Talk:Kaffir (racial term)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2005
Merging
dont merge
- I split the original South Africa Kaffir people. Part (2) was merged into this page. My excuse is that it is the same word, used in the two coutries with basically the same disparaging and offensive purposes, only with relatively small differences of usage. Jorge Stolfi 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)]
- Kaffir was no "racial slur". In fact it's used mostly neutral in the literature, which one can check with some effort. However some influential circles tried to get it declared or perceived as an ethnic slur. Obviously for the purpose of sowing discord. --105.12.3.178 (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)I Agree to the statement that this word is never a racist word. It has a meaning of: "a disbeliever in Devine Entity (Allah) or his prophet(s)". originally it means the covering, and it was used to refer to none believer meaning the one who covers the "Truth"
Coolie used?
I've never heard of a so-called Black who called an Indian a "coolie." The article is a disingenuos pack of lies. 151.201.129.196 17:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- My friend from Trinidad says that Blacks refer to East Indians as "coolies" and they in turn refer to black as "niggers" (when they are not in a charitable mood, I suppose). There is a lot of racism between the 2 groups, although it seems to be quite arbitrary - there are many exceptions to the rule.
- In South Africa Blacks speak about the "Makula", which I think is derived from "Coolie". --41.19.26.20 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
2006
Removed history of Jamaican Indian-African ethnic conflict
I removed the following material from the page. Since this page is about the ethnic slur term, keeping the following information here would inevitably look like a highly subjective attempt to justify or apologize for the use of the word. Perhaps this can be moved to some other article, say on the History of Jamaica tree. Jorge Stolfi 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
South Africa
Corrected the errors in the article as it relates to South Africa:
- The word kaffir is not only used by white people.
- The word is used in a South African context to refer to black people. I am unaware of any widepread current or historical use of it to refer to Indian or so-called Coloured people in South Africa; more to the point, the Dictionary of South African English does not appear to be aware of any such use.
- Whatever the scriptwriter of Gandhi may have written, the word kaffir does not appear in Gandhi's own account of the incident at Pietermaritzburg
- Gandhi himself used the term quite frequently refering to Blacks Racism of the Early Mahatma Ghandi
Irvin Khosa is a South African soccer administrator. Nicknamed "Iron Duke", he is the chairman of the South African organising committee of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, chairman of the South African Premier Soccer League and vice president of the South African Football Association. He is also owner of glamour South African Premiership side Orlando Pirates.There was recently a lot of controvercy because of his use of the word.--143.160.124.40 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Arthur Kemp is a white supremacist. Hardly the most reliable source.Goingoveredge (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]
- Would a race denier or egalitarian be a more reliable source? Well, Arthur Kemp isn't even a White Supremacist, since he's not interested in ruling over Blacks. He simply doesn't want to be in the same political/social system with them. --105.8.193.117 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Arthur Kemp is a
- It is not only black people who find the word highly offensive Humansdorpie 13:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is mainly "white liberals" that do so. The Blacks just copied that.
- I have no opinion myself (I have never read/heard the word before coming to Wikipedia); however, those claims have been in the article for quite a while. So excuse me for asking: have you lived in South Africa, or is your opinion based only on the sources you listed?
