Talk:Second-class citizen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Religious persons

...religious persons of some or all faiths or spiritual movements (eg. Falun Gong) in communist nations (eg, China, Cuba, North Korea, and the Soviet Union and its satellite nations during much of the 20th century).

Could you elaborate on them being "second class citizen"? At least in Poland, being religious didn't strip anyone of their rights, and there wasn't even a list of who is "religious" and who isn't to run any sort of discrimination. The fights between the government and the official structures of the churches were a completely different matter, but nobody did anything against the individual "religious people", even in the Stalinist times.

While I speak here mostly about the People's Republic of Poland, because that's what I know best, it applies at least to other Central European Communist countries, and to some extend probably to the rest of the world. (It might have possibly been different in further away places like PRC or Albania) Taw 13:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A general note

I think listing alleged current and historical examples is great; I added a couple myself. We should remember that the list is a not complete, and is a list of allegations. As often second-class citizenship cannot be objectively proven, inclusion on the list is simply due to the fact that the allegation can be plausibly made. As for Hong Kong residents, whether life is better or worse under the PRC versus British rule is irrelevant. Ngchen 16:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about Children?

Children are generally treated as second class citizens as well. By law, I have the right to restrict where my child goes, what my child sees, dictate how he or she dresses, and hit, shame, or otherwise punish my child as I see fit. The typical response to a statement such as this is generally met with "that's different, they are kids." However, it used to be said "that's different, they are just n*****s" or "that's different, they are just women." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlemama03 (talk • contribs)

Children don't belong on this list; adults are their custodians until they grow into competency (for lack of a better word offhand), and we don't allow children to vote, drive, buy alcohol or tobacco, view pornography, or stay out all hours for a reason. (Would the person who brought this up care to explain how this would be discrimination or prejudice, or how they'd otherwise have it?) Zephyrad 12:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blacks in Cuba

I removed the reference to "Blacks in Cuba" because that's all it said. "Blacks in Cuba". Three words, no supporting statement explaining how blacks were second class citizens and what makes it unique enouigh to be listed here. In the Cuba article the most significant statement regarding race relations seemed to suggest that there is relatively litle racial tension in Cuba. I'd be happy to see it come back if someone is willing to elaborate further. --Gantlord 23:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Until there's precedent for EVERY reference in this Wiki entry having equally voluminous "supporting statements", it isn't necessary. Regards confirmation that racism in Cuba is alive and well -- the internet is at your disposal. Start with realcuba.com.--Mike18xx 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just saying "look at therealcuba.com" is not a valid defense for this. That website is completely biased; stop treating it like gospel. I am removing the "Blacks in Cuba" bullet until someone can give a valid reason for it to be there. Also, simply stating "Blacks in Cuba" implies that blacks are still second class citizens in Cuba, while the "African Americans before the Civil Rights Era" implies that blacks in the U.S. are free of any discrimination. We all know this is simply not true. The article need lots of work. FlyPanAma 04:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest removal

How about we drop the list? Perfect, obvious POV magnet. They make perfect sense when you first start a page (actually I may have started this one) but they invariably cause headaches as much as imparting neutral info. Marskell 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I started it (under another ID) and you added things I missed; I thought the initial article we did was perfectly fine, and didn't check back for months. Ayeayeaye. I couldn't believe the rash of needless edits (especially with punctuation), the move (though the best parts of both ours and the duplicate article were kept), the list entries put in, tweaked, and taken out, and the POV back and forth. Wow. — I say prune the list to a few "notable examples" as we had; African-Americans before desegregation, apartheid in South Africa, dissidents in Soviet Europe, India's native population under the British, Kurds and Shiites under Saddam Hussein. Maybe one other. Illegal immigrants also don't belong on the list; they are not native-born and are not citizens, and are treated as they are because they broke the laws of two countries, whatever their other circumstances. Zephyrad 12:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants do belong on the list. "Second class citizen is an informal term used to describe a person who is discriminated against or generally treated unequally within a state or other political jurisdiction. " Illegal immigrants are still persons. If we say that only citizens of the United States can be second-class citizens (in the United States), then what about slaves in America in the 1600s-1800s? They were not considered American or British citizens, so should we say that they were not second-class citizens? Of course not. FlyPanAma 16:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

