| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Racism in Africa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
These two are not represented and both are huge ethno-conflicts within the continent. The Ambazonia by itself is a big issue that deserves to be covered. Bgrus22 ( talk) 19:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this article meant to be about racism or about ethnic conflicts? Also, is in meant to be a random list by country or an actual article on the subject of its title? Right now it says nothing about racism in Africa.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. And, rather than pretending that it does, can it be changed to be fair. Maintaining this lie is diminishing the value of Wikipedia. Othelllo ( talk) 16:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
This article was formerly much longer, but much of its content was removed in this revision by User:Jamie Tubers. Jarble ( talk) 21:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- The reason for the cleanup was clearly stated in edit summary. Do you disagree with it? Do you think content on Ethnic conflicts, colonization (that doesn't make connections with racism that the article is talking about), and slavery (that still doesn't explain connections with racism), are the same thing as racism, and should be included in this article? Why? Any scholarly explanation to justify their inclusion?-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 13:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I support Jamie Tubers here. This is supposed to be about races (conventionally understood as Yellow, White, Black, Green, whatever) and not tribes. Zezen ( talk) 18:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, at least on the parts dealing with ethnic conflicts. Ethnic conflicts are generally understood as being at least parallel to, if not identifiable as, racist. KE7KTO ( talk) 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with KE7KTO. While parallels can be drawn for ethnic maltreatment (i.e. amongst indigenous Africans themselves) and racist attitudes (e.g. between "black" and "white"), they belong to different contexts in the historical scope. For example, to cite the Garissa and Wagalla massacres as "racially" motivated rather than a territorial power-trip by the Kenyan Govt. (to retain the artificial "North Frontier District" demarcation established by colonial Europe), is ludicrous. And if it is being suggesting that the Cushite is a different race, well then the larger percentage of the "indigenous white" demographic in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, etc qualify as some distinct race (or races) from, say, white Nordic stock ... and even among the "Bantu", there will be different races.
It is not my intention to diminish the magnitude of atrocities/crimes that have been, or continue to be, directed to certain ethnic groups by other indigenous Africans. But the historical context of these clashes and tensions among ethnic African peoples must be respected, and not confused with racism. Colonial or imperialistic white rule, Apartheid, and present day tensions between between indigenous and non-indigenous Africans are the subjects for racism in Africa. Miss Andry ( talk) 22:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
(Cross-posted at WP:NORN) 69.121.8.140 has cited this for the claim that Islam introduced racism to Africa -- even though the source doesn't really discuss race or racism.
He is also trying to add material about Islam to the rest of the article even though other sources do not discuss Islam.
Making claims that a source is not explicit about, and making claims not found in sources, is original research and needs to be removed. Ian.thomson ( talk) 02:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. Not supported by the sources given, and moreover that website doesn't even qualify under the standards of WP:RS in the first place. Earl of Arundel ( talk) 04:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've previously indicated my agreement with this at the IP's talk, but it bears repeating here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
This section is colonial-spin. Wikipedia is cited in other social media. It is important to get things like this right, regardless of who is for or against. Consider:
-- "Racial populism and anti-white sentiment is an increasing worry" -- an increasing worry. Then, the article goes on to speak to as of it is real. "...subsequent presidents Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma both mobilised anti-white sentiment in order to maintain political power." Which one is it? It's it an "increasing worry"? Or, is it real? It seems it's neither. It is what Jordan Peterson mischaracterized in the United States as "majority privilege." That is, social change is occurring and the perception of "white mistreatment" isn't as widespread as the article suggests. It is isolated. -- vague and ambiguous language that requires at cited example. "The scapegoating of white South Africans has been likened to Afrikaner antisemitism during Apartheid, which was used to consolidate racial identity." Scapegoating for what? The actions of the Apartheid? It's unclear in the paragraph.
