Talk:White supremacy
Archive
Alleged WS sites
Is is entirely PoV to have alleged WS sites on? That depends heavily on who is doing the alleging, doesn't it? I mean, so many links to organisations are both here and in the WN article. Is there actually a yardstick for white supremacism? Is it an internal term or an external term?
I personally think it should apply to groups that want a return to slavery or colonialism or similar systems. --Edward Wakelin 20:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- "Entirely PoV"? Certainly not. Entirely NPOV? Possibly not: in a lot of political articles, we establish article-specific criteria for classification, e.g. what specific authorities we may cite. Do you have a suggestion? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- No, there aren't any authorities that are impartial, because the only people who give a damn are the possible white supremacists themselves, who may or may not say they're WS, and groups like the SPLC, which basically benefit from making white supremacism look as huge, dangerous, and monolithic as possible. Perhaps it would be best to have only sites that outright say they're WS, and with WN only established groups like AmRen and the BNP? Anything in-between could go in a list of "undetermined white supremacist or nationalist groups"? I dunno. --Edward Wakelin 19:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that the SPLC have been known to exaggerate the importance of some rather marginalized groups; I'm not sure they exaggerate their politics. Perhaps we may be able to get consensus (for example) that the views of SPLC and perhaps some other groups such as the ADL represent an "upper bound" on which contemporary groups should be counted as white supremacist: that groups the SPLC and ADL do not count as white supremacist should certainly not be listed here. At the same time, a "lower bound" would be the few groups that openly identify themselves as white supremacist. I would hope we can raise that lower band: that we may be able to agree on certain authors as sufficient authorities that if they use this term to describe a group, that is citable and is sufficient for listing of the group here. I'd also, add, though, that the least important part of this article is a laundry list of uninfluential groups each consisting of half a dozen fools in spiffy uniforms. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe it should just be entirely self-defined. I mean, it's not as though there's really a comprehensive definition for "white supremacist" or "white nationalist" or "white separatist". --Edward Wakelin 23:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- I can't agree with self-defined providing anything but a lower bound. This is a term used mostly by opponents and by scholars. Relatively few -- even of those who clearly meet the definition -- tend to use the label to talk about themselves. There are probably a handful of "white nationalists" and "white separatists" who are not supremacist, but, frankly, I don't find the distinction very useful to talk about most of them. "White supremacisist" is certainly the prevailing phrase used in academic discusion of this ideology, and this article should cover the phenomenon clearly. And again, as I've said before, mostly I could care less about a few contemporary grouplets openly advcating a generally discredited ideology. The real issue here should be that this ideology had a dominant position down into living memory, which echoes institutionally down to this day. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Point there. Why not quote the most impartial experts possible on X being a white supremacist group? White nationalism as a movement may actually be rather newer: Racist (not necessarily white) societies previously have frequently found some group percieved as being different in terms of "blood" to do the shitty work. --Edward Wakelin 00:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Link selection
There's a difference between supremacists and seperatists, and the Nordic Portal is a forum based on the ideology of Nordic seperatism/preservationism. Thus, it is not a White Supremacy site. The same goes for the Skadi forums, by the way. Oh, and the fact that some moderators use certain images as avatars and in their signature doesn't give any proof of the political orientation of the admins & most other users. You are advised to immediately stop these broad generalisations. Thanks for your patience...Aor
- Not everyone differentiates between supremacists and seperatists. We clearly stated that all sites listed are "Alleged or stated white supremacist websites." BTW, it's not a broad generalisation when we point out that a moderator uses pictures of Hitler as his avatar and signature. --Gramaic | Talk 22:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The wikipedia does differentiate thus, and its inappropriate (and disturbing) that you are attempting to force supremacism on these people and organisations. People are allowed to self label. Sam Spade 23:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sam, I'm not attempting to force anything on anybody. Some people differentiate between supremacism and seperatism, and some people don't. In fact, most people I know don't differentiate between white supremacists and white seperatists. --Gramaic | Talk 23:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Thats great, people I know don't use either term at all ;) But the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has an article for White Supremacism and another for White Nationalism. So, either the articles need merged, or you need to respect the distinction. Sam Spade 23:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the links now since neither Jmabel nor Gramaic are willing to discuss the issue. Please do not restore them without discussing it here previously. Aor 05:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- We're more than willing to dissuss any kind of issue. Aor, just as Jmabel has said, you've only made vague excuses. In addition you've accused me of manupilation and let's not forget the political propaganda you claimed I had! --Gramaic | Talk 08:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Do you acknowledge the difference between preservationism and supremacism? If yes, read this: http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=24080#post24080 . That's the Skadi forum rules. Excerpt: "This is a Free Speech Forum for Germanic preservationists." (Read it all though!) If not, well, get a grip and leave it be. Aor 09:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- The only "preservationism" that I know of refers to old buildings. Can Aor define the term as he is using it? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Preservation means saving something from destruction. Preservationism in this case means saving Nordic Culture/Race and Germanic Culture/Race respectively from destruction. Hope this helps. Aor 00:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly, it doesn't. You are drawing insider's distinctions that I am not sure it is useful for Wikipedia to abide by. This would be like saying that Communist state should not include those states that claimed merely to be "on the road to a Communist society". As for saying "I'm removing the links now": you (or someone else, to be honest I haven't kept track) have been removing them almost daily. And we've been restoring them. So what's new? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Disputed?