By thsi logic, we can add any alien in any country because they are all tretaed unequally by having no voting right etc., but that would be patently absurd. Pecher Talk 16:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; the United States doesn't claim to treat its aliens as citizens, whatever their legal status, and I will not discuss the illegal immigration issue. As to American slavery (which I do not support, but it's part of our history) – the Dred Scott Decision declared that slaves in the United States were not citizens, and they plainly were not claimed to be (or to be treated the same) at any time, unlike the examples mentioned. The text (which portion I wrote) also says "while not necessarily slaves", since you went there. We could truthfully say slaves in America "were not second-class citizens", because they were not. They were slaves. Zephyrad 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I will add Arabs in Israel

Robin Hood 1212 15:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

...and I have removed them. Pecher Talk 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Marielleh, stop inserting this nonsense about Israeli Arabs being second-class citizens of Israel. The link to the Human Rights Watch study on the education of Israeli Arabs does not even nearly supports your claims. Second-class citizen is the one who is legally discriminated against; the HRW study only repeats the old red herring that Arab children study in wose conditions than Jewish children, which has nothing to do with the second-class citizenship. Pecher Talk 20:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It clearly states that the discrimination comes from the government. Don't claim you are blind to the heading "second-class".--Marielleh 00:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again, remove list

Let's just get rid of the bloody list. Really. It would be much easier. I started out on the Wiki thinking lists make sense and have since decided they almost always do more harm than good. Define it, leave it. Marskell 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Marielleh 00:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not; without a standard of measure, there is the risk of any member of any minority (relative to whatever majority) being conveniently labelled as such, or even seeking such labelling. The restored list included historical examples; all the furor (not to mention whining, sorry) appears to be about attempts to shoehorn present-day possible or would-be examples into the list. There is a difference between being shut out of the broader culture, and refusing to assimilate into it. To follow the logic presented here, if the list should be deleted since it might hurt someone's feelings, either being left in or left out, why not just delete the whole blessed article, and spare everyone?! Zephyrad 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone of foreign decent in Japan

Is it worth noting that anyone in Japan not of Japanese decent is treated as a second class citizen? This article already lists Burakumin as second class citizens, but I think its also true for anyone foreign living in Japan as well as people of foreign decent. Tyrane 14:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Within the scope of the article, I think the emphasis should be upon political mistreatment. Insofar as I am aware, the Japanese government does not stymie non-Japanese-native citizens with oppressive or insulting edicts -- even if the bathhouses are prone to close their doors to gaijin.--Mike18xx 23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "up to approximately the mid-20th century"

A certain poster insists on replacing a passage detailing the former second-class status of Native Americans and Asians in the United States, with a passage that ignores this - and IMO is overlong and adds nothing to the article. The outside references he makes mention of in his latest comment are just that - OUTSIDE references, that support the point made in the passage he continues to tamper with. This poster also displays poor attitude and judgment in insisting on this needless change, and his comments on the same. I see from this poster's user and user-talk pages that he has a history of such poor judgment. I will not continue to debate with that person. His addition is not an addition; it is a subtraction, and so are his comments. Zephyrad 14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A certain poster (*cough*, named Zephyrad, *cough*) wishes to excise every other nation in North and South America except the US. Look: I could run on ALL DAY regarding Brazil's or Canada's treatment of its natives, continuing right up to this very present moment....but, I see you're hustling your US-bashing heinie out the door....so, hasta la vista, baby!--Mike18xx 06:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab citizens of Israel

Seeing as Israeli Arabs are exempt from compulsory service in the Israeli military (or, for that matter, compulsory military service in any number of Islamic regimes or guerilla entities surrounding Israel), it is untenable to maintain that they're second-class citizens. Israel is also the only place within a thousand-kilometer radius in which an Arab could renounce Islam in preference to another religion, or stroll on the beach in a bikini while eating a ham-sandwich, and not be hunted down and imprisoned or killed for apostasy. So, in short, I will continue to rv the attempted inclusion of this by a seemingly never-ending array of Hezbollah stooges hiding behind random IP-addresses (hey, they're random: flames on high!).--Mike18xx 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If this keeps up, you may wish to request semi-protection. -- Avi 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[2] [3], economical[4], legislative, [5], and religious [6].