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 09:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ola, Jorge, yes - I'm South African. Humansdorpie 10:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with these changes. Also note that there is a huge difference between the words "kaffer, kafir and kaffir." Not many English speaking people understand the correct word used among all races in SOUTH AFRICA refered to as "kaffer." This word is an Afrikaans word like "apartheid" and taken up in the English understanding and some times misundertood. Contributors should not get confuse by the AFRIKAANS word "Kaffer" and belief it has the same meaning as "kafir and kaffir." Coloured people and mainly in the Cape use the word "kaffer" as Afrikaans speaking white South Africans. This word cannot be seen as racist or ethnic slur as not many English speaking people understand the Afrikaans context this word is used in. They try to contribute to this site leading into further confusion due to their lack of the Afrikaans language. They normally generalise towards their English misunderstanding of the word "kaffer" and refer to the term "kafir or kaffir." This may lead to great confusion among white English speaking people whom do not even understand the colored/coloured Afrikaans speaking individuals use of Afrikaans. Generalisation is made to refer to "kaffer" as a racist or offensive word. For most Afrikaans speaking people the word "f u c k" or "O my God" is far more offensive that the comic or racist use of the word "kaffer" when used in the correct context, even among black South Africans. This is typical due to the misunderstanding of English speaking people of the Afrikaans language whom generalise the English meaning of an Afrikaans word. The reference that the use of the word "kaffer" may lead to prosecution is nonsens! This again is a perfect misunderstanding of the Afrikaans langauge and the context the word is used. NO cases of prosecution exist in South Africa for the use of the word "kaffer." The government may be prosecuted first as many name places refering to kaffer stil exist. Not to mention the general reference to kafferwaatlemoen that refers to a type of watermelon. == RV ==
I've reverted the two changes made earlier today.
- That the word "is regarded as the most offensive word you could find" reflects opinion rather than demonstrable fact
- Use of the word has been actionable in a South African court since at least 1976 (I believe the case was Ciliza -v- Minister of Police and Another 1976 (4) SA 243) although I think Joziboy is quite right to highlight that the number of successful cases seems to have increased dramatically in recent years
Humansdorpie 18:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Those lawsuits should be mentioned in the article. They seem to be far more illuminating than the examples given there. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 13:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
197.245.193.183 (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone remove the "Slang" section please. Saying that the shortened version "kaff" is used frequently by young people of the Western Cape is absolute nonsense. I can confirm that as I am one of them.
2008
Gandhi
I deleted the reference to the film because the word used was 'sammy' not kaffir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.148.48 (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gandhi used the word kaffir quite frequently. http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2009/03/05/gandhi/ --41.17.4.46 (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Vandalizing Gandhi's own words
Certain editors do not seem to like the fact that Gandhi liberally used the word "Kaffir" and did not like native Africans in South Africa. These editors are bound to vandalize that section on the article by repetitively removing it without discussing why they want it removed. The reason is simple, these facts are from Gandhi's own writings in "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi", his columns in the Gujarati newspaper of those times, his letters written to British officers in South Africa etc and so cannot be denied. Please do not make wikipedia a place of propaganda and tell us if these words from Gandhi were false. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- The use of "kaffir" by Gandhi has already been mentioned in the lead in this version as per this very reliable source (which Gandhi indeed did do). The sources you're adding (gandhism.net) doesn't count as WP:TIGERS states that we are not required to debate with extremists.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)]
- The use of "kaffir" by Gandhi has already been mentioned in the lead in this version as per this very reliable source (which Gandhi indeed did do). The sources you're adding (gandhism.net) doesn't count as
- Sorry, my dear WP:FRINGE and is disallowed, regardless of your terroristic whining and moaning.Goingoveredge (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)]
- Sorry, my dear
- I think that that honor will be decided by non-Khalistanis, so you're in trouble there...Goingoveredge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've added back the bit about Gandhi's use of the term in the article, but in a toned down manner. This certainly deserves a mention in the article, but not an entire section. An entire section titled "Famous personalities to have used racial slur Kaffir" talking about how Gandhi used the term is clearly a case of an editor trying to impose his point-of-view on others. Please see ]
- Utcursch, so seems like there was a problem with the title of previous text only? However, I beg to disagree with your conclusion. Is it false that those words are Gandhi's own words from his letters and columns from Indian Opinion newspaper? How is then a Wikipedia contributor guilty of "trying to impose his point-of-view on others" as you say? ..shooting the messenger? Those writings by Gandhi have African people in subject and Gandhi is liberally using the term to describe them in derogatory way. Where does the wikipedia contributor's point of view come into picture? --Roadahead (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ignoring such laughable outbursts, there is one question I'd like to ask Utcursch. Given that scholarly consensus behind Reliable Source? I think that the indian opinion citations are sufficient to show that Gandhi used the term "Kaffir" to refer to SA blacks.Goingoveredge (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)]
- Ignoring such laughable outbursts, there is one question I'd like to ask Utcursch. Given that scholarly consensus behind
- Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Try Wikiquote instead (it already contains some quotes that involve the use of the word Kaffir). Just like the Wikipedia article on WP:UNDUE-- including five qoutes from a single person on an article not related to person is clearly pushing your point-of-view.
