Talk:Racism/Archive 6

message: this is apparently hooey  Sam Spade 10:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Usanism]]

message: PV, your use of the word slanderously in your last edit here is POV. Thanks for your concern. - Fennec 15:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Slanderously

message: § One of the problems with writing about racism is that of whatever stripe it involves a core belief in something that is not real -- [race] (which I put in phenomenological epoche to remind myself of what I am trying to speak clearly about). People often are aggressed against because of superficial characteristics. An Ainu walking on West Tioga street in Philadelphia might catch some opprobrium intended for a [white] person -- because the skin color of Ainu people is white. A Shan tribal person just in from Ching Mai in Thailand, when walking into a posh manicure parlor on Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia might be treated with disrespect because of her black skin color.  [P0M]
§ Targeting someone for aggressive acts because one is [white], [black], or whatever is problematical behavior in any society. People who are concerned that the society function well may take legal and/or other measures to deal with these aggressive acts.  One approach to dealing with this kind of behavior has been to try to expose the weaknesses of the ideological rationalizations for the agressive acts. One part of that approach is to point out that the "marker" characteristics (skin color, etc.) are not reliable predictors of anything more than, e.g., likelihood of developing skin cancer.   [P0M]
§ The person who appears to be [American Indian] may turn out to be [Chinese], so what is your justification for predicting anything else about the individual if you cannot even be sure of your identification of [race]? [P0M]
§ Being targeted for aggressive acts because one has white skin color, black skin color, or because one bears whatever "marker" characteristics is hard on the individual directly and also because that individual's whole community is likely to be impaired because of the same kind of attacks. People who are concerned that their society functions well may take measures to redress imbalances created by these accumulated aggressive acts.  [P0M]
§ To evaluate "special favors" correctly, one must look at social context. If the community of [Chinese] in X-ville is being attacked, it would make sense to me to offer special protection to anybody who even looked Chinese, such as the Navaho dentist who just moved to town.  [P0M]
§ If somebody decided to have a "White History Day" in my own native place, s/he would be laughed out of town because that area has been about 99% white for the last 150 years, and the people who populated it came ultimately mostly from Europe. But if I were living in a small community of [white] people in China at a time when the majority population thought us ignorant savages, then an appropriate introduction to the positive accomplishments of Europeans over the centuries would be very helpful. [P0M]
§ So I can understand why it may seem that articles may give the impression that "the white race doesn't exist" and that the other [races] have glorious accomplishments. The other [races] do not exist either, but the people who are "tagged" with these racial identifications do exist. Whatever the genetic heredity of an individual, the culture of the land from which s/he came is his or her heritage and should be recognized for its positive achievements. That is not to say that one inherits genetically the accomplishments of the land and the people from which one stems, but that when others know the basics about that culture and its accomplishments they may be more likely to approach one with an open mind. Somebody like Ravi Shankar walking the streets of New York City may be viewed in a reflexively negative way by some people. The same individual playing the sitar is suddenly a window onto a marvelous heritage.
P0M 03:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Fundamental Issues 

message: The identification here of racialism with white separatist ideologies isn't really accurate.  The term means any distinction based on race, or any people who advocate any distinctions whatsoever based on race, whether in the short- or long-term.  This includes many people of various races, including minority groups, who strongly identify with their race and consider it an important factor in their personal, political, or cultural identity.  This arguably includes many members of black studies university departments, for example. --Delirium 23:09, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
:Definitely. The confusion over these terms only aggravates racial tensions as well, as people who see an importance in heritage are lumped together w those who revel in "hate crimes". I think the term "racialism" is beneficial, in that it allows some w racial opinions/views to distance themselves from those who wish to harm or oppress others. Sam [Spade] 00:08, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of racialism 

message: Because I didn't find ideological racism to be represented on wikipedia with more than just mentioning it, i've spend some time looking at the website Stormfront and came up with the following conclusions. I'm not sure how representative or even valid those conclusions are. I don't feel comfortable about indenting content, because it makes it indistinguishable from replies, so instead I made it italic. I'd be interested in other racism-related online forums, especially in english and german, and of course in your opinion :o)''
Ideological racialism is the identification with ones own race, similarily to the identification with ones religion or subculture. It might be based more on biological or more on cultural terms. The assumption that culture is more or less determined by race makes those two views compatible.
Groups like Stormfront are conglomerates of people having similiar shortterm rather than longterm goals. They are diverse in preferred political system, their motivations and their vision of a perfect world. What they widely agree upon is the protection of white race/culture, the segregation of the white and the other races and increasing cultural race-awareness. Some have respect for other races, but want territorial segregation to protect cultural/biological diversity (seperatism). Others believe in the unconditional divinity of the white race, and thus see any "contribution" from the outside (may it be genetic or cultural) as a degregation of what is good and will only get better on its own (racism). For a crude statistical overview over the properties of the Stormfront-members see the links provided in this thread.
To prevent splitting up as a social/political movement, similiarly to left wing groupations, they are careful about bringing up controversial issues between their members. Such discussions are often seen as a distraction from their primary goals and the attempt from the outside to "devide and conquer" the community.
Problems of society, widely recognized also amongst other, more commonly accepted social groups (like liberals or left wing activists), are looked at as race issues in racialist communities. The uniform, stupifying US media is seen as the Zionist attempt to weaken and rule the white race. The social penalization of controversial thought is seen as jew-inspired method to silence those who try to rebel against the Globalists plans of World Government. Ghetto subculture and violence is seen as the manifestation of the vile black nature. Affirmative action is shunned upon as a symptom of how surpressed the white race has become. Just to name a few.
--Ados 22:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideological racialism