Talk:Supremacism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1

1 Re the 'Beliefs and ideas' section
2 Don't merge with 'triumphalism;' just retain the cross-reference.
3 Removed copyediting request
4 Multiculturalists
5 Crips and Bloods supremacist Groups?
6 Two problems: lack of evidence and overly broad definition
7 Antisocial Personality Disorder

[edit] Re the 'Beliefs and ideas' section

"If you believe that x is true and that y is false, then you must hold that someone who believes the reverse is wrong, and that your beliefs are in that sense superior."

I might think that someone who believes the reverse is wrong, but not necessarily that my belief is superior.
212.84.98.52 21:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

??? A true belief is superior to a false belief in terms of its truth value, by definition. I suppose one might try to argue that the false belief might be aesthetically more pleasing, or more comforting, but then those are non-truth-functional senses, so irrelevant to what's said in the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"...but then those are non-truth-functional senses, so irrelevant to what's said in the article."

If anything characterises supremacism I would suggest it would be a non-truth-functional nature. If I were a Christian, I may believe Hindus to be mistaken in their beliefs, but I wouldn't necessarily think that my beliefs were superior or that they ought to believe as I do; similarly for the remaining examples in the opening paragraph. In short, what I am suggesting is that this paragraph is not NPOV; indeed, that it might be supremacist as regards the role of logic in human affairs.
Thank you for your interest. 212.84.106.70 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that supremacism is defined by non-truth-functionality, but the point of the passage in question is precisely to explain that supremacism is different from the ordinary attitudes involved in holding certain propositions to be true or false.
Christians certainly ought to hold that others should share their beliefs, unless they're immoral and don't care whether other people gain salvation.
The passage says nothing about logic; in any case, I know of no part of the world, no culture, no way of living, that isn't logical. If the white supremacist weren't logical, for example, then he might hold that whites are superior to other races, and therefore blacks should be given all the best jobs. Logic is inescapable, because it isn't a matter of how things are (so that they might be some other way), but the structure of how things can be. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello again.

Re 1: If I "believe that X is true and that Y is false" I don't see why I must "hold that someone who believes the reverse is wrong, and that [my] beliefs are in that sense superior." I might simply say the other person has different beliefs; and even if I then think their beliefs are mistaken, what makes my beliefs "in that sense superior"? Do I have a monopoly on truth? With more experience and learning I may well change them...

If I believe that x is true, and you beleive that x is false, then I believe that you're wrong. I don't think that I have a monopoly over the truth (where did that come from?), only that in this instance I'm one person (doubtless among many) whose belief is true. In terms of truth-functionality, then, my belief is superior. None of this is controversial, most of it's a simple matter of definition. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A supremacist kind of thinking seems to have crept into the passage before the second paragraph introduces a definition of supremacism. Hence my suggesting this paragraph is not NPOV and I have now so marked it. I would like to see if and what opinions other people have on the matter, which I hope is acceptable to you.

Is till have no idea what you mean, and I've removed the tag. I'll replace it if you can explain why you think it should be there (I don't even require that you make a good case for your position, just that you explain it clearly so that I know why you think the tag is appropriate). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re 2: There seem to be a lot of unjustified 'must's, 'should's and 'ought's flying about, before talk of supremacism even begins. Whilst I know and have met Christians who indeed behave as if others ought to share their beliefs, there seem to be as many keen simply to share their beliefs and give others the choice to find out more or not.

It seems to me that you've no understood the nature of Christianity (or, perhaps, of religion in general). In so far as it's concerned with hypothetical imperatives (such as: "if you want to achieve salvation, you should follow the teachings of Jesus"), and in so far as the Christian is a moral person, then the Christian should think that everyone ought to follow Christian teachings. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re 3: I would suggest that societies may strive to make logic a significant feature of their existence but that the history of mankind repeatedly shows how little if any priority logic is given - or, to put it in a nutshell, that human nature isn't logical.

