Talk:Racism in North America

Racism in Canada

The general defect in the article is its presentation of "racism" as a single type of behavior. However common in 21st-century politics (in a world preoccupied by migration) this omits or blurs (1) obvious differences between Canadian and US usage, most notably that "race" had nothing to do with skin colour for most of Canadian history; it meant the difference between French and English Canadians; and (2) "race" in the USA has always predominantly meant the difference between white and black people born Americans. It is historically connected with slavery, and therefore civil rights, but not with the cultural differences of foreign-born people in North American society.

>Indigenous women in Canada experience higher rates of racism than other women. I will add to this topic.

interesting how little the native experience is covered and how much supposed legal protection for natives is provided in this article. compare this to the first sentence on mexico's racism, which is silly considering mexico has a lot more respect for their natives than canada. this article was obviously written and edited by (and for) canadians.

>I'm a little - a lot - skeptical that Mexico, in it's infamy, is more tolerant in any respect compared Canada. International reputations have merit.

I am also concerned about editing this page. I believe that to understand racism in Canada we need to first explain its history. I will be adding some historical backgroundIntrospectress (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I am another person. I will also be assisting in adding the history portion to this entry. (AboriginalAbel (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC))

Your first paragraph was written like a university essay. Not your fault as the rest of the article is pretty horribly written. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One thing that might help is reading WP:ASSERT. Most of the article asserts opinions as facts, something it should not do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There cannot be an article on Wikipedia entitled Racism in Canada, as many of the references that would illustrate the intolerance shown would be whitewashed by a small coterie of editors dedicated to removing material deemed offensive to the church and its policies of the 19th and 20th centuries in Canada. Every article naming the churches of Canada and their involvement in the native Residential school scandal has been neutralized and sources removed by these zealots who patrol wiki’s for this and only this topic. As someone above observed, it seems that these editors are all Canadian, but in reality the tone is that no bad shall be said of the churches, and material showing Canada to be a haven of tolerance shall replace those bad references, and any editor who sticks to having the truth shown will be engaged in an edit war to prevent them from reverting the neutralizing material. Those religious zealots form a bulwark and are an organized opposition to the truth being exposed on Wikipedia. The articles are not written to solve some great wrong done in the past, merely written as insight into the events that occurred (as someone already pointed out). The articles involved should have a category of their own, as an aid to identifying the editors involved in the coverup. Institutional racism, Racism in North America, the Indian residential school, Indigenous racism, Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Canada), Sixties Scoop, AmINext, Aboriginal food security in Canada, List of reportedly haunted locations in Canada, History of freedom of religion in Canada, Robco311 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I support the creation of a separate article for the topic. Not having a separate article seems to imply that racism does not exist in Canada, which is false. – Illegitimate Barrister, 23:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Drug Cartels in Mexico and Racism

Does anyone know if there is any correlation between the drug cartels in Mexico and the class divisions? Are these drug lords usually lighter or darker skinned and are they a force attempting to counteract the corruptions of Mexico's government by producing selling drugs because that is the only way they can avoid being poor? Also, I'm thinking about adding illegal immigration being a cause of the racism. Quinder (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Mexico

I think that racism in México is a bit more complex than: "darker-skinned people is poorer". When Spain conquered México, they established a pretty complex caste system, where naturally native-born pure-blood Spaniards where at the top (even pure-blood spanish born on México, or criollos, were considered inferior). Also naturally, pure-blood indians were placed very low on the scale. People with different amounts of mixed blood were placed in between criollos and indians (less mixed blood = higher on the scale). Lower castes only had access to low paying jobs (mining, for example). Since ADN testing didn't exist back then, a fairer skin was desirable since it could potentially allow you to blend in a higher caste.

We must also remember that the Spanish rule lasted about 300 years.

So this system made sure that whiter-skinned people had more opportunities and could accumulate more wealth. By the time México's independence from Spain (1821), wealth was probably concentrated mostly on white families. Wealth is inherited, and so is skin color, so it's only natural that the descendents of those white families form a part of the wealthy white people on Mexico. On the other hand, being born with less resources greatly damages your chances of wealth, so people who had a darker skin (and consequently was poor by the time of the independence) will have a lower chance of having successful offspring.

And since in our territory it was undesirable to have a darker skin for 300 years, that idea still exists in our country (old ideas die hard).

There is also the fact that our currency is not very strong. That makes it easier for people from wealthier countries and a lot of resources to come and invest in our country. And for some reason, wealthier countries tend to be whiter. Trivial example: senior citizens from the USA can migrate from the USA to Mexico; the same amount of savings that could give them a modest life in the states can allow them to live a very nice life in our countries. It's not unlikely for retired men to have kids with local people (it happens). Those kids will we whiter and have an access to bigger resources than kids from locals.

It is also not unlikely for middle class people from stronger economies to migrate to Mexico and do business. Their middle class savings become a small fortune when coming to México and provide them a great head start over Mexican-born entrepreneurs. It worked for the Slim (see: Carlos Slim).