Honestly, the entire article reads like propaganda. Huff Post wrote an article relating to the dangerous belief that "white people" (a broad category of people) in South Africa are being mistreated. It's not true. Wikipedia is compounding am already complex problem with is telling that stokes the fire. When you good "white South African discrimination" this article is near the top. This "myth" becomes reality. Othelllo ( talk) 17:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- The tone of the section is definitely off: it reads like an opinion piece. I'll take a look at it as I am able to and adjust what I can. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Some ethnic conflicts are misrepresented here as racism even though the two groups in conflict are of the same "race"
Evidently, I am not the first person to notice that ethnic conflicts are misrepresented here as racism. See above [1]. This article needs to address the topic rather than the shopping list and OR presented here. It is not racism when two different African ethnic groups/tribes of the same "race" are in conflict. That is called ethnic conflict or tribalism, not racism. This article is a total mess and needs some work. Tamsier ( talk) 13:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the definitions of "ethnicity" and "race" with respect to the indigenous African should first be clarified. For example, are "Cushites" a distinct race from "Nilotes", or are they just a different ethnic group of the same indigenous African race? This clarification will quash futile squabbling. Just beware that the same criteria can and will be used as a point of contention when discussing, say, Europeans (Portuguese/Italians vs. Nordic vs. Anglo-Saxon) ... Miss Andry ( talk) 23:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The Nilotic peoples are speakers of Nilotic languages, spead across 6 modern countries in eastern Africa.
The Cushitic peoples are speakers of Cushitic languages, spread across 8 modern countries.
These two language groups are not even members of the same language family. Dimadick ( talk) 16:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
So long as the groups have substantial genetic distance between themselves it should count as racism. Humans all belong to one human race anyway, what we consider race is a spectrum and if the spectrum distance is big enough it is racism (e.g. Bantu on Pygmy violence or Arab/North African on Black African for instance, and Horn African vs Black African as well). Wadaad ( talk) 18:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wadaad, I don't give two hoops about your pseudoscience. Horn or Africa is a region in Africa (east Africa to be exact), not a race. The term "Horn of Africa" is also a rather recent terminology. Growing up and studying the history and geography of Africa, that whole area was merely part of east Africa and used to be lumped with all the other east African countries. There was no such thing as "Horn of Africa" then. This is a recent terminology. Further, what do you mean "big enough" and who determines whether it is big enough? We do not entertain original research here, neither do we entertain SYNTH. @Miss Andry, I personally couldn't care less what Portuguese and Italians call themselves. It is irrelevant here. Besides, I always though of them as white with darker skin tone. Are you saying otherwise and what relevance does it have here? @Dimadick, The official/business language of Senegal is French, and the official/business language of Gambia is English. However, Gambia is right inside Senegal - surrounded on all three sides. Both countries have the same national languages, the same culture, history and people. So, what's your point? This article has been used by some editors to push their POV and I'm sick of it. Tamsier ( talk) 10:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @ Tamsier: First of all, human races do NOT exist. There is only the human race. There are regional genetic clines often erroneously described as 'race'. People from the Horn of Africa (ethnic Afro-Asiatic groups in particular) cluster genetically extremely far from most Sub-Saharan Africans, especially Niger-Congo Bantu populations. There is a 'racial' difference (links to genetic studies have been provided, as well as the difference between Pygmies and Bantus have been sourced). Stop denying the obvious. On the article of Racism in Europe they mentioned Antisemitism and Anti-Roma bias, despite that both those populations are genetically substantially closer to mainstream Indo-European 'White' Europeans than ethnic Afro-Asiatic Horners are to most non-Horn Black Africans. Wadaad ( talk) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The amount of uneducated racial theorising here is truly baffling. If a people could only be racist against another people if it had a different skin colour, then neither the Holocaust, nor the Generalplan Ost were racist policies, because the victims were just as white as the perpetrators. Every Nazi would laugh at such a stupid notion and then lecture you why the Slavic and Jewish races are inferior to the Germanic one. Ethnic conflicts are usually accompanied by racially motivated ostracization and dehumanisation of the enemy and pointing out differences in skin colour is only one way to achieve that. Or does anyone here really want to suggest that the genocide in Ruanda was merely an "ethnic conflict" and not accompanied by rampant racism? ( Lord Gøn ( talk))