Talk:Racism in the United States/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Jews

Latest comment: 6 years ago21 comments10 people in discussion

I think calling Jews "Middle Eastern Americans" is wacky. Almost no U.S. Jews think of themselves that way. They identify with an Eastern Europe origen, or Spanish.

Not all Arabs are Middle Eastern, either. No one calls Algeria Middle Eastern, to my knowledge. deisenbe (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and ditto for calling Romani "South Asian American". Romani and Jews are special cases and shouldn't be classified by their supposed geographical homelands, which in both cases they vacated millennia ago and has nothing to do with the racism they've experienced in the United States. There's no reason why they shouldn't have separate headers. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You've reverted 9 times in the past 24 hours. That's well over the 3RR limit. You should have been blocked for that. And no, we're not "special cases". We originate outside of Europe: FACT. And we retain those identities to this day: FACT. There is nothing racist about acknowledging either.2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And the reason we "vacated" is because we were KICKED OUT BY COLONIZERS. If you had known anything about our history at all, I wouldn't even need to tell you that. A people do not lose their identity by being exiled. Period. Especially when you have to factor in Israelis, Mizrahim, etc.2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You are speaking on behalf of entire races now lol? You've reverted as many times as I have and used sockpuppets so you should get a block. And you are in the minority 2-1 so you don't get to put your version. Wikipedia doesn't bow down to your feelings and fake outrage and BIG SHOUTY CAPITAL LETTERS. You have made no arguments except strawmanning and calling me racist over and over. Saying all Jews are Middle Eastern is an old antisemitic trope and saying Romani are Asian not European is the same. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Falsely accusing other users of being sock puppets, while engaging in an edit war with multiple revisions, is entirely against Wikipedia policy on many levels. Furthermore, claiming that Jews "vacated" their homeland, when in fact they were exiled by a conqueror, is more than disingenuous, it is an outright fabrication. And why do you think that you speak for Jews, when you say that Jews do not identify as Middle Eastern? Some may not, but many do. As a Jew who identifies as Middle Eastern, despite having ancestors who survived the diaspora in Europe, why do you assume that you can speak for me and for other American Jews? PA Math Prof (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Middle Eastern Americans: no mention of Jews because they are classified separately.

Asian Pacific Americans: no mention of Romani because they are European

All I'm doing is pointing out facts. You have yet to point out a single straw man argument. And I am frustrated (clearly) because I rarely encounter someone as dense and committed to antisemitic revisionism as you are. Our origins are not a "racist trope". They are called "facts". Try learning what that means.

Those aren't socks either. They're not even from the same IP address. 2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And that's not an RS.2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The UN Human Rights Commission isn't a reliable source???!!! You're delusional!!! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The UN and its many agencies tend to be grossly Antisemitic, due to the fact that the UN is dominated by Arab and Muslim countries, and other countries with extensive histories of Antisemitism. So, yeah, the UN Human Rights Commision is Antisemitic. (This is the same UN that claimed that Israel was to blame for Palestinian Arab men beating and murdering their wives and daughters and sisters in "honor killings", or in cases of domestic violence). PA Math Prof (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So four random users all happened to make the same edits as the above address within minutes of each other? What a coincidence!! You are the one being antisemitic: "there are RS explicitly grouping us with other Middle Easterners" ... the only source in the article that does so is talking about how that was the policy of the Asiatic Exclusion League!!! Which exactly proves my point about you =echoing pseudoscientific 1900s racist bullcrap. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneful (talk), There are many, many Diasporic Jews, American and settled in other hostlands (meaning, outside of Eretz Y'Israel) around the world, that rightfully claim Indigeneity to Israel/Canaan. There have been many consensuses on Wikipedia on various Jewish-related articles, and there are many books as well as articles online that exemplify this sentiment(Two examples [Here] and [Here]). On the contrary, there are some Jews who tried to deal with Racism against them (like Arthur Koestler, as well as the early German-Jewish Reform Movement), by attempting claiming only religious differences from Europeans, as opposed to Tribal/Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious differences, but that claim has not only been debunked by genetic science (most Jews around the world share the same genetic ancestry from the Levant [Here] and [Here], history (Page 87 of Abba Eban's Heritage: Civilization and the Jews, in which he describes Roman enslaving of at least 97,000 Jews from Israel and dispersion of them across the Roman Empire) (Copy and Paste this Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=GkzdBDuhoRgC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=97,000+slaves+abba+eban&source=bl&ots=Jna5YIm5P9&sig=oCaSw4V-D4D-J7NiLA6QycQ8JiM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhtOz30JLSAhUnjFQKHYl2AHUQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=97%2C000%20slaves%20abba%20eban&f=false) , as well as—in a comparable way to how other Tribal Peoples "adopt" new members—via Jewish law when initiating "Jews by Choice," as those adorn themselves with a new/additional Semitic identity/ethnicity ([Here]).

