Talk:Racialism/Archive 1

Short form of why this article is back: Racialism may be a thinly veiled racism. But it is still veiled. And there clearly exist people who make the distinction, as evidenced by the fact that people have defended the split. Which means we need to document that distinction. I'm perfectly happy to have the racialism article say that most people do not accept this distinction. However, the distinction is made by some, and so should be documented.

Racialism & Racism - Definitions

Everyone on this page seems to have swapped the definitions of these two words around! When people talk about racism, they are usually actually referring to "Racialism" which is the belief in the superiority of a particular race and negative views and actions against peoples of other races. Racism is the view that people of different races have different characteristics, there is no negative (or positive) discrimination involved with Racism. --Cap 19:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Racialism thinly veiled racism??????????? Racialism is far worse than racism. Racism (in its proper meaning) is simply a belief in different races having different characteristics. (although it is used as a synonym for Racialism). Racialism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another and negative attitudes towards a particular race. If the white separatists mentioned in the main article are trying to deny superiority then they have got it completely the wrong way round!!!!!!!! --Cap 19:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I mean, we can't ask for nigger not to redirect to African American, or any other number of terrible redirects if we don't have this article. Yeah, white separatism is horrible. But we should present it as it is - saying what they claim, and pointing out how people respond. And we should trust our readers to figure that out. Snowspinner 21:05, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I explained my position on Talk:Racialist (my posts are signed as "No-One Jones"), so there's no need to repeat it here. In brief, though: Wikipedia is not a usage guide, and the terms racism and racialism are exact synonyms for the same set of attitudes and beliefs. I do not see any distinction between racism and racialism: well-meaning racism is still racism. —No-One Jones 21:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the article as trying to dictate usage. It's noting that there is a concept, racialism, which is employed by these groups. There are also people who deny that they are synonyms. I mean, I agree with you - racialism is still racist. But that's a POV. And NPOV is important. We should acknowledge the claimed distinction, acknowledge the belief that the distinction is a sham, and leave it at that. We donot need to tell people that well-meaning racism is racism. People can figure that fact out.

The best weapon against supremacists and racists is to shed light on them. Show them in their own words, and let people see how inconsistant, obviously wrongheaded, and offensive they are. They collapse so easily under their own weight. If they want to say that they're not racist, they're racialist, let them. We'll report that it's what they do, we'll report the counterarguments, and anyone with half a brain will figure out that racialists are just as idiotic as the racists they pretend not to be.

Google on "racialism and racism," and you'll find sources that claim differance. That fact alone means we need to report on the fact that people say they're different. Once we report that fact, we can point out any number of obvious responses. But we absolutely should not deny that fact for any politically motivated reason, no matter how sympathetic. Snowspinner 21:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree of course, but don't intend on waging an exaustive fight over this. Sam Spade 21:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree that people use the terms differently; I only question the need for a separate article to say, in essence "Racialism is a synonym for racism, but some people say that the terms mean different things." -- if that's all it's going to say, then that usage could just be explained under racism, which is after all the more common term.

However if the distinction is more meaningful (as some of the references I picked up from a quick Google search would suggest) then a separate article could be written. I ran across a few decent references (1 (.doc), 2 (.pdf), footnote 29, 3 (footnote 8) 4, entry #31); I'll see if I can track any of those down. —No-One Jones 21:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that it's worth noting just because I can forsee someone reading separatist literature, coming upon the word racialist, and searching it. In which case they should first come to an article on that usage, instead of just getting redirected towards racism, saying "Oh, well, I know what racism is" and failing to see the shell game that just got played on them. Snowspinner 22:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Well here we are again Spade. No, in fact, racialism and racism are synonymous it is not POV it is a fact. Please view your handy dictionary. I am only going to comment here because I know snowspinner to be a valuable user and he is well intentioned.

By creating a page racialist or racialism we would be acknowledging an extreme POV, namely that the terms racialism and racism can be differentiated (which is the intention of white separatists like Spade and Vogel). When the fact (note this is not my opinion, although I agree with it) is that they are synonymous terms and even creating a page saying such (along with I am sure some description of a belief system on why it is not racist) would be POV. It would lend legitimacy to an illegitimate argument.

