Talk:Anti-racism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Accusation of bias

This entry dances around the fact that "anti-racism" is founded on the belief that one's "race" is immaterial as far as the society or "culture" is concerned. So "racism" creates artificial barriers to the unity of all in whichever enlightened society you choose to pick. This seems patently false. Like most entries on race and ethnicity in wikipedia, this one lacks balance and promotes the term it attempts to describe. Promotion is fine but it should be clearly stated.

The notion that there are no material differences among groups lies at the heart of this "movement". It is classically religious.--129.119.68.34

So if there ARE "material differences" that would justify racism?? Not necessarily. Paradoxically, many anti-racists have not held this view at all - but have seen the white race as (at least a little) "superior" to others. They have none the less felt that even "inferior" human beings are "equal" in their entitlement to justice. (Being "equal before the law" for instance). You don't have to have the idea that every individual - and every group of individuals - have precisely parrallel abilities and faults to hold the idea that they should all be treated the same regardless.
Wikipedia is strongly left-wing. Get over it.--193.166.89.77(Mar 2005)
It doesn't have to be. If an article seems biased, make the changes. Funnyhat 23:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The idea that plain justice and simple common sense need to be labelled "left wing" in order to attack them is very revealing. This isn't a simple "left-right" issue, nor one that one should necessarily be "even-handed" about (do you really want to give equal time to the KKK??). Many highly conservative people (God bless 'em) are decidedly non-racist, if not exactly anti-racist.
Funny, how academic ventures such as this are often often accused of a 'leftist' bias. One would almost suspect progressive ideals and the intellectual go hand in hand. Imagine that. Alexis 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do want to give equal time to the KKK. If I go to this site to learn about racism and anti-racism I want to be able to research everything. Not just the subjects that aren't uncomfortableto our American past and present. If you want this resource to be credible it needs to inform about the entire subject and not just what we are comfortable with. Isn't that why this article is being accused of bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.88.7.2 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you happen to agree with opinions expressed in an article, it still falls under NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soap box, it is a collection of information. Even if every single rational human being on the planet happened to agree that race is unimportant and society should be colorblind, it would still not justify putting such views into an encyclopedia as fact. 67.183.153.20 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to make any edits you see fit in order to improve articles and reduce bias.--Nectarflowed 23:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] major changes

This article needed a major overhaul. Anti-racism did not begin with anthropologists in the 1920s and '30s. If John Brown isn't an anti-racist, I don't know who is. The primary impetus for anti-racism in the modern world has not come from the UN, but from the Civil Rights movement in the U.S., and similar movements around the world. The article in the new version is still way to centered on America (a discussion of the abolition movement in England, for example, would be nice, as would some mention of Ghandi.) But hopefully this is a place for others to start. (Most of my discussion is based on James Loewen's in "Lies My Teacher Told Me".

Also note that I've cut the paragraphs below from the article completely, largely because they seemed irrelevant to me. The claim that anti-racism originated in the '60s is simply false. The fact that the Democrats were white-only is less significant than it seems -- they were the Southern party after the Civil War, remember? George Dunn seems like a footnote; the fact that racism didn't appear just means a shift of language, which might be interesting, but hardly means that resistance to white supremacy didn't exist. The list of UN documents seems pretty unimportant compared to the overall achievements of anti-racism. That's just my POV, of course; if other's disagree, they're welcome to put them back in the article....

Although many now consider it fundamental to social justice, anti-racism is a recent development. The 1968 convention was the first the United States Democratic Party held without whites-only delegations. One of the first figures in the Roman Catholic Church to identify racial segregation as a sin, Fr. George Dunne, S.J., died only in 1998. Even the word "racism" did not appear in many dictionaries before the Second World War.

Oh drat. Forgot to sign. The above is all by me. NoahB 14:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks good after my initial skimming, I'll try to give it a more indepth review in the near future. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] racism and anti-racism

the term racism can mean completely different things in different contexts, and thus by extension anti-racism can mean completely different things in different contexts.

people who label themselves as anti-racists do not all stand for the same thing, by any standard.

Gringo300 02:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Through its blanket ascription of hate, supremacism etc to European host peoples throughout the West, anti-racism is itself highly racist, as well as deeply offensive. Its effect is to deny or disqualify the natural rights and interests of said Europeans, which rights include, for example, the provisions of the newly adopted UN Declarations of Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The claimed benefits of anti-racism do not obviously exceed the profound costs to Europeans of the loss of natural rights and interests.

John Standing 00.23, 15 November 2007

[edit] Use of the word "Indian"

I find it very strange that an article on Anti-Racism uses the term "Indian" so much, while not a paticularly racist word, I think this article should use Native American instead as I belive it's probobly best for an Anti Racism article to use Politically Correct Terms Deathawk 23:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North American bias

This article is very US-centric. Needs British, European and Australasian material too! --BobFromBrockley 12:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

" ... this is a big stain ... " — while probably true, is not particularly WP:NPOV. - Francis Tyers · 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion? Original research?

Perhaps this article should be deleted or perhaps merged with other more "mature" articles, such as Civil_Rights_Movement. The claims pertaining to Native American's "ideological threat" to racist institutions are dubious and unsupported by any evidence. 69.180.205.207 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-racist movements

I'd like to see some content here about the violent nature of several anti-racist organizations - attacking ('peaceful')neo-nazi rallies etc.

85.164.13.161 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] US only

Why is the article only bout the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.247.14 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Quit asking, this question is silly now. if you have any knowledge to Add that's not US centered then do so and stop complaining, if you bothered to read you'd noticed that someone has already noted that the article is US-Centric in its information. 205.228.12.236 (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)