Main point, it is literally "Anti-Semitic" to deny Jews' Semitic connection/identity.

Also, where is your proof of sockpuppetry? Check the IP addresses. I am not a sockpuppet, nor have I ever used one. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, sockies, nobody is interested in your views of ancient history or the United Nations. Do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion about racism in the United States? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

WP: No Personal Attacks and WP: Harassment. If you believe there is sockpuppetry going on then please feel free to offer proof. Otherwise please WP: Assume Good Faith. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it makes sense to put anti-Jewish discrimination under the anti-Middle East category, although granted Jewish identity can be a very complicated mix of ethnic, cultural, national, and religious aspects. Semite means "1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs. 2. a Jew." [1] Link. Europeans attacked Jews as originating from the Middle East, hence the term anti-Semitism. Although the discrimination was completely unjustified, the fact is Jews, as an ethno-religious group, do have origins in the Middle East. [2] Link. It is important to remember that in the Soviet Union, passports would indicate nationality (Kazakh, Russian, etc.). However, a Jew's passport in the Soviet Union would say "Jewish" for nationality. Hence, Jews were not considered white/European/Russian, even if they had light skin or were born in Russia. In the United States, Jews also faced discrimination, although to a lesser degree than in Europe and in the Middle East. It is a fairly recent development for some to consider Jews to be European (perhaps the last few decades). From the time period of the arrival of Jews in Europe from the Middle East through most of the 20th century, Jews were viewed as being Middle Eastern in origin. So it would seem fair to put them under the Middle East category in terms of racism in the United States. Lastly, and most importantly perhaps, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups in the United States view Jews as nonwhite and Middle Eastern. And in some cases, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups dislike Jews even more than other Middle Eastern-origin peoples because they view Jews as being of mixed origins (Nazi groups fetishize so-called purity). Even if a Jew converted out of the religion, Nazis would still view Jews as a racial threat; thus, anti-Jewish discrimination is not based on religious differences alone. Therefore, if this is a discussion about racism in the United States, it makes sense to put Jews under the Middle East category. Unfortunately, Jews face discrimination both as a Middle Eastern-origin ethnicity and as a religion, and the article should try to capture that duality. Emet781 (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If I may butt in. I have no problem with Jews and Romani being listed in there own section (notice I said in their own section) however I do strongly think it would be more appropraiate for them to be listed in Middle Eastern or their own section. It most certainly wouldn't be right to put them in European section.

1. http://chelm.freeyellow.com/khazar.html

2. http://archhades.blogspot.com/2015/05/european-ancestry-in-ashkenazi-jews-is.html

3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/742430.stm

4. http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/10/genetic-studies-on-jewish-dna-is-not-6000-years-old-but-has-origin-links-to-about-20000-to-30000-years-ago/

5. http://cija.ca/international-genetic-study-traces-jewish-roots-to-ancient-middle-east/

6. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-genetic-jewish-diasporas.html

7. http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full

8. http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/75-percent-of-today-s-jews-have-middle-eastern-origins-says-dna-pioneer

9. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt161g.htm

10. http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/12/09/ashkenazi-jews-are-middle-east/

11. http://nypost.com/2010/06/13/genetic-testing-raises-an-age-old-question-are-the-jews-a-people-or-a-religion/

12. http://bechollashon.org/heart/index.php/articles/6759

13. http://www.trinicenter.com/more/Jewsarabs.htm

14. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

15. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707613251

16. https://jewsdownunder.com/2015/11/04/early-genetic-proof-ashkenazi-jews-are-from-middle-east/

17. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html

18. http://beta.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ashkenazi-jews-dna-diseases-20140909-story.html

