Talk:Racialism/Archive 2

racial separatists' rationalizations are key to this article

And I am concerned the POV has become unbalanced here in the interest of showing racialists to be racists. While I may largely agree with that POV, I feel that allowing them this label is beneficial, since it at least in theory is less hateful and violent. Also, the article cannot make the claim that racialists are simply racists in sheeps clothing. The reader should be given enough info to realize that for themselves (for example racialists and racists tend to go to the same meetings and websites, etc...) but not spoon fed that POV. With all due respect, I think you need to consider writing for the enemy (the foundation of NPOV).

[[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 23:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I give your concerns the weight they deserve, Sam. Which is to say, I take them seriously. But, I don't know if RS' rationalizations are that key to this article. I am not attempting to write for allies or enemies, but rather, objectively. My attempt is to provide the term racialism with historical and etymological, cultural and contemporary uses, and an internationally respresentative account. Now as for the except you deleted, I fail to see how that corresponds to your argument – an argument which is too vague at this point and requieres more specific citation of passages that you view as problematic. I request that you present these here so that we could discuss them prior to making any further edit-changes to the article. I will not reinsert the conventional dictinction passage (the meaning for conventional was with respects to politics, academia, etc., so perhaps that could be better qualified), but I do intend to reinsert it later, upon persuading you it is both correct and appropriate. As an aside, a more nuanced meaning for the term racialists that I attempted to get across was with the term being considred less offensive also outside of the RS movement. Thus, when (sometime, I forget) in the 1960s the Zambian Prime Minister (or was it Foriegn Minister, I forget), said that British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, "was coming out to be a racialist," he meant that in a derogatory sense, it would have been far more undiplomatic of him to say 'racist.' I am looking forward to discussing these issues with you. El_C

You seem to understand the particulars already, so I'm none to sure what were going to be able to resolve in this discussion. The story you cited sums things up well. Racialism is seen by some to be a milder, non-hateful, non-violent racial opinion, distinct from racism. Specific concerns will be forthcoming, but I don't intend to unilaterally stop editing the article (why do people ask me to do that?). I would ask you to rethink your statement:

I am not attempting to write for allies or enemies, but rather, objectively.

I am concerned that what you see as objectivity on this subject, I am seeing as lack of neutrality. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 00:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Excuse me? Try to weigh your words wisely. I am neither pleased with your response, nor internationally-unrepresentative approach. I refuse to turn Racialism back into this, if that's what you have in mind, expect unrelenting opposition. And if you take upon yourself to edit without discussion, that will be to your discredit. And another thing, try to be courteous or at the very least tactful, I am not everyone and I do not answer rhetorical questions. El_C now will be voting against Sam Spade for Arbiter

---

You might do well to explain:

try to be courteous or at the very least tactful, I am not everyone and I do not answer rhetorical questions

since I have no idea what you ment here. Also, I did not mean to be discourteous, nor did I intend to sugest that I would fail to discuss matters in talk, only that I would not necessarilly agree to "discuss(ing) ... prior to making any further edit-changes to the article". That is something alot of people have asked me to do over time here, and while I never fail to discuss in talk when needed, I reserve the right to edit as needed when an article is not protected. Often these very edits assist in clarifying communication. All of that said, I will avoid editing this article until we have come to some conclusion or understanding (hopefully amiable) regarding what appear to be personal differences. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other editors are welcome to view the discussion which followed at User talk:El C/Racialism as well as its unfortunate conclusion at User talk:El C. El_C

NPOV issues

This article doesn't need to (and should not) take any definite position on which of the many often-used definitions of "racialism" is correct. If "racialism" unquestionably referred to what this article seems to think it does, then I would have no major problems with it. But the reality of the situation is that the word "racialism" is often used to distinguish it from the very thing this article is describing. Discussing only the most offensive definition possible does a great injustice to those who use this term specifically to avoid all the negative definitions of "racism" that have piled onto it over the years.

If you look at the article racism, you'll see that the second sentence explains the less-common but unignorable definition of racism used by those who support this second meaning. Yes, the beliefs described by both meanings are highly controversial and offensive to many people, but the difference is at least mentioned. For another example, see discrimination, where the article very clearly explains the negative connotations recently ascribed to "discrimination" while still making it clear that, as a narrowly-considered technical term, the word means something very different.