Of course, this is not to say that racism doesn't truly exist in our country. My very own grandma is an indian (whose ethnicity she always refused to reveal, now she's senile so I'll never know). Her favorite son? The whitest of them all (or at least, the less dark skinned). My dad was among the darkest. Everytime I go to visit her, she is amazed to learn that I'm the son of her son ("but my son is a prieto, and this kid is a güero! it can't be!" prieto being a pejorative for dark skinned person, and güero slang for a white skinned person). As far as I know, that kind of attitudes are commonplace all over the country. White people is considered more attractive than darker people (you just need to observe Mexican publicity and soap operas). Indians are considered the standard of ugliness. Tribe names are considered pejoratives, so if you are dark skinned, phrases like "p*nche zapoteca" or "pareces chamula" are both common and offensive. The very word "indio" is synonym with "stupid", "dirty", "uneducated", "poor" or "ugly". And as a mexican is also difficult not feeling insulted for being called indio. Businesses are probably much more difficult to close if you are dark and short than if you are white and tall. Work ads tend to include the requisite "Buena presentación" (which means, good appearance), and it is said that it actually means "dark skinned people may not apply".

On the other side of the coin, several of the things I described on the last paragraph sound like an urban legend to me. Being born with a lighter skin tone than the average, I've never experienced a lot of those things. While I could not call myself white, I've been called "güero" lots of times, I'll probably never be called "indio" by anyone, tend to receive a slightly more favorable judgment over darker people, and I have even been told the very desirable "no pareces mexicano" (you don't look mexican).

On the upside of things, having a dark skin, while probably making your life harder in Mexico, won't actually close any doors permanently. There are no race policies for admission in universities not for scholarships (though most scholarships are very limited). We even had a president with an indian background (Benito Juárez). My own father is a very successful doctor despite having brown skin (and a light skinned wife constantly calling him "prieto" or "feo"), and such cases are commonplace.

On the other hand, we also have the concept of "güero de rancho" (country whites, basically). Those are light skinned people born in poverty or in limited resource settings. Despite the fact that they are considered more attractive or sexually desirable by the society in general, they usually don't actually have more social opportunities than darker skinned people with the same economical background (saving getting married to a rich person), though they'll probably have easier access to some jobs (sales clerks, modeling, acting, etc), but not to universities (the fact that our universities don't require interviews for entry might be a factor, though). Still, it is not uncommon for light skinned people to feel "superior" or "above" their peers.

So, in a nutshell: we have white people being richer from the beginning of the country, white people migrating to make business in our country, and sons from white immigrants having access to more opportunity than the average kid. Racism does exist, but it probably comes from the 300 yeas Spanish rule (and thus, difficult to eradicate without very effective measures). The biggest problem dark skinned people face is a relative lack of opportunities, due to them having a big probability of being born in poorer families. Still, dark people will have almost the same opportunities as white people born on the same social class; the biggest difference will be social bias/some discrimination.

(This all is of course unsourced but it is not "original research". It's mostly common sense if you live here, but it should be easy for someone with enough interest to find documentation supporting my statements.) Oantonio (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a lot of "citation needed" bacause one of the sources was Rincon del Vago, which was broken and also it's not very trustworthy, other source was an article of Proceso about a boss hitting his employee, but there wasn't anything on the article to suggest that the employee was an Amerindian(his skin was darker, but the article was used as a source of attacks to Amerindians, not as a general example of racism).

Overall Oantonio did a good job explaining how racism works in Mexico against people of darker skin, but for Amerindians is a very different story, they usually live in their own communities separated from the rest of the population (that are mostly mestizos), they tend to live in very poor conditions and many people take advantage of them because is common that they doesn't know their own rights, but most of the population barely has any contact with them.

There is like a common feeling around common people of respect and admiration of indigenous people that lived before the arrival of the Spaniards, and an urgency of celebrating the heritage of those cultures, but for the other hand, people tend to forget that abuses to contemporary Amerindians are happening. I think the current article is very far from reflecting that and instead it portrays something closer to the racism on other countries.2603:3024:18F5:6000:9DE3:AF95:7F8F:80D8 (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Güero

Güero doesn't come from Guerrero. It isn't even spelled the same way,

GÜE has a similar pronunciation than WA in way, while GUE is pronunced like GHE in ghetto.

The alternative of it coming from the old word engorado or enhuerado which means rotten egg should be considered.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.235.187.94 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism in America

Why isn't there at least a small summary of "Racism in the United States" in this article? --Schwindtd (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am being bold and will be using WP:CWW to expand on the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43?9enter (talk • contribs) 04:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably each country should get its own page. It seems as though the article was simply about Canada; the section on the U.S. was not representative and contained no real discussion at all. Furthermore, where does the abuse of Christians and Jews fit into this picture? It is decidedly a sparse article.

What is this article anyway?