19. https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/.premium-1.626156

20. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/1.681385

There is a stong mix of sources including reputable new sources, science websites, and a few other sources. I am almost certain not all of these are reliable sources but I have extremely high doubts that you won't find a few. Most of these sources state Jews have at least some Middle Eastern heritage and almost all studies have shown that Jews have more genetically in common with other Jewish groups that the communities in which they live. In short Jewish Americans should either be put in the Middle Eastern category or at the very least be given there own category. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for demonstrating a false etymology for antisemitism and how to mis-use genetic studies. Could you please address the issue at hand: why would a reader in 2017 interested in antisemitism in the U.S. look under the heading "Middle Eastern Americans" or "South Asian Americans" for anti-Roma racism? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I would add that roughly 90% of American Jews are Ashkenazi, meaning that their ancestors generally came to the U.S. from Eastern Europe, not the Middle East. Also, all Americans have African DNA, but it would be ridiculous to argue that all racism in the U.S. is racism against Africans. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"I am almost certain not all of these are reliable sources but I have extremely high doubts that you won't find a few." Hard to imagine that someone would actually put this in writing. If it is not a reliable source don't use it. Good sources is your job, not mine. Carptrash (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

My sources include BBC, Medical Press, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, the New York Post, Science Daily, Science Direct, New York Times and LA Times Carptrash. Are you really going to tell me those aren't good enough for proof. And Malik Shabbaz a person often times thinks that pterosaurs are either birds or dinosaurs which I might remind you are neither. Genetics ultimately is a far better determination for race and ethnicity than some arbitrary thoughts of what you call an "average person". News Flash the "average person" believes a lot of false things. Wikipedia is set up to be accurate not what people think it is. As to how I show a false etymology for antisemitism I have no idea what you are talking about "Antisemitism is discrimination against Jewish Persons on the basis of racial, ethnic, national, religious or cultural definitions of a Jewish person". I don't know where I stated otherwise however you can't ignore genetics. Why don't you show me sources that explicitly tell me Jews don't have Middle Eastern genetics. If you are upset invalidate my sources I only question about 5 of my sources. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of those might be fine sources, so just use those. Don't throw 20 references out and suggest that your point might be made by some of them. Carptrash (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Representation in Government

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would just like to inquire about how the "winner-take-all" Electoral College system and there being less colored people in government than white people is racist in that colored people don't get as much representation. Is that implying that people of color think differently than whites and therefore vote differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA Quantum (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that it's specifically racist, but a "winner-take-all" system (such as the way U.S. presidential electors are chosen in nearly all 50 states, and U.S. senators as well) discriminates against any minority (racial, religious, political) and violates the concepts of "One person, one vote" and proportional representation. Both probably would be unconstitutional if not for the fact that they're part of the U.S. Constitution. For much the same reasons, the courts require that cities have districts or wards and not a city-wide election for city council members, and districts for state legislatures instead of a state-wide vote to fill the legislature. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Racism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Placement of Jews and Romani

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

As Semitic peoples, both Jewish and Arab Americans should (as the article states) both be considered Middle Eastern diaspora; their similarly ambiguous relationship to whiteness in American racial discourse and policy is also rightly discussed. Placing Jews in a separate category unto themselves implies that Jews either are not a Middle Eastern ethnic group, or are somehow a unique race unto themselves. This is needlessly confusing. The complex relationship between the Jewish diaspora, its different groups, and their host cultures and nations could perhaps be discussed, and how that relationship has evolved over time, (though that would probably be more appropriate in another article), but I do not think that warrants placing Jews in a unique category. Jewish Americans should be listed under Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans.

