Talk:Ethnocentrism/Archive 1

Comment

Should there be something about reverse ethnocentrism?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurickandrien (talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In the United States foreigners or immigrants that are not considered residents are called "sasquatches"[citation needed] and in the case they do not hold a legal status within the country they are called "illegal aliens". The connotation of the word does not only suggest pure ethnocentrism but is in some sense a distancing language used between an American citizen and an immigrant or visitor. -- This is ludicrous. Should be cut. 71.182.109.161 04:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

---

ɬI suppose Big Fat Greek Wedding or whatever is a movie? I don't know it. I think this is a wasted reference to something rather contemporary and obscure. It doesn't seem like a good idea to include references to movies or songs, unless there is a reason to suspect worldwide knowledge about them.

It is rather contemporary, but anything but obscure. Nonetheless, it's spelt out well enough, I'm not sure it's a problem. Do you have a better example? WilyD 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

---

. Please stop making up words. Christians are not even an ethnic group! If you want to write an article on pro-Christian bias, or pro-Christian theology, or on how non-Christians see Christianity as exclusive (as all non-Christians are damned) or on pro-Christian antyhing, then come up with a specific idea, a title based on fact, and start writing content that refers to and relies on scholarship. RK

I think the term you are looking for is "christian dogma"....

Crows

are not an ethnic group... which is why they call it RELIGIOcentricism.  This is not a made-up word.

---

I removed the discussion of the various chauvinist movements. If our definition and my understand is correct, ethnocentrism does not refer to chauvinism, but rather toward making a particularly group the center of your world-view, and is particularly useful in studying academia and learning, etc. DanKeshet

I take issue with that narrow interpretation Dan: We use Ethnocentrism here as a polite, and encyclopedic way of referring to chauvinist attitudes of all kinds... to what detail others may comment on your particular flavor' of ethnocentrism remains, always... contentious. -'Vert Ps. I just got in - has much been going on?

"There is no such thing as Christian religiocentrism" well, its not pretty. As for "ethnic groups" - RK, there needs to be an understanding of the broadness of the term ethnicity: In the old days, "ethnicity" meant geographic and linguistic separations. But now, for example, you and I are not of the same ethnic groups, per se, and yet we are : Americans more or less make up an ethnic group - bound by language, identity, values, etc. The concept of their being "Judeo-Christian values" for example, is a perfect example of what I called ethnoconvergence - or transculturation. JCV's exist only in the modern, converging-culture context, where the overall American culture provides for an umbrella that includes the other long-established cultures - ethnic groups if you will. Look at where we are: Never again will the lack of communication between people will provide for further cultural migration - divergence. Wikipedia is proof of this. -'Vert

Ethnocentrism is a valid subject for Wikipedia to cover. I suggest that this article describe the social, political and psychological reasons that create various forms of ethnocentrism. It could describe how most forms of ethnocentrism have peaceful benign and even tolerant aspects, and how only specific variants of ethnocentrism lead to hatred against people of other groups. Such an entry could legitimately discuss various forms of ethnocentrism. RK

I agree - ethnocentrism has an opposite, which is a kind of psychosis - a neurotic obsession with another culture, and that cultures self-centrism: alienocentrism. :) -'Vert

I have reverted GrahamN's vandalism. I find it a violation of academic integrity, and a violation of Wikipedia communal protocol, to slander Jews in such a blatant and offensive way. I understand that a handful of people are trying to use Wikipedia to spread the lie that ethnocentrism exists among Jews alone, but I hope that the majority of Wikipedia contributors can recognize this for the anti-Jewish attack that it is. If people would like to contribute to a serious and academic article on ethnocentrism, that would be warmly welcomed. But if your interest is for Jew-bashing, please go elsewhere. RK

Just to clarify, is the issue that GrahamN wants to only list Related Articles that already exist and RK wants potential ones too? Does Wikipedia have a policy on this? (Not rhetorical, I really don't know). Tuf-Kat

