Racism, On Wikipedia Options

[Emperor]

Racism

They seem to have some idea what the definition is but not in the first lines of the article.

Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. In the modern English language, the term "racism" is used predominantly as a pejorative epithet. It is applied especially to the practice or advocacy of racial discrimination of a pernicious nature (i.e. which harms particular groups of people), and which is often justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science. Racism is popularly associated with various activities that are illegal or commonly considered harmful, such as extremism, hatred, xenophobia, (malignant or forced) exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism), etc.

Chock full of garbled English and debatable definitions (that differ from Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com).

Also note the gigantic Bank of America banner in the middle of the article.

[Wikifan]

RUSSIA , TURKEY, and JAPAN

not exactly lightweights in the racism department

(or am I just too mired in the early 20th century)

or

ARGENTINA and BRAZIL

well ok Brazil has a pic of some protester with a clown nose about quotas or something, nevermind a few hundred years of African slavery

this is just my synthesis, but most of the whole "anti-racist" far-left philosophy has less to with about opposing racism and more to do with a deep seated hatred for america. russia was for quite awhile the polar opposite of the US in almost every fashion. that's why many of the old left were gushing supporters of the regime or sympathizers of the various proxies inserted by the soviet union throughout the world.

most muslim countries are painted as victims of the united states and its allies, so they get a pass.

the real puzzler is south africa vs. australia. south africa was hit with international sanctions, but australia was the original apartheid state and south africa's apartheid government was inspired by australia.

australia never ended its apartheid policies until the late 1970s, and today the difference is felt. white australians live to be 80, natives live to be 50 - if they're lucky. i guess south africa fought a few wars during the cold era while australia was mostly passive i guess.

turkey gets a pass because it successfully positions itself as a bulwark of the united states and israel, even though the US has 3,000 troops in turkey and what - 50 nuclear silos?

notice how noam chomsky - the holy cult leader of new left philosophy - has a raging boner for turkey yet totally opposes israel's existence? turkey's colonization of cyprus, turkey's invasion of iraq, turkey's war with the kurds, etc...doesn't matter.

i'm surprised israel only has a few mentions in the article. it is not surprising its mention is not supported by sources:

none of the three refs even mention israel/australia link.

whatever you read in the article i wouldnt take it too seriously. im sure half of its original research/opinion of editors.

This post has been edited by Wikifan: Thu 1st March 2012, 7:38pm

[Alexkrsz]

RUSSIA , TURKEY, and JAPAN

not exactly lightweights in the racism department

(or am I just too mired in the early 20th century)

or

ARGENTINA and BRAZIL

well ok Brazil has a pic of some protester with a clown nose about quotas or something, nevermind a few hundred years of African slavery

this is just my synthesis, but most of the whole "anti-racist" far-left philosophy has less to with about opposing racism and more to do with a deep seated hatred for america.

Conflating the culture, people, government and policies of the United States is a popular right-wing straw man to attack people who strongly oppose the country's policies.
If you opposed the Soviet Union, you did not hate the culture or people, but its government and their actions.

russia was for quite awhile the polar opposite of the US in almost every fashion. that's why many of the old left were gushing supporters of the regime or sympathizers of the various proxies inserted by the soviet union throughout the world.

Both USA/UK and the Soviet Union tried to extend their influence as much as possible in the Third world. Who crushed independent nationalism throughout the world and installed right wing dictatorships?
The Soviet threat in the Western hemisphere was non-existent. The allegations of a "Soviet/Cuban connection" in Nicaragua for example weren't entirely false. When the US imposed arms/weapons embargoes and the Contras attacked Nicaragua, the people there had to defend themselves and had to rely on communist regimes (and France) for arms. Then the US could justify the destruction of a whole country as they did everywhere with the same/similar pretext.

most muslim countries are painted as victims of the united states and its allies, so they get a pass.


the real puzzler is south africa vs. australia. south africa was hit with international sanctions, but australia was the original apartheid state and south africa's apartheid government was inspired by australia.

In the 80s most countries had imposed sanctions on South Africa, but Reagan was strongly supportive of the Apartheid regime and did not impose any sanctions. When the US finally did, it quickly collapsed.
You are very clueless about the Middle East. A good start would be to learn about European/American involvement over the centuries.

turkey gets a pass because it successfully positions itself as a bulwark of the united states and israel, even though the US has 3,000 troops in turkey and what - 50 nuclear silos?

notice how noam chomsky - the holy cult leader of new left philosophy - has a raging boner for turkey yet totally opposes israel's existence? turkey's colonization of cyprus, turkey's invasion of iraq, turkey's war with the kurds, etc...doesn't matter.

Turkey got and still gets a free pass for being a military outpost of Europe/America, just like Saudi-Arabia, Israel or Egypt to maintain control of the region.
To quote our cult leader:
"In the 1990s, it was the Kurdish population of Turkey that suffered the most brutal repression. Tens of thousands were killed, thousands of towns and villages were destroyed, millions driven from the lands and homes, with hideous barbarity and torture. The Clinton administration gave crucial support throughout, providing Turkey lavishly with means of destruction. In the single year 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the US sent to this major ally during the entire Cold War period combined up to the onset of the counterinsurgency operations. Turkey became the leading recipient of US arms, apart from Israel-Egypt, a separate category. Clinton provided 80% of Turkish arms, doing his utmost to ensure that Turkish violence would succeed. Virtual media silence made a significant contribution to these efforts." Source

Where the heck do your "facts" come from? Think before you post, even Wikipedia isn't that bad for relevant factoids to sound smarter in discussions.

(sorry for off topic, have not been involved in Wikipedia for some time, but felt like responding to this crap)

This post has been edited by Alexkrsz: Thu 1st March 2012, 10:24pm