This doesn't really make sense to me, I'm afraid, but I suspect that you've misunderstood the nature of logic. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope I have not misunderstood or misplaced any of the intentions in the passage (or indeed your thoughts here, for which thank you). If so, my apologies but please note there is at least one person who has found difficulty with it.
212.84.110.109 02:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts interspersed in the above. I'm sorry not to've made my concerns more clear. For that reason, perhaps it is best if I focus on just the first point in the above before addressing any others.

"If I believe that X is true, and you believe that X is false, then I believe that you're wrong."

Let's say I believe that theocracy is a good form of government and you don't. Must I believe that you're wrong? No, because (for example) I may accept that you might know or have experienced something about theocracy which, if I knew or experienced it, would change my mind.

I might nonetheless choose to believe that you're wrong about theocracy, but the point is I don't have to do so.

I hope this helps.
212.84.103.225 13:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the opening of the article in an attempt to make it simpler and to remove the POV comments about the Iraq war.

I have removed the first two paragraphs of the 'Beliefs and ideas' section as I feel that, regardless of how non-NPOV or well-argued they may or may not be, the point being made is that supremacism holds that "a particular group is superior to other groups". I suggest this is now implicit in the opening sentence of the article as it currently stands; in other words, an attempt to contrast supremacism with the holding of beliefs is not necessary and risks the non-NPOV I have tried to indicate above.

I hope my efforts are acceptable. If not, how are differences resolved?

Thank you. 212.84.121.180 03:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The main problem was that you recast part of the article from normal text into a sort of list (with the last entry "and so on"). You also deleted (rather than rewording slightly) the comment on the Iraq war; the passage is slightly PoV, but it does say that the West doesn't openly assert supremacist views, with the implication that this needn't be the actual fact of what's going on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Re the start of the article:

I have now reformatted the list as a sentence.

Re the comments on the Iraq war:

I have tried to neutralise these, but feel both are inherently POV. Taking the first, "Of course, Western society no longer openly promotes religious supremacism, the current war in Iraq being a good example", there may be a significant number of people who'd say the current war in Iraq is not a good example of Western society no longer openly promoting religious supremacism. (In other words, it's a POV that the war in Iraq is a good example.)

Similarly, saying "A great deal of care was made in order not to allow anti-Saddam propaganda to include an anti-Islamic focus" is a POV as people may well say that insufficient care was taken.

I have therefore left these comments omitted.

I note you also reintroduced the first two paragraphs of the 'Beliefs and ideas' section, but haven't indicated why. I had hoped the relevant paragraph in my previous message would indicate why I had removed them even before any POV/NPOV considerations. If you still feel they ought to form part of the article, I'd appreciate your indicating why with reference to that paragraph; if this is not enough, please also refer to the theocracy example in the message before it. Thank you. In the meantime I have left these paragraphs omitted.

212.84.102.224 03:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd care to open an editing account? It's free, easy, has no strings attached, and brings many advantages. One of them (though an informal one) is that when hard-pressed editors in a hurry see a block of text removed from an article (with no edit summary — see below), they're less likely to revert it without stopping to examine it carefully. I know that that shouldn't happen anyway, but it does; I've just done it to you, and I'd have been much less likely to have done it if you'd not been an anon. Doubtless it shouldn't be that way, but it is I'm afraid.
Always use edit summaries; it's Wikipedia policy anyway, and it also makes it less likely that you'll just be assumed to be a vandal when you delete material from articles (or make other edits).
In fact, though, I do have problems with your version (some apply also to the original version). I don't think that it narrows the field sufficiently or in the right way. Mentioning the actions that supremacists think that they're entitled to take is good and important, and an improvement over what went before, but the inclusion of divine covenants worries me. That's surely something else (no better, but different in kind). It may be that supremacism is augmented by or justified in terns of appeal to such a covenant, but to call the divine right of kings supemacism strikes me as odd, to say the least.
I don't agree with removing the section on beliefs and ideas; I added it because an editor with an extreme and insistent PoV was making the very mistake that the section tries to head off. Your summary doesn't make the point clearly enough or at enough length. You've said before that in fact you disagree with the (standard) account of belief on which the section rests, and I still hold that you're wrong to do so. I don't want to insult you needlessly, and forgive me if the answer is an outraged "no!", but are influenced by some sort of "post-modernism" or "critical theory" approach?
The paragraph on religions strikes me as being better, on the whole, in its original form; why do you want to make the changes that you did? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your latest thoughts. I have now opened a user account as signed below.