I have no particular axe to grind. I just saw that RK had made a ridiculously childish, petulant edit, and I reverted it. On reflection I should have left it for somebody else to sort out. GrahamN 16:02 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Could I suggest that if RK or anyone else wants to include such things as Italian or French ethnocentrism they at least write a short stub indicating what they are/how they are manifested? Being Italian, I find it hard to conceive of a nation so less fussed about its ethnicity, particularly given the large ethnic divisions between North and South. And please don't confuse ethnocentrism with nationalism or patriotism.cferrero 15:54 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Too late: I'm already confused. I thought ethnocentrism was the "norm", i.e., that every culture at all times in history:

• regarded their culture as the most important group in the world
• judged all other groups relative to their culture

Moreover, it was exceedingly rare in history for any group anywhere at any time in history to seek an absolute standard or even to look for valuable things to copy from other cultures. Only ancient Greece ever did that, if I remember my Toynbee correctly. --Uncle Ed 16:22 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Put in that context, I would agree. But we can hardly have an individual entry for every single nationality. Rather, the theme merits specific mention of any ethnocentrism that stands out from the norm, perhaps by being particularly 'visible' in every day life. In which case Jewish ethnocentrism would probably warrant a mention, but (for instance) Belgian ethnocentrism wouldn't. cferrero 16:34 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

For the record, afrocentrism is a valid term that has a specific meaning and needs an article. Tuf-Kat

I approve of the current edits on this page. -&#35918&#30505

I'm stopping with the merger of Americo- Germano- and Anglo- ... I would merge Judeo but I think that needs more than a cut and paste and I'm done for today.

---

I think the definition given at the top of the page and the examples given below are in conflict. (Moreover, I think the examples are misplaced and poorly researched--eurocentrism and afrocentrism are both commonly used concepts; our examples are not, AFAICT.) But the key is that americo-centric, if such a thing were a common concept, would mean that you judge everything using the U.S. as a benchmark, you ignore important things that happen outside of the U.S., etc., not that you "favor" the U.S. DanKeshet

Should we discuss Xenocentrism as an opposing idea?[1] I don't know how common this term is but I'm using it in my sociology class.--129.2.221.60 00:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like the current version

Discussion of ethnocentrism as a tenet of academia is necessary.

Religious and Ethnic Differences

Earlier RK noted that there is a difference between ethnicity and religion - something a lot of people seem to be forgetting. While I dont know of any popular academic term that describes advocation of a type of theology (except maybe proselityzing), I think it would be good if Wikipedians came up with a separate article for Theological advocation or Religious Centralism, etc. The current page on Jewish ethnocentrism doesn't even make sense. Jews are no longer a single ethnicity. If the page was (cleanedup for one thing) retitled "Historical Jewish Centralism" it might warrant its existence. If a new page devoted to religious centralism it could have branch pages devoted to the religions of the page Major world religions. I would suggest against any title using the word supremacy as this has gained a pejorative context in the recent era. In addition, when talking about the convergence of ethnicities I believe the common term is "cultural diffusion" though that may not be what you're getting at since (whoever it was who was talking about that) was focused on ethnicity rather than ideas or disease. freestylefrappe 23:32, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph about ethnocentrism being the cause of wars and conflict between nations since it was purely the opinion of the writer and not backed up by historical fact. The fact that a nations' public might be more accepting of war mongering and colonialism when it's done in an atmosphere of ethnocentrism does not mean that ethnocentrism in and of itself is the cause of these wars and conflicts (corelation does not prove causeation). History (especially 20th century history) clearly shows that the main cause of war is control of resources, access to markets, exploitation of cheap labour souces, and escalating rivalries between competing capitalist nations. Like its' relative racism, etnocentrism is often cultivated by the ruling class of a nation in order to make its' profit driven conquests and inter imperial conflicts more pallateble to the public who otherwise would react with horror at the suffering that the capitalist drive for ever increasing profit brings on their fellow human beings. 142.173.65.37

If you say so "Marx". freestylefrappe 01:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

deleted as irrelevant

"The Indians invented the concept of zero (although it is often attributed to the Arabs...), especially the use of the digit zero as a placeholder in arithmetic calculations (multiplication and long division were a nightmare in the Hellenistic Sphere of Rome and Greece), as well as the idea of the algorithm.

