5 ms·

I fail to see how either of your anecdotes constitute racism

porphyrogene 8y ago
> I fail You got that part right. You have a moral obligation to be aware of racial discrimination and its calling cards.
paulcole 8y ago
> Yeah, the road system here was designed by a drunk Indian What does including Indian add here? If the (alleged) drunk was white would the person have said, "drunk white guy"?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- skh 8y ago
  I'm assuming this is a genuine question on your part. I would suggest reading up on common stereotypes of the native peoples in the U.S. Native Americans did not design the road system in West Lafayette. Whites did. The person making the remark is in essence saying: Yes the road system is really fucked up. It's so bad that I can't give a real explanation for it so I jokingly say a drunk Indian had to have done it because that's the only thing that can make sense.
  - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
    For some reason I assumed that it was referring to subcontinent Indians, and was slightly confused because I don't consider it racist to point out that their road system is absolutely atrocious.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      My first thought was that it was a non-sequitur, but that it involved subcontinent Indians. I find it ironic that people who are apparently calling out one kind of bigotry in this thread are then playing on stereotypes of what people who live in certain places are like. As a nonwhite who actually has been racially bashed and who has seen people overcome bigotry through their basic humanity, I always want to warn everyone that the problem isn't people from a particular place, people of a particular ethnicity, or people grouped by any surface characteristic, chosen, indelible or in between. The problem is groupthink, and the dark emotions that can come about because of it. The moment you start imputing thoughts, feelings, and emotions to people with scant evidence, you have taken a misstep. (1) You have succumbed to groupthink. If you would fight bigotry, it first behooves you to actively eliminate your own bigotry. It's then your duty not to fall into the very patterns you're supposed to fight. (1) -- Also, if you start condemning people because you imagine you know what they are thinking and feeling, and you believe they are lying to you, then you set up a situation where no one can prove their innocence, and no one trusts anyone else anymore. We have historical accounts of such times and places. Often, such epistemological catastrophes accompany inter-ethnic and inter-sectarian violence and atrocities.
- graeme 8y ago
  Native americans have high levels of alcoholism. The comment was referencing this as a contemptuous sterotype. A casual comment like that is a glimpse into widely held attitudes in the regional: the speaker felt comfortable saying it and assumed the listener wouldn't object. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans
- mikestew 8y ago
  The alleged drunk would never be white, that's the point. The punchline will always involve $DEROGATORY_MODIFIER $MINORITY. For instance, "drunk Indian"; if you grew up in IN, you'll tack on "but I repeat myself", because that's what passes for clever in IN. (I grew up there, I get to make fun.)
- zdragnar 8y ago
  A former governor of MN once claimed that its capital city streets were designed by drunken Irishmen. He immediately realized that was a Bad Thing to say, but it was certainly an afterthought to his statement.
tptacek 8y ago
In the first one, a person made the argument that the sole black person in the department was there only because he was black. That's what "token black person" means. The second recapitulates a common racial stereotype about native Americans. Hope that helped!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- afiori 8y ago
  I need to say that I am a bit unsure how to relate to the two possible interpretation of "token black person". On one side there are people that assume black people at prestigious jobs are black token on the other side there are people that explicitly set out to hire some black tokens; in the middle you would have the society and culture that allows it. The first side is an easy case of racism in most cases, the second side seem more nuanced. In the GP case apparently the person thought of himself as a black token, that is for sure a bad situation... but I cannot wrap my head around "how" it is a bad situation and its implications.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    You shouldn't be unsure. You weren't there, and the person who is relating their interpretation of the comment was.
    - afiori 8y ago
      I am sure that the fact that someone believes he is a "black token" is a problem, I am also sure that this could (almost) only happen in a place were there is quite some racism. What I pointed out is that not all racism is the same; all of it is bad and all of it should stop, we agree on that, but as most human endeavour it is complex with complex motivation. If you and I want to stop it we should better think about how every situation can be different and how different type of racism require different solutions. In my case above assuming incompetence and hiring minorities just to have better statistics are very different form of racism led by often different people, often with different motivation. If OP clarifies more I will trust that, but the wording itself was quite ambiguous to me (also I have the impression some comments have moved around...)
sctb 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19193568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19193568.
- willpiers 8y ago
  why? I don't mind being downvoted, and I enjoy reading the responses. Is it infringing on peoples' safe spaces?
  - dang 8y ago
    Because if you toss off a low-information provocation in an inflammatory thread, that's trolling whether you meant to or not. (But indulging in an in-your-face phrase like "safe spaces" makes me think that maybe you did mean to.) The result tends to be flamewar. Flamewars are equal parts dumb and predictable. Also, we're trying for this place not to turn into scorched earth.
    - willpiers 8y ago
      really did not intend to troll in the first place - maybe a little in the second. I find the sensitivity level here a bit shocking. thanks for the response though - I'll take the feedback and add supporting info in the future.
      - dang 8y ago
        Appreciated!
    - porphyrogene 8y ago
      This is an attempt to squash meaningful discussion. The right-wing bias of HN moderators is readily apparent, as usual.

