spot one, we are the friendliest people ever because foreign etnias aren't common here. 
Our word "Negro" doesn't mean the same than the English derogation for the black race, we use it differently, our word "negro" referrs to every person that is a Combination of the following: Uneducated, criminal, steals, redneck, and wears trashy outfit. You see, it isn't a racial discrimination, we discriminate the "underground culture" of Argentina because those are the ones that steal the most. Don't get me wrong, others and me have called "negro"s to people that aren't even dark-skinned-with-indigenous-features but light skinned and haired, and that was because that light-skinned-and-haired person was being trashy or stealing. I have this white skinned friend who likes spitting at things, and his friends and I often call him negro because of that. 
"negro" refers to a type of behavior. The reason why the world thinks it is a racial issue is because the ones that most show this "negro" personality ARE the dark-skinned-with-sometimes-indigenous-features-that-dress-and-act-trashy-worse-than-rednecks in almost every single case that happens, and it isn't just me who can proof that: In Argentina, street robbers are a common thing, and every single person I know that has been stolen at the streets were stolen by the "negros" with the earlier description I gave. Every single one. Hell, we even call our politicians "negros" because they steal from us like the corrupt crazes they are. 
And with all that "napolitano" for Italians, "gallegos" for the Spanish and "Yanki/Gringo" for the U.S.A people:   We don't use those as derogatory terms! That is just the nicknames we give you. In Argentina it is a cultural thing to give nicknames to almost everything, that means a lot of word variety, we aren't the country with the most insult words for nothing. Yes, we could call Italians "Italianos" and Spanish "Españoles" (the formal translations) but you know, sometimes we do, sometimes we don't, but it isn't done in a racist way, and it isn't done in any derogatory way. 
People from the US often refer themselves as "Americans" and that is a problem for the Argentines because we consider that as racist since America is a continent and not a country, and by referring themselves as "Americans" they kind of derogate the whole continent. The USA is a country that part of the Argentine population doesn't like because of that reason. For that same reason we also don't call them "americano"s but Yanki or Gringo, because that are literally the only names that we have to describe you instead of "the people from the united states". Other people from countries we can be discriminatory against are Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela (because they resemble our version of "negros") and Chile (Chile, because in the Malvina War we had they were against as, and they technically are our neighbors). 
Now, for the record, we aren't racist against the Jewish, British or Russian, yes, there could be some or two rotten apples that do, but the vast majority doesn't, for real. 
If you are from Italy and an Argentine calls you Napolitano, it is in a friendly manner, trust me. 
I feel like the studies of Racial Discrimination in Argentina have been done without taking into consideration the fact that in our culture we tend to name things a lot, and most of the things that the article says that we are racist towards are things that we aren't racist against at all!
Peace out
O0WikiAriana0o (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is way too incorrect. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Racism in Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928151936/http://www.lmneuquen.com.ar/07-02-01/n_puntosvista110.asp to http://www.lmneuquen.com.ar/07-02-01/n_puntosvista110.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071015063715/http://desarrolloyregion.com:80/ampliar_novedades.asp?contentId=5302 to http://www.desarrolloyregion.com/ampliar_novedades.asp?contentId=5302
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the reference to uruguay should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.217 (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is 'supposedly' about argentina,  

message: The article reads: "Other racial, xenophobic, and spiteful terms and attitudes have developed against immigrants. Historically, "gallego" (Galician) for Spanish people in general, tano, an apheresis of napolitano (Napoletani, from Naples) for Italians, turco (Turkish) for immigrants from the Ottoman Empire and "ruso" (Russian) for Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire and Europe were terms that carried pejorative connotations."
I do not find any of those terms xenophobic, spiteful or pejorative. Since the Wikipedia rule is to provide documentary sources for every statement, and not a single such source is provided, I must conclude that this is a work of fiction. If within one week no documentary sources have been added, I will delete the entire paragraph.
"Turco" is an accurate description of the place of origin of Syrians and Lebanese, since when they arrived in Argentina they were Ottoman citizens, and "Ottoman" and "Turk" have been synonyms for centuries in Spanish, English and several other languages. The fact that borders have changed since they arrived is irrelevant. 
The thrust of this article is to impose ON THE ENTIRE PLANET the American obsession with geographical accuracy and with banning familiar expressions when applied to humans. This is an intolerable imposition and amounts to nothing less than AMERICAN CULTURAL IMPERIALISM. Strambotik (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  US cultural imperialism 

message: "There is also a tendency to label all indigenous people as indio or indígena without the speaker specifying, or even knowing, which group the person belongs to. This is a generalized practice that is common to Latin America as a whole and not just Argentina,[20] and is directly related to the effacement of non-European cultures.[21][22][23][24]". I'm not sure to what extent such behevior can be properly be called "racist". When somebody sees a collection of objects of which he is only dimly aware, is located some distance away and he will probably never see them again, his natural reaction is to call them "stuff", especially if they bear no identifyings markers. On the other hand, if someone is entrusted with some unique artifacts and told about their origin and significance and is instructed to take good care of them, and that person then calls the collection of artefacts "stuff", although he is familiar with them and their purpose and can readily distinguish among them, then calling them "stuff" is a clear sign of callous indifference toward items that he should designate by their proper names.
Analogously, when someone talks about "a bunch of Indians" such an expression denotes a different attitude depending on who's doing the talking, say an anthropologist, or else someone who lives in the same village as the Indians, or else an ice-cream seller in a distant town who only knows about them by hearsay. So calling natives by some generic term can only be construed as racist behavior, if at all, if the speaker should know better and if the circumstances warrant. 
this seems to reflect a similar attitude as the criticism of using "turco, "gallego" that I mentioned earlier on. And that attitude is to designate as "racist" any ethnic epithet that does not comply with  extremely strenuous standards of accuracy and being up-to-date such as one might expect of an ethnologist. In other words it's a variety of political correctness. 
There seems to be a semantic confusion here between neglecting the accuracy of ethnographic classifications on the on hand, and racism on the other, a concept variously defined but that invariably involves feelings of hostility or contempt toward other humans, usually associated with some subdivision of humanity that is considered suspect or disreputable for no good reason. Strambotik (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effacement of native identities