Various cultures have laid claim to having created the phonetic alphabet, or indeed, even writing itself. "

Benwing 02:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Anglocentrism

As there are links to American Exceptionalism, Afrocentrism, Eurocentrism and Germanocentrism, I think there should also be a separate article on Anglocentrism which is the predominant mentality in England e.g "Fog in English Channel, continent cut off"

I agree to that. I don't see why there is a link to those particular centrisms (Why germanocentrism ?) and not to others (Why not USA centrism ?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.25.232.221 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia Ethnocentricity

I have noticed that Wikipedia embodies neo-imperialism and ethnocentricity in the fact that contributors/ions are often 'necessarily' of 'inappropriate' origin. Caucasians making key edits on pages which are 'nubocentric' for instance.  ^freedom Annawright 16:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias? WilyD 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to point it out but nubocentric isn't even a word. Second, how can you possibly know if someone editing the page is Caucasian or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.113.54 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Types of E.

Giovanni33, you may not like Zionism, but putting it in the list of "Types of ethnocentrism" next to Nazism, Neo-Nazism, and White supremacism is POV, especially when other national liberation movements are not listed there. What "Type of ethnocentrism" is it? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you don't know what my likes or dislikes of Zionism is. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that it is an example of ethnocentrism. It is also next to "Afrocentrism" which has nothing to do with Nazism, Neo-Nazism, or White Supremacism. Infact Afrocentrism is progressive, and is part of a national liberation movement. So your statment is false. What all these have in common, though, along with Zionism--and why they should be listed here-- is that they are all ethnic based nationalist ideologies. That is the point. And this point is based on this subject exactly by having a diverse list of types, examples of ethnocentrist types. If you want to include other examples as well, that is fine. Here is a scholarly article by Professor Kevin MacDonald, who makes clear that Zionism is ethnocentrism, should there be any doubts: http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no3/km-understandII.html Giovanni33 23:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Try harder. Kevin MacDonald as a scholarly source. Why not David Irving? See Kevin B. MacDonald#MacDonald and David Irving. I'll consider adding it to the list after hundreds of other similar movements are there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not David Irving, because Irving is discredited given his anti-semitism and historical revisionsism, in particular holocaust denial. MacDonald does not fall into that camp. His defesnse of the former stems from free speech concerns, much as Chomsky did for someone of the same ilk. One is not guilty by association, and this does nothing to impune his academic credencials nor his valid pov. We do not need to have hundreds of groups, we need to have the main ones: white nationalism, black nationalism, asian nationaism, arabic nationism, and yes, jewish nationalism. Why do you want to exclude one group? Giovanni33 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

MacDonald is not that far from Irving. A better question is, why did you pick the Jews (note capital J) and not Basques, Chukchis, Kurds, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that MacDonald denies the holocaust, in some manner? Can you support that claim? If he does then I'd agree with you. Also, I'm familiar with Zionism as an ideology, and feel its an important example, more so than the Basques, Chukchis, and Kurds--given the nature of the ongoing conflicts in the world. I do not object if you find examples of ethnic nationalism from these groups, but I do object you to removing zionism. That is unjustified.Giovanni33 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See strawman. KMD a controversial enough to be discarded as a reliable source. Back to the topic: thank you for your POV but Zionism does not belong in the list because it is not an Ethnocentrism (despite what KMD may say). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One might argue whether MacDonald's view should be included here - I'd argue against it, as IMO he's a one man show crackpot: I don't fancy psychologists, not even "evolutionary" ones, to dabble with ethnology. However, to use his views as base for authoritative classification is unwarranted any which way. --tickle me 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