These are your examples of second-class citizenship? Crowded schools? That doesn't go far with me, inasmuch as I am pretty well down with H.L. Mencken's advice on the reformation of public education. (IMO, any parent who wants to give their child an education should buy them a used computer and leave them alone; they'll figure it all out on their own, and those who can't, can't be helped.) Regards the rest, individual instances are not evidence of endemic mistreatment, and failing to succeed economically is not evidence of persecution. (Arabs aren't, apparently, being persecuted by the governments of Islamic countries should they fail to succeed economically there....or at least you're not complaining of it at any rate.)--Mike18xx 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So, it is not limited to military service. Also the claim that "Israel is also the only place ..." is a cheap lie. You can do that in any secular country such as Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey.
Not if the fanatics have anything to say about it, and they frequently do; and I've reason to suspect none of those countries are going to remain secular for long.
Claiming that I'm from Hezbollah is another lie.
I can claim anything I want of a random IP address. Right now, I think I'll claim that all people posting from random IP addresses are presently wearing giant clown shoes and have bright, red, rubber noses that squeak when I honk them.--Mike18xx 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islami's edits

Islami, please don't remove women again. I've posted a few references. As for Israeli Arabs, I didn't check your sources, but I'd say you need sources showing that any alleged discrimination is based in law, because otherwise any group that believes itself to be underprivileged could claim to be "second-class citizens," and then the term loses its meaning. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did "remove the damn list" get overruled? I think we should, but if we want examples let's use them as second clauses: "...based on ethnicity, such as..." or "...based on gender, such as...". The list as it stands ("Examples include...", with no qualification) is just begging for POV, tit-for-tat, additions. Marskell 21:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, since an instance must be factual, it isn't the cart-blanche for tit-for-tat that you might imagine, especially with SlimWirgin's tightening of the term (which I approve of) to situations based in law.--Mike18xx 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what "remove the damn list" refers to, as I only just started looking at this page. The whole page strikes me as a bit OR-ish, so I agree it could be better laid out. But above all, it needs a firmer definition and good sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

References shows clearly that the discrimination is based in law and the government is responsible. --Islamic 07:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your references "clearly" do no such thing.--Mike18xx 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The report clearly points out "legal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens" --Islamic 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be best to either (1) remove the list, because it tends to be a POV magnet, or (2) go back to the version I had a while ago specifically noting that due to the impossibility of objectively demonstrating second-class citizenship, the list is a list of cases where it can be plausibly alleged, rather than anything conclusive. Whether the situation occurs de jure or is de facto is irrelevant though, so for the case of Israeli Arabs, it doesn't have to be part of Israeli law that they get discriminated against. If in fact, they are treated (say by other Israelis and/or the Israeli government) worse than they would be if they weren't Arab, then they would be second-class citizens.Ngchen 14:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has already refuted these arguments on 09:53, 16 August 2006.--Mike18xx 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I disagree. As far as I know, almost no state would ever admit to having second-class citizens, and/or mistreating members of its citizenry. But that doesn't mean the term is meaningless. For example, the segregation-era United States had non-white people treated as second-class citizens, even though de jure they were supposed to be equal (via the US 14th and 15th amendments). Infamous phrases such as "separate but equal" and such were used, but no one can seriously say that the colored citizenry then weren't second-class citizens. Again, since there is no totally objective test of second-class citizenship, any list would be a list of plausible accusations. Perhaps those who disagree with any given claim (such as with the case of Israeli Arabs) can include a counterclaim with reference. Otherwise, let's remove the list due to the its inherent POV nature. Limiting the term to situations de jure is artificial and ignores the true meaning of the, frankly, informal term being described.Ngchen 04:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether nations admit (or, ubiquitously, not admit) to discriminations is not pertinent to SlimVirgin's argument, which I requote: I'd say you need sources showing that any alleged discrimination is based in law, because otherwise any group that believes itself to be underprivileged could claim to be "second-class citizens," and then the term loses its meaning. I shall also observe: a particular group whining that its share of "free stuff" (e.g., schools, etc) is smaller than another group's "free stuff" emphatically should not count as discrimination.
Explain what you mean by "in law." There is a point where de facto ostracism and mistreatment results in second-class citizenship, as I have already noted with the US Segregation era example. Even though there is perhaps a gray area, that doesn't mean that black and white don't exist.Ngchen 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the fact that a term is "loaded" is not sufficient reason to remove a listing regarding it from Wikipedia if the term has significant historical usage. (I was essentially informed of this when attempting to merge the euphamistic, politcal-agenda-freighting "land reform" entry into the more succinctly-named "property redistribution".)--Mike18xx 05:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by "based in law?"" I think the crux of the matter is that the discrimination has to be plausibly real,Ngchen 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not finding Islami's assertions to be "plausibly real" cases of discriminations, especially given...
and due to the person's being in one or more allegedly disadvantaged groups.Ngchen 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
...that Arab children in Israel have more educative opportunities than in nations around Israel, especially nations subject to sharia. They could, for instance, learn about evolution, or motion-pictures, and play with children of the opposite sex, without any fanatics breathing down their necks.--Mike18xx 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Pulling in other countries is irrelevant. That's commonly called the tu quoque fallacy. The issue is whether the Arab citizens of Israel are treated equally compared to say, Jewish citizens in Israel.Ngchen 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If the group as a whole is doing poorer than the rest, but the cause is readily shown to be something other than ostracism from other groups, then it wouldn't count.Ngchen 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly.--Mike18xx 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, both "land reform" and "property redistribution" are both loaded terms.Ngchen 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"Property Redistribution" doesn't insinuate by its very title that unethical activities (eg., theft of property by government) is ethical ("reform"). I'm also unsure how you're deducing that "property redistribution" is loaded (ie., offensive to anyone's sensibilities) unless you're referring to those who dislike any euphamistic phrases for theft.--Mike18xx 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe that you seem to be a staunch follower of libertarian/anarchist philosophy. Fine enough. We can debate the merits and IMO problems with that philosophical position elsewhere. "Property redistribution," fairly or not, has taken on a meaning and connotation that is negative. It implies, connotation-wise, that the redistribution is (1) forceful, and (2) unjustified. Again, I'm not saying that this connotation it acquired is fair. I'm simply stating what the truth currently is. Ngchen 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If one group has less stuff than another, and this is ostensibly due to the first being discriminated against either in law or otherwise (say generally ostracized or such), then the first group would be second-class citizens.Ngchen 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I could drive a Greyhound bus full of nonsense through the gaping hole of "...or otherwise".--Mike18xx 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember, no personal attacks. Since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, let's confine ourselves here to improving the article. Mindless attacks serve no purpose. Let's look for a way to improve the article.Ngchen 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for consensus, and NPOV

