Talk:Anti-racism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Accusation of bias
This entry dances around the fact that "anti-racism" is founded on the belief that one's "race" is immaterial as far as the society or "culture" is concerned. So "racism" creates artificial barriers to the unity of all in whichever enlightened society you choose to pick. This seems patently false. Like most entries on race and ethnicity in wikipedia, this one lacks balance and promotes the term it attempts to describe. Promotion is fine but it should be clearly stated.
The notion that there are no material differences among groups lies at the heart of this "movement". It is classically religious.--129.119.68.34
- So if there ARE "material differences" that would justify racism?? Not necessarily. Paradoxically, many anti-racists have not held this view at all - but have seen the white race as (at least a little) "superior" to others. They have none the less felt that even "inferior" human beings are "equal" in their entitlement to justice. (Being "equal before the law" for instance). You don't have to have the idea that every individual - and every group of individuals - have precisely parrallel abilities and faults to hold the idea that they should all be treated the same regardless.
- Wikipedia is strongly left-wing. Get over it.--193.166.89.77(Mar 2005)
-
- It doesn't have to be. If an article seems biased, make the changes. Funnyhat 23:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- The idea that plain justice and simple common sense need to be labelled "left wing" in order to attack them is very revealing. This isn't a simple "left-right" issue, nor one that one should necessarily be "even-handed" about (do you really want to give equal time to the KKK??). Many highly conservative people (God bless 'em) are decidedly non-racist, if not exactly anti-racist.
-
- Funny, how academic ventures such as this are often often accused of a 'leftist' bias. One would almost suspect progressive ideals and the intellectual go hand in hand. Imagine that. Alexis 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- It doesn't matter if you happen to agree with opinions expressed in an article, it still falls under NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soap box, it is a collection of information. Even if every single rational human being on the planet happened to agree that race is unimportant and society should be colorblind, it would still not justify putting such views into an encyclopedia as fact. 67.183.153.20 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to make any edits you see fit in order to improve articles and reduce bias.--Nectarflowed 23:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] major changes
This article needed a major overhaul. Anti-racism did not begin with anthropologists in the 1920s and '30s. If John Brown isn't an anti-racist, I don't know who is. The primary impetus for anti-racism in the modern world has not come from the UN, but from the Civil Rights movement in the U.S., and similar movements around the world. The article in the new version is still way to centered on America (a discussion of the abolition movement in England, for example, would be nice, as would some mention of Ghandi.) But hopefully this is a place for others to start. (Most of my discussion is based on James Loewen's in "Lies My Teacher Told Me".
Also note that I've cut the paragraphs below from the article completely, largely because they seemed irrelevant to me. The claim that anti-racism originated in the '60s is simply false. The fact that the Democrats were white-only is less significant than it seems -- they were the Southern party after the Civil War, remember? George Dunn seems like a footnote; the fact that racism didn't appear just means a shift of language, which might be interesting, but hardly means that resistance to white supremacy didn't exist. The list of UN documents seems pretty unimportant compared to the overall achievements of anti-racism. That's just my POV, of course; if other's disagree, they're welcome to put them back in the article....
Although many now consider it fundamental to social justice, anti-racism is a recent development. The 1968 convention was the first the United States Democratic Party held without whites-only delegations. One of the first figures in the Roman Catholic Church to identify racial segregation as a sin, Fr. George Dunne, S.J., died only in 1998. Even the word "racism" did not appear in many dictionaries before the Second World War.
- The 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race, followed in 1951 by the UNESCO Statement on the Nature of Race and Race Differences [need links]. Both statements asserted that biological differentiation of races is without foundation, and that race is a social myth rather than a biological phenomenon.
- The 1963 United Nations General Assembly adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the 1965 adoption of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
- The United States Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Oh drat. Forgot to sign. The above is all by me. NoahB 14:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good after my initial skimming, I'll try to give it a more indepth review in the near future. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] racism and anti-racism
the term racism can mean completely different things in different contexts, and thus by extension anti-racism can mean completely different things in different contexts.
people who label themselves as anti-racists do not all stand for the same thing, by any standard.
Gringo300 02:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Use of the word "Indian"
I find it very strange that an article on Anti-Racism uses the term "Indian" so much, while not a paticularly racist word, I think this article should use Native American instead as I belive it's probobly best for an Anti Racism article to use Politically Correct Terms Deathawk 23:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] North American bias
This article is very US-centric. Needs British, European and Australasian material too! --BobFromBrockley 12:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
" ... this is a big stain ... " — while probably true, is not particularly WP:NPOV. - Francis Tyers · 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion? Original research?
Perhaps this article should be deleted or perhaps merged with other more "mature" articles, such as Civil_Rights_Movement. The claims pertaining to Native American's "ideological threat" to racist institutions are dubious and unsupported by any evidence. 69.180.205.207 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