MacDonald is a psychologist who studies wolf behavior. Anything he writes about wolf behavior I would count as ascholarly. His books on Jews are not scholarly, they are anti-semitic opinions. Zionism is not ethnocentrism. No Zionist has ever claimed that the Jewish people are superior to all other people, or that all peoples should live like zionists. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about apples and oranges here. Ethnocentrism is about a way of looking at the world. Zionism is about the creation of a Jewish homeland on the land of Israel. IMO, many of the "types" listed shouldn't be listed for this reason altho I am not familiar with many of them. IMO, this whole list is kind of "ethnocentric" in itself and should be removed. 64.212.90.254 16:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no way Zionism belongs here. Love it or hate it, Zionism is not about "Jews are superior, we deserve a place to live," it's about "Jews have long been considered inferior, but we deserve a place to live." IronDuke 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnocentricism isn't ethnoSUPREMACY. It simply refers to a philosophy in which one looks at the world from the perspective of one's own culture. Zionism is such a thing. Please try to actually think about what you're saying before you say it.

Criticisms?

This page badly needs a criticisms section, for as it stands now, it is biased. Yeah, I'm biased too-I don't believe in ethnocentrism (in most cases anyway), and think it is used as a slur against those who defend the West. Still, I think if ethnocentrism is to have a fair hearing, part of that would entail a criticisms section. 152.163.100.6 04:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

World problems

This article concludes:

The lack of balance and feedback from other cultures has caused the western world to be plagued with psychological problems and environmental destruction, while other cultures are plagued with disease and starvation. Communication and respect between cultures could possibly eradicate those persistent problems.

I am not sure if these are really established facts. Romper 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing, References

—famously characterized by President Abraham Lincoln as "the last, best hope of Earth"&mdash

The full qoute is: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth." I think hope refers here to 'Freedom', not to the USA.

A Japanese word for foreigner ("gaijin") can have the connotation of "outsiders to Japan," and is very often used to specifically refer to westerners. Japanese do not normally use the term to describe themselves when visiting other countries.

Sort of biased. Compare to the article gaijin.

Tribal and familial groups are often seen to dominate in economic settings where transaction costs are high. Examples include the crime syndicates of Russia, Sicily, and the United States, prison gangs, and the diamond trade (Salter 2002).

Relevance? Sven Lotz 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism is a sociological term. It doesn't mean being racist necessarily. It has to do with norms and values. It is used to justify racism, but it is not racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement about foreigners being aliens is redundant, foreigner means alien. Native Americans aren't the only people whose name mean "the people" Maybe there should be a section on maps, and how different groups put different places at the center. lot of citations needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem in "Anthropology."

In "Anthropology" we find this paragraph:

In Precarious Life, Judith Butler discusses recognizing the Other in order to sustain the Self and the problems of not being able to identify the Other. Butler writes:

Identification always relies upon a difference that it seeks to overcome, and that its aim is accomplished only by reintroducing the difference it claims to have vanquished. The one with whom I identify is not me, and that "not being me" is the condition of the identification. Otherwise, as Jacqueline Rose reminds us, identification collapses into identity, which spells the death of identification itself.

Judith Butler is not an anthropologist, so she has no standing in the determination of what counts as ethnocentrism; and since she writes in the barbaric jargon of post-modernism, which is unintelligible to the average user of an encyclopedia, her statements cannot be used to explain anything. More importantly, neither of the earlier two paragraphs talked about "identification" or "identity," and since Butler does not talk about ethnocentrism, the paragraph is wildly off topic. I plan therefore to eliminate it. Strebensfreund (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Spring cleaning overdue

I am referring the article to WP:CLEAN due to extensive problems, including:

• confusing syntax and basic mechanical errors
• formatting problems, e.g. a sentence fragment apparently meant as a subhed
• unaddressed concerns about the accuracy of statements and reliability of sources.