Several observations I would like to make. (1) Remember that the goal is to contribute to Wikipedia, not to be a advocate of one's own views and POVs. (2) We should strive to present human knowledge as it is currenty known to the best of our ability. With that out of the way, let's get down to the details. This article is supposed to describe the (deplorable) human condition known as second-class citizenship. First, it should describe what the term means, at least in a general sociological context. One dispute that is present is the question of how to draw a distinction between official abuses sanctioned in law, versus unfair treatment that occurs as a matter of fact due to one's membership in a group disliked by the ruling group. I think the latter can easily qualify as second-class citizenship, especially if the mistreatment is widespread, in spite of maybe laws theoretically prohibting that. For instance, suppose in country X, members of ethnicity M are allowed to serve in the military, but in practice are never promoted to general regardless of achievement or qualification. A reasonable case can be made that ethnicity M is being treated as second-class citizens. Whether ethnic M's gets treated better or worse anywhere else outside of X is irrelevant. Now suppose the situation is more widespread. Members of M cannot live where they choose within X, not by any law on the books, but rather because non-members of M categorically refuse to sell/rent housing to members of M regardless of the ability and willingness to pay. Members of M are then de facto confined to segregated slums "reserved" for M. I can list more examples, mainly drawing on segregation-era US practices. In this case member of M are second-class citizens. A related dispute is whether and when the situation is self-caused by members of group M. If that is the case, then one could argue that group M is not being mistreated by others, but rather it is suffering from its own doings.