The placement of Romani is tricky, as Romani are ultimately a South Asian ethnic group, yet they are often considered European for the large Roma diaspora in European countries (though this in itself is also difficult, as Romani have historically been stateless, and not accepted as a European people). Anti-Romanyism should either be listed under the Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans heading, or given its own separate section; listing Romani under Non-Anglo Europeans is misleading at best. Batanat (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Anti-Romanyism and antisemitism should be under South Asian and Middle Eastern respectively. It makes no sense to put them anywhere else.Tomerto (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Tomerto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Jews are indeed a Semitic people/Tribe, and thus "discrimination against Jews" should be framed as "discrimination against a Semitic people ("Middle Eastern," Afro-Asiatic, Southwest Asian, North-Northeast African, etc.)," which is a form of Racism, known to most as "Anti-Semitism." Also, in case it is brought up, racism does not only rely on genetics——especially such discrimination against Jews, who are an Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group, with ethnicity and culture intertwined——but also upon cultural (e.g. religious, traditional, linguistic, culinary, etc.) and sociopolitical power dynamics and divides; for example, Arab/Muslims/Muslim Arabs are the dominant Imperialist group of the Levant and can therefore act "racist" against Jews, Druze, Copts, Kurds, etc., even if Arab/Muslims are more genetically related to Jews, Druze, Copts, Kurds, etc.. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism is recognised as being a misnomer, it very rarely means prejudice against any Semitic people, but has come to mean almost exclusively 'prejudice against Jews'. Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That’s true, Pincrete: antisemitism is anti-Jewish sentiment. And as has been established already: as Jews are indeed Semites originating in the Middle East, it seems rather silly that anti-Jewish sentiment be placed anywhere other than in the Middle Eastern and South Asian section. Batanat (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Racism is inherently irrational and inherently a matter of perception, rather than science, so you can't impose a "one size fits all" logic on it. I'm UK, and therefore more familiar with manifestations of racism there than in the US, but from my knowledge 'hispanics' in the US are not disliked because they are ultimately Spanish (a great deal more recently than most US Jews have been middle-eastern). People who dislike catholics may well lump Italians and Irish together, despite them coming from opposite ends of Europe, but do we ever really see manifestations of anti-Jewish sentiment 'lumped in' with prejudice against other near/middle-easterners? Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Pincrete, racism against Jewish Americans is not just “lumped in” with other Middle Eastern Americans, but very demonstrably similar. The relationship of MENA ethnic groups to whiteness in the US is ambiguous, but fixation on Middle Easternness (physical features, non-Christian religious practices, alleged connection to Middle Eastern conflicts or to 9/11, etc., etc.) is the same across pretty much all Middle Eastern groups. Whether all Jews are perceived on sight by all people as Middle Eastern is only tangentially relevant — to the matter of “white-passing”, specifically. That does not change that non-Israeli Jews are a Middle Eastern Diaspora people, and even if a Jewish person is not perceived as visibly Middle Eastern by everyone, they are still Middle Eastern, and must be classified as such. The same applies to the other MENA Diaspora. Batanat (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete and his argument about Hispanics no longer being lumped together with the Spanish, even though it's been only a few centuries and not the 18 centuries since the Jews left Palestine. Would it appear any different to you if Harry S. Truman hadn't given Palestine to the Zionists? Have they ever really been accepted as fellow Mid-Easterners there since their modern appearance in the area? To speak of a Diaspora is more of a religious belief than a political reality. And to call me antisemitic is a rash judgment, though I do believe that the Palestinians are living in a state of prolonged injustice.Jzsj (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Literally everything you said is incorrect, Jzcj.

“Hispanic vs. Spanish” — you realize that most Hispanic and Latin American people are either fully or partially indigenous, right? And that mass rape of indigenous peoples by Europeans is a major factor? Of course they’re not lumped in with the Spanish. And mass rape is a major factor in the genetic makeup of many Diaspora Jews as well. You might as well be claiming that African-Americans have no relevant connection to Africa.

“18 centuries since the Jews left Palestine” — you mean when many were forcibly displaced, enslaved, and exiled? And you realize that not all were expelled, right? Jews remained the majority population in the region for most of the aforementioned 18 centuries.

“Harry S. Truman gave Palestine to the Zionists” — patently false. The fact you would say something this absurd shows that you are not sufficiently informed on this subject to make any substantive comment.

“Have they ever really been accepted as Middle-Easterners” — yes.

“To speak of a Diaspora is more of a religious belief” — this is almost laughably ignorant. Do you know what diaspora means? I honestly have to ask, because your comments tell me that you don’t.

“And to call me antisemitic is a rash judgment” — no, not really. You manifestly hold highly ignorant and antisemitic views. You’ve displayed as much several times.

“Though I do believe that the Palestinians are living in a state of prolonged injustice” — no one has ever brought up Palestinians or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because it’s not relevant to this discussion. You’ve literally just admitted to WP:BIAS.

Batanat (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)