--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Yann Forget wrote:
It's me who put this in the "racialisme" article.
The word may be used by
quite some people, but I really think that it was
invented by racist groups
and people to justify racism. Links in Google don't
and can't justify
anything.
I agree that when the word racialism(e) was invented it may well have been by racist groups. This seems to have happened around 1900. They may very well have done it to make their racist views more acceptable. For many of their opponents there was no difference at all between racialism and racism. For others the distinction was a useful one. Accepting that distinction did not make them racist. Nobody owns the word.
I believe that whoever set the word, the distinction is *very* useful. Discussing (and maybe agreeing) there are enough differences between humans to taxonomise them in different groups (races) is an *entirely* different thing from using this information to justify a specific behavior from one group toward another.
And I also redirected the articles about "racisme
anti-blanc" and "racisme �
l'envers" to "racisme". Personnally I don't think
such articles should be in
Wikipedia. I think that it doesn't improve the
quality and reputation of
Wikipedia.
Why shouldn't they be? If these phenomena exist, they need to be described fairly. That doesn't mean agreeing with them. A racist article and an article about racism are two different things.
The phenomena exist sure enough. And any attempt to define words properly, to provide people with a common frame can only enhance communication between humans, relationships between humans and others living beings. I can't figure how properly defining words could be detrimental to wikipedia.
Another thing that might touch you better Yann. Dunno if you have kids. No matter how well you try to protect them, they end up knowing racism exist (and that is good they discover it exist rather than keeping eyes shut:-)). They look at things, listen to conversations, surf on the net...and sure enough...one day or another, they fell on an article about "racisme anti-blanc".
If they are curious (and usually they are), they wonder what it exactly means... Look in the dic (as I did for some words as a kid), and find nothing...weird, a word used by grown-ups, but it is said not to exist ? Unlike me as a kid, they will maybe be able to look on the net.
And where do you think they will end up ????
Ahhhhhhh, la CELEBRISSIME CINQUIEME COLONNE !!!!!!!
On y revient......
Ton gosse, pr�f�re tu qu'il apprenne ce qu'est le racisme anti-blanc sur un site tel que la 5eme colonne, ou dans un fabuleux article, bien document�, neutre (dans le sens non pas machi macha de politiquement correct tel que certains le concoivent, mais dans le vrai sens : information compl�te non biais�e pr�sentant tous les aspects de fa�on honnete et acceptable par tous ?), bref sur Wikip�dia.
Pour ma part, c'est *tout choisi* !
The difficulty here is who decides what French law means?
Eclecticology
The other difficulty here is who decide that the french wikipedia should follow the French law. Why not the canadian one ? Or the swiss (ah neutralit� !), why not the marrocan one ?
When was is decided the french wikipedia was french only ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com