- I'm a busy person in real life, and I don't have much energy or time to waste over such childish disputes. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I've already wasted my Saturday fixing articles on Sikh Rajputs, Kaffir, Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity etc., and I don't wish to waste more time over these. utcursch | talk 17:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]
- Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Try Wikiquote instead (it already contains some quotes that involve the use of the word Kaffir). Just like the Wikipedia article on
False attribution
I'll be editing the following line in the current form of the article: "Although used often inoffensively between the 16th and 19th centuries, including being used by Mahatma Gandhi[3], as racial tensions increased in 20th century South Africa, its use became more racially slanderous than just a general word to describe a race of people." Issues:
- . It makes a claim that Gandhi used the word "Kaffir" inoffensively. This claims seems Original Research
- . then hints attribution to the current citation [3] [1]. This news article does not claim anything like that.
--Roadahead (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Why dubious
An editor has marked the following piece of information as dubious:
"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, during his stay in South Africa, often used the term "Kaffir" to refer to the native Black Africans. For example, he once wrote in Indian Opinion, "The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs."[3] Many such examples are cited in the book Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity, which alleges that Gandhi had a racist attitude towards the Blacks, whom he considered inferior to the Europeans and the Indians."
However, this editor has put no section on the talkpage containing his contentions despite the fact line contains information which is easily verifiable and is well cited. Gandhi's words where he extensively used the word "Kaffir" in derogatory way are present in "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi" and not just in the book by author G. B. Singh. Another information given by this line above is also very well verifiable that the book contains several such examples. Please do not use wikipedia "dubious" template to mark and delete information within a day. This is not the intention of this tag. I feel the information conveyed by the line you marked dubious is verifiable and accurate. If you still think otherwise, prove this here on the discussion page. Otherwise, the "dubious" tag will be removed. --Roadahead (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please read wikipedia policies regarding Reliable Sources, especially the part about Extremist and fringe sources.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]
- Please read wikipedia policies regarding
“ | Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities | ” |
- Now read the reviews of this trashy book and draw the correct conclusion.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]
- Now read
- No, I'm "choosing" reviews that reflect scholarly consensus, as opposed to partisan extremist "reviews" made by propagandistic nonentities and militant autodidacts.Goingoveredge (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- And YOU are still not "understanding" (sic) that wikipedia is not a Reliable Sourcetoo? Pleeeease? </sarcasm>
- Wikipedia reflects academic and peer reviewed consensus, which Khalistanis are fundamentally incapable of comprehending, so clearly any debate is useless and they can be treated as run-of-the-mill internet trolls with a revisionist agenda to push.Goingoveredge (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- And YOU are still not "understanding" (sic) that wikipedia is not a
- No, I'm "choosing" reviews that reflect scholarly consensus, as opposed to partisan extremist "reviews" made by propagandistic nonentities and militant autodidacts.Goingoveredge (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Xavier but about Manfred Steger, an accredited historian. On wikipedia, his analysis carries precedence over a random fellow with no real credentials or propensity for critical thought (a common affliction among Khalistani revisionists).Goingoveredge (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The fact that Gandhi had anti-Black views is not in dispute here (the Indian opinion article clearly demonstrates that). The issue here is the neo-fascists.Goingoveredge (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]
- Nonsense. The fact that Gandhi had anti-Black views is not in dispute here (the Indian opinion article clearly demonstrates that). The issue here is the
- I'm not talking about Xavier but about Manfred Steger, an accredited historian. On wikipedia, his analysis carries precedence over a random fellow with no real credentials or propensity for critical thought (a common affliction among Khalistani revisionists).Goingoveredge (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)