Talk:Racism

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160C

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JiangLyn (article contribs).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

The racism is a prejudice against colour

}} 111.92.13.201 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Academic definitions of "racism"

As with so many terms, academics have created their own definition of the word "racism". That's fine in academic circles, but on Wikipedia it repeatedly leads to arguments about whether the definition applies to specific situations. Editors from the academic world can even talk about "proto-racism". But editors from the majority of society will apply the word "racism" more broadly. Academics may self-righteously point to published citations and definitions, claiming that their definition is correct. This happens on a number of articles. Not sure how to improve both the quality of the articles but also respectful interaction between editors. At least, "Assume good faith." Pete unseth (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"from the majority of society" You do know that Wikipedia is not practicing argumentum ad populum, right? We are not citing the widely held beliefs of a specific culture, we are citing reliable sources. If you want changes, find sources that support them. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to all respect, but this kind of contradictory, you said to assume "good faith", but accused academics of being r4c1st, which is not good faith at all (since you said as all are like this), and is not even much good faith accuse a whole enterprise of "argumentum ad populum", in your logic, use a real thing is a "argumentum ad populum", by this logic, I must accuse you of "argumentum ad populum", for think all academics are self-righteous and r4c1st, and so on.

It's ironic you talk about respecful and laterly disrespect a enterprise, your argument only makes sense when you prove it is true, without evidence, without credibility, and consequently a unreliable source, if it is, evidence generates credibility and it consenquently a reliable source (despite I know there's another things how to-do a reliable-sourced article, as neutrality, etc.). 177.105.90.89 (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop Social Racism Systems

Hi,All.We had been in this world together for over decades and I'm shocked and I believe and hope certain belongings owned by others by excluding others especially when it comes to real decision making in real lives eg:why should I control and listen to this black poor and suffering black person ? Discrimination like this is a clear race , as well as technology is as I can't tell or do something through computer that will be accepted or used,paid for as I'm black rather they can only use that for them to get richer and richer and the blacks they'll be in poverty,hunger and stay unemployed without land that belong to them .Amooketsi stop racism,discrimination,inequalities of wages/income,economic apartheid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.203.214 (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct historical definition of Racism

Racism and Racist are words that were coined in the early 1900's and described a field of study that was based on a theory that human races could be placed in a hierarchy of superior to inferior based on the different attributes of the races. A racist was/is someone who believed in the theory. Based on the theory different types of research and additional theories were purposed and many different studies all in an effort to support the theory. For example, one theory thatcwas suggested evolved around the human skull. It was purposed that skull size and other factors were connected to race and determined the intelligence of the race. Such thing has the bumps and ridges on one skull. A whole field of study sprang up based on this theory. None of the "scientific" research however were ever able to actual prove the claims of the theory, but that didn't stop those supporters of the theory from claiming that their scientific experiments did in fact prove the theory.

The word Racism DID NOT ever mean, discrimination (discrimination means discrimination there is no need for another word), or racial hatred (there is a word that already means that and it is Bigotry). The word Racism has been weaponized by parts of society for a very specific reason. And that reason is to shut down those who disagree with the person/people who misuse it the for political purposes.

Since Racism is at is core a belief system it is impossible to know it someone in facts holds those beliefs, unless they tell you. But in todays world simply saying something like "all blacks can dance" would be called racist, especially by white middle and upper middle class young people. When in fact their is nothing inherently racist in that phrase. Not to mention it isn't true, but it does feed into a stereotype. But stereotypes are also not inherently racist, in fact most aren't even close to being racist. Lets look at the phrase again. Being able to dance is a skill that requires a number of different skills and talents. Hearing the beat, keeping the beat, being able to move your body in time with the beat and rhythm of the music to name just a few. Those who natural have such a talent or who have developed this talent are looked at as inferior humans nor superior humans. People may marvel at the skill and talent but no one places them on a scale suggesting they are superior or inferior beings. And since the word was created to describe races as being superior to inferior in the context of the total racial group, calling this phrase racist is nonsensical.

Another aspect of the words racism and racist that have grown into the misuse ofvthe words has to do with the element of emotion. Which is also nonsensical. If a person is in fact a racist it doesn't mean that such a person hates the people of the race that is thought to be inferior. As I have already stated hating people based on their race already has a word to describe them. A person could hate people of another race without considering them inferior. People can also think a certain race is inferior without hating them. In fact, today the most truly racist things being said are by those who through their words and positions on issues are actually making the claim that a policy, or law being considered is racist because of their own view that the affected racial group is simply unable to comply with the proposed law. Take voter ID as an example. ALL the people who shout and protest against any and all boter ID laws are of two types. They are white or they are people in politics or academic racial minorities who are either in positions of power or are trying to advance into su h positions (note- all of these people have the require ID already, they needed it for the job they have, to get into college, drive a car, open a bank account,cash a check from any source etc etc etc.) Yet what is left unsaid in their position and cries of Racism, is that they either belief that all the other peoples of racial minority nor only lack any form of ID but that they are simply so limited mentally to be able to figure out how it get the required ID. It is interesting to listen to white college students claim that voter ID laws are racist and listen to there reasoning. What they always totally fail to under stand is that there argument agaist requiring voter ID is in fact an argument from rasism. 152.86.89.51 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)