For now, the mechanical issues are the main ones I'm asking for help on. Let's get the article reduced to readable English before we get into the thornier issues. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I went in and did some clean up. I'm not sure if it is good enough though.Funplussmart (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: I went in again and completely fixed the formatting and syntax. I therefore replaced the syntax template with a reliable sources template. Funplussmart (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I deleted this line: “In biology, ethnocentrism is considered a natural condition of mankind.” And this source: Strategy and Ethnocentrism (Routledge Revivals) written by Ken Booth, publisher Routledge 2014 ISBN 1317670302 pages15-16. Because I read the source & it doesn’t support the content.Salstergropman (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Not Sumner

According to the OED, Sumner did not coin the word.

1900 W. J. McGee in Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. 1897–98 831 In primitive culture the epocentric and ethnocentric views are ever-present and always-dominant factors of both mentation and action. 1907 W. G. Sumner Folkways i. 13 Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.  

Keahapana (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The ability for anyone to understand anything and be remotely believable requires all senses to mutually be present. Now would you take a description of a visual event from the blind? Estroz (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite disagree on your methods of determination. But in terms of the outsider thinking he can possibly be superior can also be perceived as an understanding of differences that can't be met. Estroz (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

oxytocin fad

A 2011 paper in PNAS suggested that ethnocentrism may be mediated by the oxytocin hormone. It found that in randomized controlled trials "oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation".

Alright, guys. Give me a break. Apparently, oxytocin moves heaven and Earth these days. It's getting a little ridiculous. A theory overly simplistic enough to consider any large scale social phenomena to be an exclusive integral result of oxytocin is silly. Not only is oxytocin not that important in the grand scheme of things, but it isn't even all that important in the little scheme of things either. It's just one of the few not-testosterone non-estrogen (ie non-dimorphic) sex hormones we've discovered thus far. It's "mystical" to us, so we come up with these over-zealous theories about it.

So apparently, this hip new fad is emerging. Any concept or paradigm that involves sex is the result of oxytocin. Since these paradigms include men as well as women, we can't just attribute it to either testosterone or estrogen...hey, I know! Let's use oxytocin! I read about it in Women's Health!

This oxytocin bs is pop science, and I say it should be ousted from the 'pedia. I'm going to check out the "source", but honestly, if the source is that pop culture and elementary to consider oxytocin responsible for ethnocentrism, then let's get real, it probably isn't reliable.

Important note: there's a big difference 'oxytocin may cause ethnocentrism' and 'oxytocin may play a (small) role in ethnocentrism.' Charles35 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Zionism

There is a difference between nationalism and ethnocentrism. Zionism is the former, not the latter, so I've removed it from the list of types of ethnocentricity. - June 2, 2008 4:40 EST

The former draws on the latter, but I agree. I see no specific case for Zionism. forestPIG 21:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No way, Zionism is based on the belief that the Jewish ethnicity own Israel because god has chosen them as they are ethnically superior to gentiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.77.233 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This makes a good point about Zionism and ethnocentricism. Zionism is, by strict definition, nationalism. It is the underlying Judaism that argues ethnocentric beliefs. In fact, Judaism is probably the most deliberate iteration of tribalism in the modern world, as exemplified by the distinction between the Jews and the goyim (who are repeatedly defined in the Talmud as just animals with a human form), not to mention the various schemes of the "Elders of Zion". Cheers : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.7.215 (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No cheers to you, nazi.

