Talk:Anti-American sentiment/Image
Do you all think that this East German propaganda poster would be a good addition to the article? I think it portrays America as many people in the world view her: a violent and wicked bully. DO'Neil 09:05, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but we'd have to be careful not to imply that all (or most) criticism of America is on the same level as East-German propaganda. Cadr 13:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Naturally. But, of course, some people do view America in this manner. It's like the "Fuck The American Way" graffiti image from Germany. Some critcism is this harsh, most not. DO'Neil 08:45, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I guess I was being unecessarily critical, sorry. Cadr 14:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was born right after WWII, and such stark and graphic criticism of another country for militarism auf Deutsch offends me. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I can understand that, however, this article is in part about racism, so no wonder graphic documentation is unpleasant. On the other hand I think it is a shame to those who spread that kind of propaganda. That makes me think whether we have articles covering Nazi propaganda, anti-Nazi propaganda or anti-communist propaganda? Get-back-world-respect 17:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Surely "racism" is an inaccrate term. Americans are clearly not a race in the usual sense of the word. Cadr 13:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Please read the Racism article and agree with me that the term does not make sense at all if you strictly reduce it to being against a "race" as would be the proper use of the word. Neither jews nor arians as defined by the Nazis are a race, I however doubt very much that this would make you claim they were not racist. Get-back-world-respect 14:07, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I believe most scientists no longer believe that "race" is a scientific concept, better rather a social construct. I (and others) much prefer the term "enthnocentrism," which is both more accurate and not so politically charged. It also avoids ridiculous arguments like "the Rwanda genocide wasn't racist because both sides were the same race." They were certainly different ethnicities. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:37, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Racism is the term commonly used and most understandable. Ethnocentrist has a connotation of putting yourself in the center while racism is more about disrespecting the other. Furthermore, although according to Scientific classification there is only one species of human beings, the homo sapiens sapiens, to me Africans, Caucasians and Asians look as much different as Coal Tits and Great Tits. At least pygmies look quite different. The sick thing about racism is that people regard themselves superior because of different looks, traditions or whatever, usually while at the same time not knowing much about the others. Get-back-world-respect 22:15, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The point remains that Americans don't generally consider themselves to be a "race", whereas (quite a lot of) Jews do. In addition, Americans would not usually be regarded as belonging to a single race even by their detractors, so it is very odd (not to mention confusing) to term reactionary anti-Americanism "racist". And it's clearly POV, anyway (though to be fair I don't think you've edited "racist" into the article). I don't pretend that there's an objective definition of race, or that it's even a coherent concept, but that doesn't mean we can call any group of people a race on a whim. Surely if the word is essentially meaningless, we shouldn't use it. Cadr 20:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Jews do not generally consider themselves as a race either, as far as I know you become a jew when you have a jewish mother. Since "jews" names those who have a certain religion and there live followers of that religion pretty much all over the world and they did not emigrate there recently, jews are certainly not a race in any scientific way. I find the UN definition of racism rather convincing, essentially you are a racist when you judge people on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. That would mean anti-Americanism to be racist. As I already explained there is only one species of human beings and as any subdivisions are rather arbitrary using the term race for human beings is questionable. That however does not mean that the term racism is meaningless. You would not say that ufologists do not exist only because UFOs do not exist. Get-back-world-respect 22:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If you become a Jew when you have a Jewish mother, surely that implies an (admittedly non-scientific) racial definition of Jewishness? We seem to be making the same arguments but coming to different conclusions. I completely agree the idea of "race" has no scientific basis, but it is still the case that while some groups of people are commonly thought to constitute a race, others are not. You say yourself that although the term race has little or no scientific significance, it is somewhat meaningful because racists believe it to be so — I totally agree with you on this point. However, I do not think proponents of anti-Americanism ever describe Americans as a race, so it seems strange to label their views racist, when it is not clear that anyone involved (i.e. neither Americans or anti-Americans) generally consider Americans to be a race. This contrasts with anti-Semitism, where many anti-Semites do consider Jews to be a race, and may give explicitly racist reasons for hating Jews (as the Nazis did, for example). Cadr 12:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If you become a full Jew just from having a jewish mother, and jews live pretty much all over the world, how much blood of Abraham do you think remains in the idividuals' venes? The concept is clearly not one of heredity transmission of genes but of cultural heritage. The fact that Americans are not a race does not mean that the term racist does not apply given that the term is used for all judgements of people on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Get-back-world-respect 02:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- How many times do I have to say this, I agree that many groups of people considered to be races are not races in any genetic sense. But this does not mean that "the term is used for all judgements of people on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin." — this is absolutely untrue. There are many cultural/national groups which are hardly ever referred to as races, and Americans are one such group. You keep making the same point (that there is no scientific basis for regarding many so-called races as actual genetic races) which I agree with, but my point is that we cannot extend the term "race" to any social/cultural/national/ethnic/religious group just because it doesn't have any fixed meaning. This will only cause offense and confusion. Americans and anti-Americans (for want of a better term) do not generally refer to Americans as a race, so why should Wikipedia? Cadr 11:52, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If you think that a UN definition is "absolutely untrue" feel free to do so, however it is only your opinion, and as you may agree, in cases where several opinions exist and there is no clear majority it is questionable to use words like "true" and "false". Please also note that I did not suggest to use the term "race" at all, I suggested to use the word "racism". Get-back-world-respect 20:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- You're confusing definition with usage. The term "race" is not used "for all judgements of people on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin"; this