Now, in racism and discrimination, these are minor issues. Nobody disagrees that when the average Joe says "Mike is a racist," or "My boss blatantly discriminates when hiring," he's referring to the things described in those articles. This is not the case with "racialism", as the term is used by many specifically to avoid what this article is talking about. This article must give a more balanced treatment to the various intended meanings of this word, instead of just being satisfied with the same level of treatment given at racism and the like, as these "other" meanings are just as common. I cannot consider it NPOV until it does so. I'm adding an NPOV plaque to this article, and will try to put some more attention towards fixing it in the future. + Now, in racism and discrimination, these are minor issues. Nobody disagrees that when the average Joe says "Mike is a racist," or "My boss blatantly discriminates when hiring," he's referring to the things described in those articles. This is not the case with "racialism", as the term is used by many specifically to avoid what this article is talking abou

Also, I feel that even as an article that's discussing "racialism as in racism", this article is POV. Articles like Nazi manage to stay much more neutral than this regarding something that is much more obviously evil. Schaefer 19:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Your above comments, unfortunately, seem to be restricted to generalities and abstractions (all the other articles you cite as examples notwithstanding), but I am looking for far more substantive, specific citations of where you find this as being the case and which alternatives you choose. Until you do so, I will be removing the NPOV tag. Either you commit yourself to this end, or you don't; but you can't expect me to do this for you. Sorry it does not (or should not) work this way. El_C

---

El_C, it wasn't my intention to dictate ways that others should be changing this article, and I'm sorry if it sounded like that. I had intended to make a number of changes immediately after posting that comment, but, after starting to write a few paragraphs and googling around for information on and examples of the modern usage of the word "racialist", I became less and less confident that I wanted to make the changes I was originally trying to justify. In retrospect, I should have been more sure about the changes I wanted before commenting. I was working on revising my comment on the talk page only moments ago when your comment was posted.

To make myself even more guilty of generalized complaints, I'd like this article to take a few hints from the article communism (and yes, I appreciate the irony of my saying so). Communism, like racialism, is a controversial topic, and, like racialism, some of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century have been conducted in its name. Despite this, the article gets through the whole introduction without any mention of Stalin, Mao, the gulags, the North Korean concentration camps, etc. A similar approach should be taken for racialism, explaining what it is before discussing what people think of it, how many people have died because of it, and how morally repugnant it is. As it stands now, this article doesn't even get through one sentence without bringing up the world's negative view of racialism, and starts telling us about the lives lost because of it in paragraph two.

Now, as requested, here are some specific changes the I submit for approval and critique:

• The first sentence should ideally explain the most common definition of "racialism". Deciding on what that is, however, seems to be rather problematic. Failing that, it should open with a mention that word's meanings are many, varied, and disputed, and then go into the specifics. One American dictionary I've checked claims that "racialism" being a synonym for "racism" is chiefly British, so we might want to add some mention of that, although as an American I can't be sure about the fine points of British usage.
• Atrocities that racialists have committed, while relevant to the article, should not appear in the introduction. Their early introduction biases the reader before a clear explanation of what racialism is can be given. I advocate making a separate section for describing all the death and suffering in the world that racialists have caused. If other, more general criticisms of racialism appear (things beyond "Specific racialist leader Foo did evil things x, y, and z") then perhaps the acts of murder and genocide can appear in a subsection of "Critcisms of racialism" or the like.
• The images of Hitler and the Rwandan genocide, while relevant, should be moved down to the section heading described above if it is created, for the same reason. Also, the comment "the epitome of 20th Century racialism" beneath the Hitler image is POV and should be cut.
• "[Racialists] are theoretically hostile to a dilution of racial features: meaning, even if they do not view a certain race as being overall superior to another, they exhibit an antipathy towards the notion of a weakening of unique racial attributes [...]" This is just some White supremacists, not all racialists. Having a separate section on White supremacy and their specific racialist beliefs would be a good idea, maybe. Otherwise, this should be cut.
• "[...] whereas most social scientists today believe [non-physical racial attributes] (and this alleged weakness) do not exist" POV. There is no great consensus in the social sciences as to whether ethnic differences are really only skin deep. I would direct the reader to Race and intelligence for further debate on the issue instead of giving this false impression of universal agreement.
• "Today, it is overwhelmingly believed that each race's capacity (to actualize human potential) is statistically comparable to the other, and that the sharp discrepancies which exist are due to inherited conditions rather than innate traits." POV. There wouldn't be interracial violence and genocide if this were "overwhelmingly believed". Again, cut this, or explain that it's a controversial issue and direct elsewhere.
• "A century ago, virtually every nation on the planet officially employed racialist policies, today none formally do." None? At all? What about the Japanese government's relentless opposition to Koreans, Chinese, and Filipinos? Their racialist policies against foreigners are just as bad as the American laws against Blacks that spawned the civil rights movement. See here, for example.