Zionism is nationalism and the belief the Jewish people should have their own state. This movement was formed after it was believed only a state could provide them the security they needed in what was perceived as rising anti antisemitism and pogroms, even before the holocaust. Zionism's founding fathers were influenced by the famous Dreyfus affair. Nationalism helps fuel Ethnocentrism like religion, but is simply a small part and is not enough to consider it Ethnocentrism on it's own. At first it was considered to set a state in Uganda but eventually it was decided that the land of Israel, whom the Jewish people have roots in, is the most fitting place. I'm not sure if they believe it was given to them by God or not but the main point I try to deliver is that it's not the only or even the primary consideration the then-leaders of the Zionism movement had as they had history in that land and if they had 2,000 years to do it and God gave it to them, why didn't they act until then? It was the need for security. Seeing as they were not bend at first on setting a state in that area, and considering they had historic considerations, I do not believe that is enough to put Zionism under Ethnocentrism. Zionism means to provide a state for the Jewish people for protection and self-determination, hardly means they views themselves as superior to others. And to the last two unnamed contributors who prefer to shift the discussion to Judaism from Zionism, in the bible it says they were the last people to be approached by God after all the people turned his laws down, and they accepted him, so I don't see any sense of superiority to those former people who were asked first in their bible. Avraham123 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism and Judaism/Zionism

Currently User Cush Finds It necessary to put Judaism and Zionism here, Which though the Core tenets may be the ethnocentric. (Chosen people and What not) Singling out one culture is highly unnecessary as all cultures are ethnocentric; picking Judaism especially which is prone to such a negative reactions. He has reverted his inclusion for 3 times i am removing it again. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is an ethnocentric religion, maybe even the archetype of an ethnocentric theology. There is every reason to include it in the list. And there is no other religion with a comparable ethnocentrism (except maybe Rastafarianism, which features an extended afrocentrism). · CUSH · 23:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing your crusade against Abrahamic Religions is unwise, Every Religion and culture is ethnocentric to one degree or another Judaism is no exception no reason to single it out. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither Christianity nor Islam are in any way ethnocentric. Buddhism and Hinduism are also not ethnocentric. Shintoism is. I could go on and on, and Judaism would end up being in a very small number of ethnocentric religions. To say that "every religion and culture is ethnocentric to one degree or another" is simply wrong. Please educate yourself. · CUSH · 23:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The concept of Jihad as it being used is entirely an ethnocentric thing. as I recall you accused me of wanting your dead because my because my god of christianity demands it. Both sound like perfect examples of like perfect example of ethnocentricity beliefs. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jihad, in whatever interpretation, has nothing whatsoever to do with ethnicity. And please use substantiated arguments, not just urban legends you only have half a hunch about. · CUSH · 10:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethnocentricity is About Culture not Ethnicity though ethnicity can be a factor. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And?? That makes Judaism even more ethnocentric, in sharp contrast to other religious concepts. It is not me who singles Judaism out, it is Judaism that does so.

Of course I understand why you don't want the inclusion of Judaism in the list, because it might imply the xenophobia which is indeed inherent in ancient Judaism, and afaik in some modern variants as well. · CUSH · 11:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute about whether it is ethnocentric but if we add Judaism here we need to add every culture on earth as every culture is ethnocentric a list of every culture would be long and unnecessary. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have appied for a third Opinion in here at the 3rd opinion notice board to hopefully bring in an outside view. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What argumentation is that? You agree that Judaism is ethnocentric and yet you reject the inclusion in the list? This list includes ideologies that are ethnocentric, not "cultures", so Judaism as almost the only ethnocentric religion fits very well into that list. · CUSH · 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, which I think I made clear in the NPOV section above, is that I'm not blown away by the depth and understanding of claiming that there are cultures that aren't ethnocentric.--Iavram (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: Adding Judaism to the list is pushing a WP:POV and is unacceptable. Without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources showing that Judaism may be ethnocentric, it's really just one editor's POV, and therefore does not belong in the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dont Say That, he can find the sources that say are Ethnocentristic. Its about whether it the Jew Should be singled out when every culture is ethnocentristicWeaponbb7 (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see that happening. I Googled for "judaism ethnocentric" as Cush suggested in this edit. Nothing that comes up there can really be considered a reliable source. Further, the consensus (for now) is against inclusion. Cush is more than welcome to escalate this issue if s/he feels really strongly about it, but I think that the inclusion is just pushing a strong POV that most would disagree with. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Every religion and many cultures are Ethnocentric to some degree, with Crusaders spreading ideology to the 'heathens' in the past and missionaries in far off lands and holy wars initiated by the most powerful Islamic Imams and the belief Jahallyiah have no rights to land ownership on Earth. Every person who has a religious belief believes he's right and others are not, or are incomplete and only provide half-truths. Perhaps religion in general should be considered as a major factor for Ethnocentrism but no one religion should be singled. Avraham123 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think both statements are incorrect. To state that one spacific culture or religion might be ehtnocentric is just as incorrect as it is to state that all are or can be ethnocentric. In order for a group to be ethnocentric each individual must believe in such unity that there is no diversity within the culture, religion, or group. In other words, it depends more on the individuals view points and these individuals must all be part of one group with all individuals in agreement with each other within that group. It could be possible that all religions or groups are ethnocentric and it could also be possible that only certain ones are ethnocentric, but considering mankind's diversity, human development, patterns of humanity, and the ability to change those patterns, neither statement is true. (ShanSam10 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