may (perhaps) be a reasonable definition of the maximal scope of the word's meaning, but it would be absurd to suggest that anything within this scope is commonly referred to in racial/racist terms. To use the word "racist" in unfamiliar contexts will cause confusion and offense (as I've explained several times). Your comment on race/versus racism is nonsenseical, unless you believe the meanings of the two words to be unrelated. Cadr 19:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The term racism is commonly used, e.g. when speaking about anti-semitism, although, as we agree, there are no different races and jews are a group of people defined by their descent, or national or ethnic origin. Hence, racism is being used differently to just "judging people on the basis of their race". Get-back-world-respect 23:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, in certain specific contexts, but not in general, and not usually in the context of anti-Americanism. Cadr 10:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You're confusing definition with usage. The term "race" is not used "for all judgements of people on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin"; this may (perhaps) be a reasonable definition of the maximal scope of the word's meaning, but it would be absurd to suggest that anything within this scope is commonly referred to in racial/racist terms. To use the word "racist" in unfamiliar contexts will cause confusion and offense (as I've explained several times). Your comment on race/versus racism is nonsenseical, unless you believe the meanings of the two words to be unrelated. Cadr 19:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If you think that a UN definition is "absolutely untrue" feel free to do so, however it is only your opinion, and as you may agree, in cases where several opinions exist and there is no clear majority it is questionable to use words like "true" and "false". Please also note that I did not suggest to use the term "race" at all, I suggested to use the word "racism". Get-back-world-respect 20:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- How many times do I have to say this, I agree that many groups of people considered to be races are not races in any genetic sense. But this does not mean that "the term is used for all judgements of people on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin." — this is absolutely untrue. There are many cultural/national groups which are hardly ever referred to as races, and Americans are one such group. You keep making the same point (that there is no scientific basis for regarding many so-called races as actual genetic races) which I agree with, but my point is that we cannot extend the term "race" to any social/cultural/national/ethnic/religious group just because it doesn't have any fixed meaning. This will only cause offense and confusion. Americans and anti-Americans (for want of a better term) do not generally refer to Americans as a race, so why should Wikipedia? Cadr 11:52, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If you become a full Jew just from having a jewish mother, and jews live pretty much all over the world, how much blood of Abraham do you think remains in the idividuals' venes? The concept is clearly not one of heredity transmission of genes but of cultural heritage. The fact that Americans are not a race does not mean that the term racist does not apply given that the term is used for all judgements of people on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Get-back-world-respect 02:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- So, to get back on topic, shall we put the East German poster in the article? DO'Neil 10:46, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
- The poster is interesting because it's so "World-War-I-ish." But it is out of context if you don't mention that the government producing it was one which is now defunct and which shot its own citizens for the crime of wishing to leave. This is the problematic nature of an "anti-" article. Sometimes our negative expressions toward others reveals more about ourselves. The knowledgeable reader can pick this up on his own, but the reader actually looking for information may not know what to make of it. -- Cecropia | Talk 11:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If you become a Jew when you have a Jewish mother, surely that implies an (admittedly non-scientific) racial definition of Jewishness? We seem to be making the same arguments but coming to different conclusions. I completely agree the idea of "race" has no scientific basis, but it is still the case that while some groups of people are commonly thought to constitute a race, others are not. You say yourself that although the term race has little or no scientific significance, it is somewhat meaningful because racists believe it to be so — I totally agree with you on this point. However, I do not think proponents of anti-Americanism ever describe Americans as a race, so it seems strange to label their views racist, when it is not clear that anyone involved (i.e. neither Americans or anti-Americans) generally consider Americans to be a race. This contrasts with anti-Semitism, where many anti-Semites do consider Jews to be a race, and may give explicitly racist reasons for hating Jews (as the Nazis did, for example). Cadr 12:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Jews do not generally consider themselves as a race either, as far as I know you become a jew when you have a jewish mother. Since "jews" names those who have a certain religion and there live followers of that religion pretty much all over the world and they did not emigrate there recently, jews are certainly not a race in any scientific way. I find the UN definition of racism rather convincing, essentially you are a racist when you judge people on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. That would mean anti-Americanism to be racist. As I already explained there is only one species of human beings and as any subdivisions are rather arbitrary using the term race for human beings is questionable. That however does not mean that the term racism is meaningless. You would not say that ufologists do not exist only because UFOs do not exist. Get-back-world-respect 22:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I believe most scientists no longer believe that "race" is a scientific concept, better rather a social construct. I (and others) much prefer the term "enthnocentrism," which is both more accurate and not so politically charged. It also avoids ridiculous arguments like "the Rwanda genocide wasn't racist because both sides were the same race." They were certainly different ethnicities. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:37, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Please read the Racism article and agree with me that the term does not make sense at all if you strictly reduce it to being against a "race" as would be the proper use of the word. Neither jews nor arians as defined by the Nazis are a race, I however doubt very much that this would make you claim they were not racist. Get-back-world-respect 14:07, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Surely "racism" is an inaccrate term. Americans are clearly not a race in the usual sense of the word. Cadr 13:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I can understand that, however, this article is in part about racism, so no wonder graphic documentation is unpleasant. On the other hand I think it is a shame to those who spread that kind of propaganda. That makes me think whether we have articles covering Nazi propaganda, anti-Nazi propaganda or anti-communist propaganda? Get-back-world-respect 17:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was born right after WWII, and such stark and graphic criticism of another country for militarism auf Deutsch offends me. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)