11 ms·

As a Mexican I find the comment section nitpicking every word of the article as racist very funny. Americans have really thin skin. Political correctness is ind

• wosos 10y ago
  As a fellow latin-american, I find it funny too but very worrying also, looks like a classic dogma and fact denying thing.
• onli 10y ago
  Where do you see a comment section? Ah, maybe it is hidden in my browser. It is looking at genetic differences between humans, which is something to be careful with. Though only US-americans (and Nazis, weird coincidence) think that genetic differences between humans mean that they are of a different race. The article itself is less surprising than one might think. Mexicans in the north, center and south already look very different, with very typical types of looks being common in those areas. And I'm not talking about clothing and style here. It is not surprising that those visible differences show deeper differences.
  • hood_syntax 10y ago
    > only US-americans and Nazis Citation needed.
    • onli 10y ago
      Personal experience. Those "race" elements in official forms – and, more so, the use of that word in everyday media speak – I only saw in the US, and they'd be impossible where I come from.
      • ihaveajob 10y ago
        That was my initial feeling as well when I moved to the US. But then I learned that it tends to be Democrats that favors such information gathering, because it supports affirmative action, whereas Republicans would generally like to ignore race differences altogether The whole enterprise is flawed anyway. Being Spanish (from Spain), the official definition of Hispanic applies to me, which entitles me to receive special attention that is obviously intended for non-Europeans.
  • wosos 10y ago
    Probably an adblocker is breaking the comments component.
  • SamBam 10y ago
    > Though only US-americans (and Nazis, weird coincidence) think that genetic differences between humans mean that they are of a different race. I don't even know what this comment is supposed to mean. Is it saying that other nations don't subscribe to the notion of "race?" Because that's complete BS, as anyone who has travelled outside of the US would know. Do we bring up apartheid in South Africa? European colonialism, and their views on race? Chinese views on race? Racism in Brazil? Saudi Arabia? Russia? I'm just confused as to what you mean. Here's a simple example: The Wikipedia article on Race (human categorization), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization), has a list of translations in the left column, with something like 60 languages listed. I can only read four others (Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese), but they all say pretty much the same thing as each other. I think any person with any understanding of the subject can agree that scientifically, the categorization of humans into "races" is meaningless and absurd, but this certainly doesn't mean that people all over the world do have this social construct. And most cultures also have a long list of stereotypes and assumptions that they apply to different "races."
    • onli 10y ago
      That's not the core part of my comment, it was a side remark. I think it is kind of interesting in context of PC, but not more. Read the wikipedia article you linked. The very first sentence talks about race as a social construct, and goes on to explain that it is a biological concept no longer used for humans . You'll find an article about that in every language, that does not imply the same usage. You won't find the idea of different races between humans in media or official forms in many countries outside of the US, according to my experience – which does not really mean you will find it nowhere, of course. Race is in the US used as a stand-in for ethnics. Distinguishing between ethnics you find everywhere, mixing that with the term race you don't. Not if not following Nazi-ideology.
• kazinator 10y ago
  The HN discussion of the article is the real comment section.
• rayiner 10y ago
  Americans have really thin skin because they fought a civil war over whether people with one color of skin could own people with a different color of skin. And until very recently,[1] people with one color of skin had to go to different schools than everyone else, they couldn't get married to each other, etc. [1] To put things into context, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and the other tech luminaries in their generation would have gone to segregated schools had they been born in the south instead of in California and Washington. If Ken Thompson had exercised his right to vote in his native Louisiana when he turned 18, he would have done so on ballots that, pursuant to state law, listed the race of each candidate. The Voting Rights Act (which made it illegal to have "whites-only" hotels) and Loving v. Virginia (which ended laws banning interracial marriage) are roughly contemporaneous with UNIX--both being products of the late 1960s. One more fun fact: Americans' approval for black-white marriage crossed the 50% mark sometime between the release of Windows 95 and Windows 98: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh....