Re divine covenant, divine right of monarchs, etc:

This content was in the article before I began making my suggestions and I simply carried it through. I suppose the notions of royal families and claiming a divine right to rule is not supremacist as currently described since I'd say they assume the (tacit) approval of the people to be ruled (otherwise cue revolution, etc). By the same token, however, I suppose claims of having a divine covenant and/or being a chosen people would be supremacist if such claims included the right to "dominate, control or rule those who do not" share or recognise those claims...?

Re first two paragraphs of 'Beliefs and ideas' section:

So far as I'm aware I'm not influenced by some sort of postmodern or critical theory, inasmuch as I haven't read or studied either. I hope, though - with tongue in cheek - you never find any need to insult me or anyone else...! In the meantime I'd appreciate your directing me to the kind of (standard) account of belief you have in mind when you say I don't agree with it, as I don't know whether or not I do.

Apart from this, however, I feel it should be possible to rewrite the paragraphs to remove the claim of being "wrong" (or right) and to attribute the belief that one belief is superior to another to an evaluation of evidence. After all, the conclusion in the second paragraph - that supremacism is believing "that a particular group is superior to and has rights over other groups" - does not conflict with the article's opening statement ("Supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who belong to or profess it to dominate, control or rule those who do not."). Here is an (incomplete) attempt - perhaps we could improve it together? :

It is important to distinguish supremacism from the general holding of beliefs. If you believe something to be true whilst someone else believes it to be false, you may believe the evidence and reasoning for your belief to be superior to those of the other person [insert example]. Supremacism, however, goes much further than this. It doesn't only hold that the evidence and reasoning for a set of beliefs is superior to any other but that those people holding those beliefs are superior to others and have rights over them.

Re the paragraph on religions:

As explained above, I feel the example of and comments about the Iraq war are not NPOV. Furthermore, whilst they refer to supremacism, I don't see how they help eludicate the concept. For those reasons I feel they ought to be omitted.

As regards the rest of the paragraph, I'd hope my rewording would be seen as more succinct.

David Kernow 05:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have now rewitten the 'Beliefs and ideas' section along the lines suggested above. I would still appreciate some thoughts as to whether or not and how the notions of divine covenant and chosen people might be included in the examples at the start of the article. Thanks.
David Kernow 15:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't merge with 'triumphalism;' just retain the cross-reference.

As I pointed out over in the 'triumphalism' entry, they are truly two different types of things. 'Supremacism' is a term that is reserved for articulated, conscious doctrines. Supremacism also has an integral political nature, reflected in this entry's tight focus on the entitlement to certain rights as a defining feature of supremacist doctrines. Supremacism definitely belongs in the realm of political dogma or doctrine.

'Triumphalism,' on the other hand, is most frequently an unarticulated--even unconscious--assumption or attitude. It may be, but is not necessarily associated with any political course of action or goal. When we speak of triumphalism, we are discussing a sociological or psychological phenomenon.

In addition, 'Supremacist' is a badge of honor among true supremacists; they willingly describe themselves as supremacists. In contrast, 'triumphalism' is an observer's category. It is an adjective used by some to characterize the actions or attitudes of others--often meant to imply some measure dysfunctional delusion. No one labels him or herself a 'triumphalist;' no one explicitly advocates to increase triumphalism within his or her own group.

[edit] Removed copyediting request

Just scanned through the discussion page, and there is no reason that I could see that the copyediting warning needs to be there anymore.

Of course, I also read the article in depth and made one very minor stylistic change.

I've therefore removed the notice; please leave me a notice on my User talk:Splintax if you want to discuss this.. :)

splintax 13:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiculturalists

The multiculturalists belief that multicultural society is superior to mono-cultural or mono-racial one and shold be enforced even against affected people's wish. See forced bussing, desegregation.