In fact, the original statement in the article says that ethnocentrism is " the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important". NOTE the word "ONE'S", meaning that it is the individuals opinion about their group, culture, religion, ect. that has the "tendency" to be ethnocentric; not necessarily making the entire group, culture, religion, ect. ethnocentric. (ShanSam10 (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

To equate all religions is to suggest that, for example, Catholicism and Judaism operate the same way relative to racialism. It's simply not true. The "Chosen People" mythos is likely the root cause of Western anti-Semitism. To not mention Judaism/Zionism in this article, when 'Jewish X, Y and Z' are covered in articles throughout Wiki - is shameful but typical. The idea is that any criticism of Jews or Judaism is "racist" which is a principle that ironically probably feeds into anti-Jewish racism more than, say, pointing out how many of the Russian oligarchs have been Jewish in a country where Jews are a tiny minority. Facts shoudl be presented qua such, fairly - it is absurd to not mention the hyperethnocentrism of Judaism here. "Is it good for the Jews?' is a bit of rhetoric which captures this heightened group-concern. This isn't to say it is 'bad' which is a value judgment, but to say that it *exists*. To not do so is censorship. 'fealveritagh' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.6.130 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The concept of ethnocentrism that I learned in school refers to the universal tendency to view people of one's own group more centrally than others. This may but doesn't necessarily have to manifest itself as the view that other groups are necessarily inferior to one's own (counter to what is suggested in the article, which states that out-groups are necessarily viewed as inferior, by definition). To me, it seems like the article only focuses on ethnocentrism insofar as it is a negative trait, and a basis for abuse.

Of note is Festinger's Social comparison theory, which suggests that ethnocentrism has the legitimate basis of subjective validation of a person's beliefs through social comparison, to help establish what is socially appropriate on an individual level. Also, one study found that children exhibited ethnocentric preference while they were still too young to conceptualize the notion of nations.

I don't have a specific reference that says so, but intuitively, it seems to me like transcending ethnocentrism needs to be learned, as opposed to the claim in the article that ethnocentrism itself is learned. (update: this last point has since been addressed)

Iavram (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me put my complaint about the article in non-technical terms: there's nothing racist about saying "my race isn't racist, but yours is"? (note: replace "racism" with your favorite form of in-grouping.) --Iavram (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that the NPOV dispute hasn't gotten response after a long time, but I still see it as a benign request for consensus. --Iavram (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the reason for the removal of the NPOV tag, but I find it very surprising that nobody has put serious thought into the article. --Iavram (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A few criticisms

This article is not good for several reasons.

First, the definition given (at least at the top of the article) seems to imply willful bias, discrimination, etc. against other cultures. But it seems like ethnocentrism is most often unintentional and subconscious. That is, a very general definition might be the tendency to see other cultures through the lens of one's own cultures' beliefs and values. This could come from a genuine belief that one's culture is superior, or it could just come from a lack of introspection. I think the article tries to get to this later on, but it comes across as being somewhat biased because of the lead paragraph.