Indeed if a user came to wikipedia to find out more about white separatism he or she would be well educated and informed about racialism by such a redirect. I suggest adding a section for racialism to racism if you feel it is warranted rather than creating a separate page. As you will notice the page racism notes it is synonymous with racialism.

Also there has been no evidence provided that those who believe in racialism are somehow different than those who believe in racism in terms of theory. Perhaps if there were a movement that misapplied the term racialism (i.e. their philosophy was not that of racism) wikipedia would be obligated to provide a page. But there has not been anything submitted that the referenced racialists philosophy is different from the philosophy or viewpoint of racism. GrazingshipIV 23:19, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

The point that I worry you're not seeing here is that the belief that racism is bad is already POV. Yes, it's my POV too. I actually suspect it's Spade's POV, but I give him more credit than you do. My point is that, even if the only movements that use the word "racialist" are ones that are racist, the fact that they make a distinction is something we should document. Because it's our job to document, well, just about everything. And white separatist movements are definitely something worth documenting.

Would it be acceptable to you if the article began "Although most often used as a synonym for racism, racialism is also used by [[[White separatist groups]]]"? Snowspinner 23:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I am trying to be NPOV here, thats why I mentioned the theorectical aspects of it. I think if you feel it is legitimate it should be done in racism otherwise we undermine the english language which must be followed as a basic ground rule. They are synonymous terms and there has still been no evidence submitted that the page racism does not explain the theory of racialism. Those who use the term as I have seen thus far are using it in place of racism due to racisms negative connotations. Their philosophy is not different in anyway according to them. I think any such information belongs in racism otherwise the page would acknowledge some sort of difference in the terms which can be objectively identified as not true. GrazingshipIV 23:37, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that separatists do not use them as synonyms, and actively deny that they are synonyms. And we need to explain that. And that should be explained on this page as well as on racism. I'd hate to see someone researching racialism, get redirected to racism, and not read the article to see the mention of racialism a ways down because they figure they already know what racism is, and they're clearly just synonyms. If that happens, they would walk away less educated about white separatists - not more. Snowspinner 06:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Good job on the article, and I strongly reccomend that certain folks review NPOV and really Wikipedia:Policy Library in general. Sam Spade 05:13, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner I'm glad we could reach a compromise. Its too bad this article was so closely related to certain trolls or it would have been up sooner. Of course if those trolls try to edit they will be reverted, we need to make sure we do not allow certain racists to assert POV here. I hope you, snowspinner, agree to these terms. GrazingshipIV 17:05, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain to me, Grazinship, why you have reverted my edits without notice? What is it that you found objectionable in my more neutral and factually expanded treatment? Since when are we just reverting other people's changes here instead of elaborating on them and fixing them? Watcher 21:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Revert

"Desire to remove themselves from integrated society and segregate" -- this language is awkward and unclear and can be more efficiently expressed by "desire to segregate themselves".

"People of other ethnicities" was chosen instead of "minorities" since separatists want to achieve their goals regardless of whether or not they are the majority. "Minority" does not automatically refer to non-white people. For instance, in California, whites are no longer the majority, yet white separatists and supremacists still exist. -- Spleeman 07:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Minority is not a numerical term according to PC BS. You should know that. Look into it. They call women a "minority" too. Officially I agree w you, but I'm going to make the article conform w accepted references. In the future do not revert an entire edit due to some minor concern or confusion. Sam [Spade] 15:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite

New Websters Dictionray (print): Ra·cial·ism n. Race hatred or race discrimination.

Dictionary.com: Ra·cial·ism n. a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events. b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations. Chiefly British. Variant of racism. (bold is my emphasis).

The contradistinction between racism and racialism is conventionally understood to mean that between attitudinal and policy realms. I am deleting the passage about RS' (-purported-) 'scientific' works as it is not that important for the article, in my opinion. Also, note that Rushton may use empirical data correctly, but his conclusions are widely seen as unsceintific by his peers (of whom I am, admittedly, one; incidentally, I also attended one of his lectures). Anyway, racial separatists' rationalizations are not key to this article. Suffice that we note why (as opposed to the details of 'how') they revise the term to suit their ideological purposes. Finally, notwithstanding the New Webster and especially Dictionary.com's correct definitions, the term most of all is used in English-speaking countries simply as a synonym for racism (see Merriam-Webster 'Online' which neglects to even mention it viz. racism). El_C