Since I have stated specific objections to this article as you asked, do I have your approval for restoring the NPOV plaque until we can all agree on resolutions? Schaefer

Yes, you have my approval, Schaefer, rather, I will do it for you (I also took the liberty of signing your name for you). At the very least, you have persuaded me that the article needs to be changed in important ways. But I also disagree with many of your points in important ways. Much more on that will be forthcoming. I will list one though for now: It is my understanding that the term racialist was not so much used as explicitly self-indetifying by various race-centred movements (Nazism, etc.; that this might be though the case today with respect to RS perhaps needs to be established/qualified), but rather as a generalization. But with Communism it is, because viertually every-single branch of Communism self-identifies, very explicitly, as such (i.e. "Communist" parties viz. the more specifically titled Nazi-esque – not titled Racialist-esque – political parties). As for the Communism article, I am going to refrain from commenting on it at this point, but I will point out that the extent and nature of these aforementioned crimes are also highly disputed and controversial issue — and, preditably enough, the figures very often (but not always) sway along a continuum of those who wish to besmirch and those who wish to sanitize (as they say, in the X-Files, 'the truth is somewhat explicable'). At the event, I have written far more in this commentary than I originally intended to (the first three sentences). I am looking forward to discussing these issues with you (beginning by addressing your specific items), though I'm afraid I will not be able to do so at least until tommorow. Goodnight. El_C

Sorry, Schaefer, it is likely that I will not have the time to address your items today. But I fully intend to revisit these in the very near-future. In the mean time, please take a glance at the references I added last night (I expanded these five-fold), perhaps they could prove of some value here. This talk page still seem to have retained some duplications, so I cleaned these. El_C

Communication breakdown

I am very disappointed with what has happened here. I am removing this page from my watchlist, after doing what I felt needed to be done. Good luck. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 00:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am very dissapointed, also. I offered Mr. Sam Spade every possibility to explain his objections in an amicable and collegial fashion (as well as with respect to our own specific discourse, in general), and was fully comitted to seriously reviewing those passages which he found problematic and his suggestions of how to supplument or supplant these with an open mind. Instead though, he has chosen drastic unilateral action, and soon thereafter announced he is leaving the article. Strange, and unfortunate. El_C

Comparison between Rwanda and Holocaust

I removed the comparison of the speed of the Rwanda slaughter with the Holocaust, where someone had written that people were killed faster in Rwanda. I felt the comparison was odious, and may not even be correct, as different periods of the Holocaust saw higher and lower numbers of deaths. Also did a bit of copy-editing on first section. But I'm wondering: if this is even an accurate definition of "racialism"? Even within the article itself, authors are using racialism when, by their own definition, racism would be correct. Slim 02:01, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken about the intensity of the genocide being impertinent here and in this form, thanks for pointing this out. Such a reference needs to be better qualified (when I read it it was, so this was a discrapncy/oversimplification on my part). As for the word, it is a problematic one, no doubt about that. The article already notes though, that it is 'commonly used as a synonym.' El_C

Sorry, this is maybe just my ignorance, but can anyone point me to a non-Wikipedian respectable source where racism and racialism are distinguished so that racialism is the description of the holding of a policy? I've never read that anywhere. Slim 02:05, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you overlooked it since it has been archived today. I cited: Dictionary.com. El_C

Thanks for the reference. It says racialism is a variant of racism, which I would agree with. It's a word that used to be used in the UK instead of racism. You don't hear it nowadays. At least, I haven't heard it for probably a couple of decades. Slim 10:28, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)