Talk:Anti-Racist Action
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] removing
I´m removing NPOV notice... since nobody has left anything on the talk page or anywhere else that i can find to indicate where the bias in this article exists... Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute
[edit] ARA is non-ideological
Therefore it should not be associated with Anarchism. It is fair to mention that the majority of the members are usually Anarchist, but for example this is not the case anymore in Toronto, where most of the members are now communist. --Mista-X 05:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Auto-biographical bad, right?
The use of "we" and heavy bias were present in the last edit. I've restored an earlier version, that wasn't so bloody self-congratulatory. The ARA is not an unblemished organisation.
[edit] Unblemished?
While certainly not unblemished, ARA is not the violent hate group that it's made out to be in this article.
If one took the time to research those so-called riots that are mentioned, one would learn that nearly none were shown conclusively to have been started by or involved ARA members.
Neo-nazi's have murdered ARA members (and many, many others) in the past, not the other way around.
[edit] Blemished, I'd say
And there's a link to that at the bottom of the page.
That ARA can't be *proved* to have started riots or brawls or what-have-you is neither hither nor thither, but ARA members have definitely been involved in a lot of brawls (the bloody entry I replaced with earlier one admits that with pride), and it takes two to tango: by showing up and participating, how is ARA showing that they're any better than their opposition? They definitely don't seem to put forward any productive political ideas, since communism and anarchism and the like are the political ideologies of social studies professors who haven't seen the outside of a campus in the past 20 years (as the son of a history professor I'm allowed to say this, ha ha), rich kids who would be libertarians if their views were right-wing, and less-rich kids who don't really understand what they're saying but can come up with a semi-credible screed about "the man" if at all necessary. Saying that the ARA is somehow in the right depends entirely on coming at the question with the conclusion that what they're fighting for is better (it probably is, but who says that's what they're really fighting for? How many of them just like a good scrap?)
Here in Toronto, the ARA is really quite threatening. Now, Toronto is hardly a city with much meaningful racist activity. Ernst Zundel, now deported for saying things that I'm willing to bet many an imam is getting away with (seriously), was an old lunatic, and the Heritage Front is basically a bunch of white-trash drug-dealers (the most promising link in Droege's murder is probably that it was a drug acquaintance who he'd screwed over or something like that). But the ARA can be depended upon to at the least picket the meeting of any group they don't like, often with signs emblazoned with what could be easily considered threats, and every now and then they'll bust something up.
I would say that ARA definitely is a violent group. Their website plays coy, with all that "Oh we don't advocate violence" crap, but the fact is that whenever there's a situation a fight could break out, ARA is there.
That Neo-Nazis have murdered ARA members is because the Neo-Nazis are more likely to be hardcore criminals: A lot of them don't harbour any real substantive political views, but are in it to sell drugs or whatever. For all we know, they might view ARA to be messing up their ability to sell meth or whatever to Neo-Nazi skinheads.
I have nothing but contempt for the Neo-Nazi movement, but I dislike ARA almost as much, because they do nothing but provide a convenient, *real* adversary for the Neo-Nazi movement. That's a *bad* thing, because if there's anything that's been seen (in life, on the net) it's that minus a real, present enemy, Neo-Nazi movements tend to fall apart reaaaaaal fast, because few of them really understand National Socialism (which is actaually really odd if one looks at it), a lot of them are at least petty criminals, and far too many of them want to be the Fuehrer as opposed to the follower. I would say that the various different factions in the racist camp hate each other far more than they hate any minority, and any given faction will split apart before one can say "Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler".
I simply restored an earlier version of the article, that laid out what ARA had been involved in. It's better than the latest one before I edited it, which was more or less this congratulatory auto-group history.
What you say about Anti Racist Action is just not true. Neo nazi groups do not flourish because of it. Just look at Russia. There weren't any active anti fascist groups and now Russia has the largest neo nazi population in the world and every week immigrants are killed. I personally know many ARA people and they are not at all like you say they are. Please try to do some research before you say more ignorant things FionMacCumhail 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No real factual errors
Everything on the page is more or less true.
A balanced page about ARA would be wonderful, but balanced does not mean it must be laudatory of the group.
- Since no one has contradicted the above statement, I'm going to remove the {disputed} tag. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
The groups are a lot more controversial than this page makes it out to be. For example, Boyd Rice is regularly harrassed by ARA groups, and there have been dozens of incidents in which ARA members have attacked innocent bystanders who they mistook for Nazis, often at punk shows. In addition, the very issue of thuggish vigilantism is controversial in itself. --Delirium 09:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-Choice Vs. Pro-Life
There is a debate over when life begins. But there is no debate whether or not abortion is a choice. Except for instances where aborition is forced on someone, which doesn't apply to this issue. Therefor I feel the word "anti-choice" should be left and linked to "pro-life". --Mista-X 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, so we use the term as it is used, not as you feel would be most accurate. See WP:NOR. Sam Spade 21:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- And even further, such a piped wikilink would be really bizarre: If "anti-choice" is really the neutral term, then we'd have an article at anti-choice and wouldn't need a piped wikilink. The term "anti-abortion activists" would be acceptable in place of "pro-life activists" though, if people prefer it. Also, the now-removed scare quotes around "activists" were very odd. --Delirium 02:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, fair enough. I added in brakets the ARA would refer to them as "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion"... hopefully this is acceptable?
-
[edit] YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