This article has a {{totallydisputed}} tag on it, but there seems to be no statement of the nature of the dispute. There is the usual wrangling that is found on any controversial article, but that doesn't usually call for this tag. If no one indicates in the next 24 hours precisely what dispute merits this tag, I am removing it. My guess is that, at most, some particular section or sections are actually disputed. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Scroll up a section. Sam Spade 13:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- I do agree that this article is not neutral, because it describes people as supremacists even when they a) clearly state that they are none and do not want to be classified as such and b) the definition of white seperatism is simply not the definition of white supremacism. Those who ignore fact a) and b) are consciously making a bad name out of white seperatists at the cost of neutrality. Aor
- Scroll up a section. Aor 05:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- As I said before, what I glean from that section is the issue of the three links that have been back and forth. If there is other specific material in the article that is at issue, please be clearer. There is nothing anyone can do to resolve vague complaints. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Gramaic, I would like to know why you still edit the link section instead of debating the problem. Until now, you have made no effort to hide that you're manipulating this article to fit your own political propaganda. Aor 20:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- My own political propaganda? lol How exactly am I manipulating this article? If we are to look at, for example, Skadi. Everything in the website screams white supremacist! Just take a look at the forums "Racial Classification," "Physical Anthropology," etc. --Gramaic | Talk 20:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- You are still evading my question. Now tell me, what is *White Supremacist* about racial classification or physical anthropology? You are acting by false definitions! Aor 16:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- And, Aor, you are totally evading my question. What, other than the inclusion of these links, is disputed. Because 3 external links do not merit placing a {{totallydisputed}} tag on the whole article. If I don't have an answer within 24 more hours, I will feel free to remove that tag. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I did not add the tag, ask someone else about it. I don't see that tag anywhere anyhow. Aor 01:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you will look at the top of the section, you will see that this started with my asking why the article has a {{totallydisputed}} tag on it. No one gave any response other than "scroll up a section", which seems to suggest the dispute is over the inclusion of three external links. I have now repeatedly asked for clarification, and received none. It also looks like someone else has meanwhile removed the tag. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Identity
Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Identity:
- "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self identification). This can mean calling an individual the term they use, or calling a group the term most widely used by that group."
Origins of white supremacy
According to James Loewen in "Lies My Teacher Told Me", white supremacy originated during the Age of Discovery, when European nations were seeking an ideological justification for both the displacement of indigenous peoples and the enslavement of black Africans. Slavery, anti-Semitism, and many other phenomena associated with white supremacy existed long before this, of course, but the sense that non-white peoples were innately biologically inferior seems to have come into being along with the changes in military technology and social organization which made it possible for European imperialists to conquer and/or colonize large portions of the world.
Perhaps the most famous discoverer, Christopher Columbus, provides a striking example of the attraction of, and results of, white supremacy for Europeans. Columbus at first believed the people he encountered in the Americas were handsome and intelligent. However, later, when he had returned to the Americas he changed his mind, referring to them as "cruel", "stupid", and "warlike". The demonization and infantilization of the Arawak nation on Haiti justified Columbus' policies there, which included enslavement, institutionalized rape, barbaric punishments (including cutting off the Indians' hands) and eventual genocide. [1]
- This kind of stuff might be appropriate (if reworded) on the whiteness studies page, but its completely out of place here, not to mention absurdly biased and poor;y cited. Sam Spade 13:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)