  • danso 10y ago
    I don't know if it's so much as collective thin-skinnedness as it is that diversity is such a cornerstone of our society that we're forced to deal with the tensions it creates on a constant basis. This foments debate, much of it good, and some of it trollish, but I see it as a natural result of the freedoms and diversity that America has aimed to aspire. I don't mean to say that achieving diversity is some kind of Grand Experiment designed by the Founders, but it's what we have because of our past and geopolitical circumstances, and we've struggled with and benefited greatly from it.
    • sangnoir 10y ago
      > I don't know if it's so much as collective thin-skinnedness as it is that diversity is such a cornerstone of our society that we're forced to deal with the tensions it creates on a constant basis I don't think that argument holds: Canada is a pretty diverse place but I don't think there are simmering/barely-contained tensions there as much as in the US. I think a lot of the tension results from specific 'environments'; in reverse chronological order: the "southern strategy", Jim Crow laws and ultimately chattel slavery. For most of its history, the prevailing, unquestioned belief was that one race was inherently superior. It will take several generations to rollback that mindset back to any significant degree
• vectorpush 10y ago
  I'd hardly call uniformed commentary on the internet "political correctness drowning the exchange of ideas", however, it's ironic that those accusing the author of racism are inadvertently casting support for the racist idea that arbitrarily defined racial labels like "Mexican" have an inherent meaning that supersedes the actual genetics; the article is literally a case study of how our crudely defined racial groupings are insufficient descriptions of underlying genetics.
  • sremani 10y ago
    Mexican is a nationality. I thought Hispanic was more race/ethnicity. What do you call a citizen of Mexico?
    • cwbrandsma 10y ago
      A Mexican. For instance: Louis CK is a Mexican. Except around people that think the word "Mexican" is derogatory word...in which case you pretend that people from Mexico don't exist because that hurts their feelings.
      • EduardoBautista 10y ago
        Yup. It's funny because I find being called Hispanic/Latino in order to avoid calling me "Mexican" annoying. But I would be corrected by some San Francisco diversity leader that being called "Mexican", and now even "Hispanic", should be offensive to me.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • pyre 10y ago
          I don't find Mexican to be derogatory in and of itself (obviously someone could use it in a derogatory fashion), but I would avoid assuming that any random Hispanic person is Mexican though. Does that mean I'm being "politically correct?" Should I start calling every Asian person I see Chinese to prove how non-PC and what a "free thinker" I am?
• panglott 10y ago
  Some of the nitpicking is funny, but the lede is kind of terrible: "Imagine if people from Kansas and California were as genetically distinct from each other as someone from Germany is from someone from Japan." Just imagine if California contained people as genetically distinct as a person from Germany and a person from Japan!
  • kbenson 10y ago
    I understand what the lede is trying to say, and I understand what the average (that is, mean) person probably thinks. Take a random person from that place. I think it's more likely the author meant take the median, or even better for diverse locations, the mode. This is exacerbated by the believe of Americans (myself included) that we are a uniquely diverse place, reinforced by our education and mythology. We're diverse. We aren't that diverse. P.S. It is rather funny that California was used in that example rather than some other state. It's one of the few states approaching the level where the majority population will soon buy Hispanic, if it isn't already, making the statement somewhat pointless.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• badsock 10y ago
  Sometimes it's hard to see the importance of racism for someone who isn't part of a minority group day-in-and-day-out. In terms of racial identification, are you part of the majority in your country?
• super_id 10y ago
  The United States has turned its higher educational system into a Cultural Marxist reeducation camp. Thus, race-baiting is seen as a sign of sophistication. If you are not a race-baiter, then you are a pitiable simpleton or a racist.
• armandososa 10y ago
  As a fellow Mexican I agree with you. Except that we are slowly becoming as thin skinned as our gringo neighbours because of social media.
• kavbojka 10y ago
  I don't think Mexico has had to confront its own issues with race in any meaningful way. We'll see you on the other side, friend.