Now the other question is the question of the list. As there is no objective test for second-class citizenship, and governments tend to universally deny mistreating any of its citizens, why have the list at all? It is obviously becoming a POV magnet - someone claims X is treated as a second-class citizen, and someone else disagrees. We can never objectively say that X is or is not a second-class citizen. So let's get rid of the list. In the article body, some additional discussion can be added noting the impossibility of ever proving or disproving the label. Depending on what responses I receive in the next few days, I will make the change in the spirit of being bold.Ngchen 02:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Kindly read up. The initial article was limited to historic examples, that nobody would debate (e.g. segregation and the treatment of blacks, Natives and Asians in the US, the caste system in India, Nazi Germany, Kurds and Shiites in Iraq). In the last few weeks, I have again seen several posters attempt to shoehorn their own or another group onto the list... while one irresponsible person (who has now been blocked, thankfully) reverted and deleted whatever to his own liking, and evidently didn't think Asians were important enough to mention, since he kept deleting the reference. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: KEEP THE LIST LIMITED TO EXAMPLES FROM THE PAST. Current issues really belong on a current-events page. If you're going to delete the list, I say delete the whole damned article while you're at it; it would make as much sense... and I can say that because I am one of its two original authors. Zephyrad 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, if you are trying to reason with the aforementioned person, you are wasting your time... and giving him exactly what he wants: your attention and your frustration. Don't bother with him, I say. Zephyrad 04:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This little debate comes to mind when arguing the moral equivalence of Arabs' plight in Israel vs. women's plight in Muslim countries: [7]. btw I vote for ditching the list altogether, it's just a colloquial term, giving historical examples seems silly. Better examples would be broad categories like the poor, the elderly, fat people, anyone without a car. 64.163.4.225 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it sets a terrible example for an encyclopedia to appease contemporary proponants of certain propagandistic viewpoints by limiting itself to historical examples (in lieu of their ability to permamently get away with "consensus" as being a wearied state of resignation among editors toward accepting a mixture of truth and propaganda in the article in preference to fighting it three times a day apiece). If an enyclopedia is afraid to tackle its subjects, then its owners should just delete the whole thing and close the site down -- if that's what it has come to.--Mike18xx 06:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct in that an encyclopedia should strive to be factual to the extent humanly possible. However, I have to say that you're apparently mistaking a straw man for what is really being pushed. A fundamental assumption is that the majority of Wikipedians are reasonable people, and would support anything that is truly presented neutrally. Hence, "consensus" is a reasonable guide to when neutrality has been reached. I hear that even for highly controversial topics such as abortion, neutrality was reached on the topic to almost everyone's satisfaction. No one is insisting on "appeasing" anyone; rather, what is being insisted on is that every viewpoint be fairly and accurately presented. "Consensus" doesn't mean consensus of viewpoints (which is probably impossible); rather, a consensus that every view has been fairly presented, with none left out. FWIW, what is and is not "propangandistic" often if not always is in the eye of the beholder.
In terms of this article, I'll reiterate my belief that having an examples list really does not add much if anything to the article. All it does is force endless arguing over whether X does or does not belong on the list, without benefiting the article itself.Ngchen 02:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teenagers

It states in the main page that a second-class citizen is a person who is often disenfranchised and does not have the right to marry, does not have freedom of religion/speech, cannot make decisions over their own education and can not own property. Teenagers often lack these 'rights' and are therefore second-class citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.154 (talk • contribs)

That notion is indefensible. Teenagers grow up, reach their majority, and obtain their full legal rights. One does not outgrow ethnicity. (Also, education in this case does not mean choice of school to attend or courses to take; it pertains to being allowed to attend school at all.) Zephyrad 23:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Teenagers,also,have to succmb to what their parents dictate them to follow.They are not even have to give their says to what their parents think it ok.Further more,this could lead,of course,to some physical and psychological bad effects.physically,parents would punish their adults —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.204.163.3 (talk • contribs)
What is the point to the above statement? And please do not erase other people's comments, while making your own. Zephyrad (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This was mentioned above, but nothing was developed from it. Generally, the rights that one could be deprived as a second-class citizen are granted at some age to everyone else, meaning that the non-discriminated-against population has the right to vote or whatever as an adult and is equal in that respect. It could be said that some second-class statuses are similar to childhood minority - e.g. in Saudi Arabia women can be prevented from running away from home - but there are obvious reasons for the latter that have nothing to do with political or religious status. Not all second-class citizen criteria are the same as ethnicity, though - those imposing religious discrimination probably did (and do) hope the subjects with "outgrow" theirs.Billwilson5060 (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brunei born Chinese

They are 2nd class citizen in their own country of birth, with STATELESS stamped onto their Brunei issued passport. --Pehin Zunaidi 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)