Likewise, I think the article is overly narrow on why ethnocentrism is bad. Ethnocentrism, in addition to causing "pride, vanity, beliefs of one own group's superiority, and contempt of outsiders", also has a tendency to impede the understanding of others' cultures, or to create a distorted and shallow understanding. That is why it is bad, especially in the social sciences (but also in areas like international diplomacy, immigration policy, etc.)

Finally, the article itself rambles and is poorly organized. It cites ideas and research at key points which are at best digressions, and some of the claims appear to be specious. I think, for example, the entire paragraph which starts by citing Butler's work and then refutes it with an equally obscure reference is superfluous, and the claim that non-Western languages lack dichotomies is bizarre (and itself smacks of the Eurocentric "noble savage" myth).

Authors cited in such a short article should be those who have directly addressed the topic; perhaps on the issues of ethnocentrism in the sciences, literature, policy, etc., and the overall article should be more direct and less scholarly. At the very least, it would make it more accessible to someone actually interested in learning what "ethnocentrism" means and how it relates to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.126.98 (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As for additional references, I found this helpful: Sutherland, L. (2002). Ethnocentrism in a pluralistic society: A concept analyis. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 13, 274. Mischal NS (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that ethnocentrism may often arise in situations which are unintended or subconscious. And I agree that the article can afford to be a little less one-sided than it is now. While spending a great deal of effort denouncing ethnocentrism, it leaves out the fact that there are also attempts to explain ethnocentrism (and in-grouping in general) as ordinary phenomenon. The theory by Festinger, for example, is probably in any decent social psych textbook. (edit)..Although I can understand someone not trusting a psychologist on the subject of inter-ethnic relations at this particular moment in time. --Iavram (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So is ethnocentrism/ethnocentric a word for how ethnic groups feel or think about others? I always thought it was a word for a country where 90%+ of the population is of the same ethnic group and nationality. So what word would I use to describe Croatia and Japan if I was to just say that there is mostly one ethnic group living in both countries without saying anything about their political views? I mean what neutral word can I use to describe this? English is not my first language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdalDrottinn (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Chosen people revert

This revert, besides interjecting personal opinion, misses the point that chosen people is a general article about the topic, not restricted to Jews; the more specific article is Jews as a chosen people. And by the way, there are references saying that chosenness in Judaism is ethnocetrism. [2] Tijfo098 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Pop-sci"

The view that ethnocentrism could be explained via kin selection is due originally to the founder of the idea, esteemed biologist WD Hamilton. I just don't have the first hand reference available, so I chose to quote Dawkins. Just wanted to make clear that it's not pop-sci.--Babank (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias

"Historical examples of these negative effects of ethnocentrism are The Holocaust, the Crusades, the Trail of Tears, and the internment of Japanese Americans." I find it interesting that you could find no examples that aren't of white gentiles. Also, why wouldn't you include Zionism under your See Also section. Plus, your source academics on the subject are almost all jews. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5D80:1496:C12A:A6E2:428D:9103 (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

empirical data

this article needs to cover the literature on empirical measurements of ethnocentrism across different cultures and ethnic groups 2600:8801:B04:2000:9411:6BC4:E275:42DC (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have sources? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Anglocentrism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anglocentrism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 15#Anglocentrism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DorcasCh. Peer reviewers: Juniebug77.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgil0121.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 May 2019 and 5 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scandrettew.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SapphireWalls.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 March 2020 and 13 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sophiegoltl. Peer reviewers: SusanFrancisco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ali.panta. Peer reviewers: Nick986282030.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Industry Theory and Practice 74252

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2022 and 19 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexisellise (article contribs). Peer reviewers: EnergyMold, Amandab430.

— Assignment last updated by Patrickgleason6 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)