Do we have a source for calling multiculturalists "supremacists"? They are generally considered to be opposites. for example:

Have a name for us and for our opponents. I guess we can call ourselves "People of White Ethnicity", "US Culture Preservationists", "White Preservationists", or what AR wrote "Racial Realists". Where white racism is persecuted, explain whiteness in terms of ethnicity rather than race. Even multiculturalist could agree that being Irish, Russian, Danish or other white ethnicity is acceptable. Please avoid names and symbols that seem extreme such as Nationalist, Supremacist, White Separatist, and KKK. I guess we can call the opposition "Multiculturalists", "Colored Supremacists", "Diversity Dictatorship", "Global Socialists", "New World Order Fascists" or "Corporate Greed". Post to American Renaissance (magazine)

Without a notable source this appears to be original research. Thank, -Willmcw 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (well, "original research" is a bit of a euphemism, but agreed in principle). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What a shitty article. Use of "I", and placement of neoconservatism? WTF?

[edit] Crips and Bloods supremacist Groups?

Is it accurate to list the crips and Bloods aong the list of supremacist groups? to my knowledge the crips and blood are almost never refered to as a black suppemacist groups. Shouldn't then hispanic gangs be included in this list as well? or asian gangs? just because a certain race dominates a gang does not automatically make it a suppremacist group. If no further information can be provided i think they should be removed.

--The Crips is a street gang which originated in Los Angeles, California in the late 1960s. During the early 1970s, the gang grew and branched out to other parts of Los Angeles County. These new subsidiary or realigned existing gangs were known as sets, and they used the term Crips in their individual gang name.--

exert taken fron know-gangs.com there is no mention of the Crips being a suppremacist gang.

-The gang is largely composed of African Americans, but is multiracial in many cities (e.g. New York), where "satellite" Crip gangs are present. The gang has an intense rivalry with the Bloods. They are also known to feud with Chicano gangs.-

Taken form wikipedia article on crips. i gues the crips are a multiracial black supremacist group.

[edit] Two problems: lack of evidence and overly broad definition

Problem One: No cited evidence that these groups all meet this definition This entry articulates the following as defining elements of 'supremacism:'
1) a belief that a particular race, religion, gender, belief system or culture is superior to others;
2) a belief that this superiority entitles those who belong to the group or who "identify with" the belief system to dominate, control or rule those who do not;
3) a belief that members of the superior group have rights over those who do not; AND
4) the seeking of scientific justification for those views.

I am not familiar with each of the groups that this entry identifies as 'supremacist,' but I challenge the author to find and cite writings or statements from representatives of each of those groups that provide evidence of each of those four elements. Without cited evidence that each of the listed groups actually holds the beliefs ascribed to them, identifying them as 'supremacist' is not far removed from simple name-calling.

Problem Two: Overly broad definition

Using the Christian Coalition as a convenient example (because they have so much on the Internet[1], I'm pretty sure you will be able to find and cite CC quotes that articulate their explicit ambition to influence--or even control--American government based on their belief system. However, if we define everyone in a democratic society who takes action to ensure that people share his or her beliefs win elections and write laws, then every political activist--heck, every voter--is a supremacist.

I'm thinking it will also be easy for you to find some evidence that the Christian Coalition believes that America is a 'Christian nation,' and that therefore our government and laws should reflect their particular version of 'Christian values.'

However, are you ready to label as 'supremacist' every majority cultural group who expresses a desire to control the political and social culture within the area where they are the majority? That's a mighty broad brush--it sweeps up the likes of the Nazis (who actually did attempt to exercise supreme authority outside their own land based on their self-given rights of superiority, with the likes of, say, French Canadians who want to use the mechanisms of government to preserve Quebec's cultural heritage.

We need a strong, undiluted term that applies ONLY to those who claim or take supreme authority for their own race, sex, or social group based on an expressed belief in that group's inherent or entitled superiority over all others. I think that term should be 'supremacist.' To apply that term to all of us who seek more power or respect for our own groups and kindred spirits weakens the term and weakens our ability to designate the true supremacists among us.