The lead sentence of this article is "This article describes the state of race relations and racism in North America". This his however a poorly organized list of both historical and current example of racism. It is neither a list or a comprehensive text. This should be either narrow down to a quick list of link to different pages that address these specifics questions, or someone knowledgeable on the topic should produce a comprehensive text. The later option would required to demonstrate some commonalities to the various form of racism in North America. If this is just a grouping of information liked by a geographical entity, a list is sufficient. Enteka2010 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Racism in Mexico should have it's own page

There is a lot to write about regarding that. Crossovershipper (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I could agree more, Racism in Canada should also have it's own page, there is alot to write about there also. Charles Essie (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this would best be done by creating a separate page about racism for each country. Then this page could be reserved for information that compares racism within North American countries and contrasts with racism in other continents. Right now the paltry content on the USA in an article supposedly about North America seems misleading. JJ Bosch (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Racism in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-5.401/50293.html/?noCookie
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071221071212/http://history.cbc.ca:80/histoire/?MIval=EpisContent.html&series_id=1&episode_id=14&chapter_id=3&page_id=3&lang=E to http://history.cbc.ca/histoire/?MIval=EpisContent.html&series_id=1&episode_id=14&chapter_id=3&page_id=3&lang=E

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Major edits to Canada section by very new editor

There has been major edits made by new editor User:Jyinx. In fact, this is his or her first edit to an article. So, it would be helpful to provide feedback to the editor. I would be willing to refer this person to our Wikipedia policy pages and guidelines, but I want to break down why the edits are being made. - There were a number of statements that were based on opinion pieces, like the reference from Macleans and the Guardian. Now, I know that those are notable publications, but the articles cited are opinion pieces, and the parts of the opinion pieces that are relevant to the edits are not supported in the opinion piece with facts or context or an explanation on how the statement was made. - The editor had added statements that were in the later part of the article already. Given that this article could get out of control and become unnecessarily long, editors need to summarize topics appropriately and avoid repetition. We could also create a second Wikipedia article if any particular topic gets too long.

It's tough to revert the work of a new editor, but this is a case where the editor doesn't really understand Wikipedia's guidelines, or even the topic at hand.DivaNtrainin (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've done a bunch of cleanup; more will be needed. A lot of it was inappropriate in tone for an encyclopaedia, reading more like an editorial. The sources tend to be from newssources rather than scholarly ones, and a lot of them were opinion pieces. I removed a bunch of stuff that wasn't even in the sources. Could User:Jyinx maybe stop by here so we can talk about how best to incorporate info like this in the future? One piece of advice: try not adding so much information inso many different sections at once, so as to avoid having it all reverted like it (briefly) was. Edits are easier to evaluate and deal with when they're smaller. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There has been a lot of edits by a new editor. Specifically, this editor has added citations of individual cases of racism against muslims and sikhs. Although, I am not denying the accounts, the reason they were removed is that Wikipedia has clearly stated that they are not a list of information or news source. The problem with including individual cases, is that the page just becomes a listing of all news reports of cases of racism, without giving any context if racism is increasing, decreasing, being more reported or just a one off situation. Having scholarly reports or surveys that look at the overall trend of racism is note-worthy and there are a lot of reports that already exist. If someone disagrees with this point of view, I would love to hear other people's perspective on the scope of this article, and specifically, what individual cases should be included. For example, if the individual case resulted in a Wikipedia article, like the Viola Desmond incident, it does have merit, especially since this incident affected society in the larger picture.DivaNtrainin (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge?

Should we merge this with the South American racism article to form one unified Racism in the Americas page? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking that this would make this article quite big. I also think that since there are so many differences between all the countries that we couldn't draw any overall trends between the countries. Also, given that most of the english editors are in North American and not as much from South America, the North American section would get far more details than the South American section, which is not fair to the smaller South American countries. Suggest we keep them separate.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

why the fuck does this article exist,

there should be separate article for each country

Trinidad and Tobago

Is this in north America, I would have thought south america?Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No: the only useful geographic groupings are either the Caribbean region or Central America (often interpreted to mean only the mainland, not the Caribbean islands.) User: Carlsbad science

Merge

Based on the talk page above, I can safely say this is an issue that hasn't been addressed in years. As I've mentioned, this article is too broad and should be merged with their own respective articles. All these countries have distinct issues in regards to racism. Telsho (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Telsho, I've left comments already on the Racism in Mexico page. I would suggest and be in favor of stripping redundant information from this page and only having the sections redirect to the far more detailed full pages (US, Mexico, Canada). The main point that needs to be addressed on this page is to compare and contrast the experience and development of racism in North America. This should be imo a sourced summary that looks at the differences between Anglo-America and Latin-America colonial processes, up to today. Basically, the specifics of racism now vary widely in Mexico and the US. I know less about Canada. Thanks. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Support merger Yeah, I can't see any need for an umbrella article like this on an entire geographic continent when each country obviously has its own unique issues. The more focused articles on the individual countries are all we need.Resowithrae (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 102

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacksont25 (article contribs).