Talk:Racialism/Archive 4

message: W. E. Dubois argues that racialism is the philosophical belief that differences between the races exist, be it biological, social, psychological, or in the realm of the "soul". He then goes on to argue that racism is using this belif to push forward the argument that one's particular race is superior to the others.
Therefore, Dubois separates the conditions of racism from racism itself. (I haven't read Dubois, but I ready Anthony Kwame Appiah summarizing Dubois' position in his book In my father's house, chapter 3) Racialism is a value neutral philosophy, while racism is a value charged ideology. Dubois needs to make this distinction clear, because he actually argues for the racialist "talent" of the black folk (he argued for black forms of intelligence, as expressed in the arts, dancing, singing, and so forth - a fairly naive essentialist position that would not necessarily be welcome today, but understandable given the realities of Jim Crow racism of the early 20th century)
Therefore, I find it unacceptable that there is a photo of hitler along with "racialism" and that it lists "black separatism" (as in Malcolm X's) along the same lines of Nazi white supremacy. I think the whole notion of putting nazi white supremacy next to black separatism is a POV opinion, specifically that of a supporter of the color blind perspective. (Color blind supporters argue that even talking about race furthers racial oppression, and that race should merely be "forgotten"; this is the official stance of the Republican Party at the United States, as well as little George.)
Racism should talk about the belief that a race is superior than another, while racialism should describe the belief that races have differences, be they qualitative (as in differential characteristics) or relative (as in hierarchies of better and worse races).
I'm not aware of other literature besides Dubois that talks about racialism, so someone correct me if wrong.
--Yonghokim 02:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have restored the old non-NPOV version, which you seem to do every few months. Slim, Jay, Will, and Rebroad viewed it as the conensus one, and I in turn have restored it, again. If anyone wishes to add material on Dubois, they are more than free. But not as a pretext for restoring the old non-consensus version. We have been through all this before, at length. El_C 11:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racialism is not Racism but a prerequisite for racism 

message: A RfPP and RfC seem to be the next step. Or you could try research. Review Special:Whatlinkshere/Racialism, and familiarise yourself with the common international usage of the term. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please spare me the snide innunedo, SS. Thanks. El_C 01:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that was a typo. Dosen't matter. I am hopeful that Wally is willing to continue to serve as my advocate in this case. Thanks. El_C 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the constructive suggestion for me to try research, I find it peculiar (and I mentioned this prior) how SS' version  employs the very same reference section I myself have compiled . Again, I'm hopeful that trying to minimize the seemingly unending conflict with SS through the aid of my advocate will prove productive in resolving this.  El_C 02:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: see also fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialisme. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfPP 

message: Sam, I reverted to El C's version because it seems to be the one with the consensus behind it, but I left your tag up, which hopefully still refers to the other version. Your edit introduced too many changes to be able to judge them at at once. It might make more sense to go through them on the talk page before putting them up. For example, I find it problematic to say in the intro that separatist groups don't use the term to imply racial superiority because some of them clearly do, so that assertion would have to be made much more precise with good sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, if this is what passes for consensus, I havn't much hope for the wikipedia. Anyhow, I made the changes and added the citations requested, hopefully you'll get a chance to review them before my edits are reverted. It looks like this article needs alot more editors. As far as "Your edit introduced too many changes to be able to judge them at at once", that was done because the previous version was describing racism, not racialism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate if you reviewed the differences between the two versions, and checked the various links and citations I have provided above before reverting an article and leaving terse and unenlightening comments on the talk page. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: In case it's of interest, when you look up racialism in the EB, you're directed to racism, where it begins: "Racism, also called racialism, any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races," that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others." It's really only the last part - that some races are innately superior to others - that Sam's version says is part of racism, as opposed to racialism, but the rest of it fits what we're saying racialism is. And I suppose the argument is that you never find the segregation bit without the presumption of superiority by the race that's in control, so it's hard to argue that the separatism doesn't necessarily involve the presumption of superiority. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Have you read the sections from my version about Reggie White and W.E.B. DuBois? They were not racial supremacists by any stretch, but they did believe in differences. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, wrtt W.E.B. DuBois, for example, have you read the sections from my version which reads: Before the notion of racial equality became ideologically dominant in the latter half of the 20th Century, one could be considered a non-racist (i.e. without antipathy) racialist. I still fail to understand why he cannot be encompassed within that general framework and in the context of such an overview. What do other editors think? El_C 02:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: That stands for: with respect to, that other t is a typo. The point is that you failed to integrate him into my version, even though several editors noted they considered it to be the consensus one. That is the point I advance wrtt (with regards to the) comment directly above. El_C 06:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedia Britannica

message: There are dozens of non-white examples existing in history yet only white's acting as the racist exist in the article. Just to name a few are the Japanese during and before WWII, African massacre of whites (outside of S. Africa, there had been much racism towards whites in the past), or even certain tribes of American-Indians.
:try that. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive mentioned Rwanda, for example. Your diff is non-specific, no concerete additions are noted. If you wish to contribute, I suggest you attempt to integrate your edits into the v. which editors here view as consensus. Also, please review the WP:CON guidelines. El_C 00:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete Lack of Racialism By Non-Whites

message: Indeed, I got confused and reverted to SS version by mistake, and now I am unable to self-correct myself and do a propper revert. That's fine, though, either someone else will choose to insert SlimVrigin's latest version, or my follow up to it, or exapnd ehat I refered to as a comrpomise (which I immediately intended to do) by noting that David Suzuki specifically uses the word pseudoscience which SS unwikified, and that his opinion does not exist in isolation (example: the Center for Evolutionary Psychology), or I will do this in 24 hours. Thanks for reading, everyone. El_C 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did my best to merge in the changes your suggest. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that other sections were added without discussion from your version, which still makes this your version. Just so we're clear about that, I am very much against you seemingly sneaking these through the backdoor. El_C 05:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what your talking about, i did what SV and Jayjg have been asking me to do all along, I merged the two versions, one edit at a time, pursuing consensus w compromise. Please keep the personality politics out, and focus on the edits and the article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please avoid personality politics and tactics and emphasize on editing an encyclopedia.  Since you still have the two versions tag up, and your current changes account as part of your version. I want to make that prefectly clear. El_C 05:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor oversight

message: There are now three versions of this article, which I urge thoughtful and interested parties to continue to edit, albeit with care
*/Version A Largely written by User:Sam Spade, it is his prefered version.
*/Version B Largely written by User:El C, it is his prefered version, and closest to what is on the article at present.
*/Version C, the compromise version, which I urge all thoughtful and interested parties to edit, and attempt compromise regarding.
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, I've added the totally disputed tag back, and corrected the number to reflect your preferred version, as El C's preferred one (or close to it) is the one on the page. I don't think I've looked at C yet, but I will either later today or over the weekend. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Three versions

message: I think Talk:Racialism/Version C is really great, what do you think? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The article