> I fail You got that part right. You have a moral obligation to be aware of racial discrimination and its calling cards.

paulcole 8y ago

> Yeah, the road system here was designed by a drunk Indian What does including Indian add here? If the (alleged) drunk was white would the person have said, "drunk white guy"?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
skh 8y ago
I'm assuming this is a genuine question on your part. I would suggest reading up on common stereotypes of the native peoples in the U.S. Native Americans did not design the road system in West Lafayette. Whites did. The person making the remark is in essence saying: Yes the road system is really fucked up. It's so bad that I can't give a real explanation for it so I jokingly say a drunk Indian had to have done it because that's the only thing that can make sense.
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  For some reason I assumed that it was referring to subcontinent Indians, and was slightly confused because I don't consider it racist to point out that their road system is absolutely atrocious.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    My first thought was that it was a non-sequitur, but that it involved subcontinent Indians. I find it ironic that people who are apparently calling out one kind of bigotry in this thread are then playing on stereotypes of what people who live in certain places are like. As a nonwhite who actually has been racially bashed and who has seen people overcome bigotry through their basic humanity, I always want to warn everyone that the problem isn't people from a particular place, people of a particular ethnicity, or people grouped by any surface characteristic, chosen, indelible or in between. The problem is groupthink, and the dark emotions that can come about because of it. The moment you start imputing thoughts, feelings, and emotions to people with scant evidence, you have taken a misstep. (1) You have succumbed to groupthink. If you would fight bigotry, it first behooves you to actively eliminate your own bigotry. It's then your duty not to fall into the very patterns you're supposed to fight. (1) -- Also, if you start condemning people because you imagine you know what they are thinking and feeling, and you believe they are lying to you, then you set up a situation where no one can prove their innocence, and no one trusts anyone else anymore. We have historical accounts of such times and places. Often, such epistemological catastrophes accompany inter-ethnic and inter-sectarian violence and atrocities.
graeme 8y ago
Native americans have high levels of alcoholism. The comment was referencing this as a contemptuous sterotype. A casual comment like that is a glimpse into widely held attitudes in the regional: the speaker felt comfortable saying it and assumed the listener wouldn't object. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans
mikestew 8y ago
The alleged drunk would never be white, that's the point. The punchline will always involve $DEROGATORY_MODIFIER $MINORITY. For instance, "drunk Indian"; if you grew up in IN, you'll tack on "but I repeat myself", because that's what passes for clever in IN. (I grew up there, I get to make fun.)
zdragnar 8y ago
A former governor of MN once claimed that its capital city streets were designed by drunken Irishmen. He immediately realized that was a Bad Thing to say, but it was certainly an afterthought to his statement.

tptacek 8y ago

In the first one, a person made the argument that the sole black person in the department was there only because he was black. That's what "token black person" means. The second recapitulates a common racial stereotype about native Americans. Hope that helped!

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
afiori 8y ago
I need to say that I am a bit unsure how to relate to the two possible interpretation of "token black person". On one side there are people that assume black people at prestigious jobs are black token on the other side there are people that explicitly set out to hire some black tokens; in the middle you would have the society and culture that allows it. The first side is an easy case of racism in most cases, the second side seem more nuanced. In the GP case apparently the person thought of himself as a black token, that is for sure a bad situation... but I cannot wrap my head around "how" it is a bad situation and its implications.
- tptacek 8y ago
  You shouldn't be unsure. You weren't there, and the person who is relating their interpretation of the comment was.
  - afiori 8y ago
    I am sure that the fact that someone believes he is a "black token" is a problem, I am also sure that this could (almost) only happen in a place were there is quite some racism. What I pointed out is that not all racism is the same; all of it is bad and all of it should stop, we agree on that, but as most human endeavour it is complex with complex motivation. If you and I want to stop it we should better think about how every situation can be different and how different type of racism require different solutions. In my case above assuming incompetence and hiring minorities just to have better statistics are very different form of racism led by often different people, often with different motivation. If OP clarifies more I will trust that, but the wording itself was quite ambiguous to me (also I have the impression some comments have moved around...)

sctb 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19193568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19193568.

willpiers 8y ago
why? I don't mind being downvoted, and I enjoy reading the responses. Is it infringing on peoples' safe spaces?
- dang 8y ago
  Because if you toss off a low-information provocation in an inflammatory thread, that's trolling whether you meant to or not. (But indulging in an in-your-face phrase like "safe spaces" makes me think that maybe you did mean to.) The result tends to be flamewar. Flamewars are equal parts dumb and predictable. Also, we're trying for this place not to turn into scorched earth.
  - willpiers 8y ago
    really did not intend to troll in the first place - maybe a little in the second. I find the sensitivity level here a bit shocking. thanks for the response though - I'll take the feedback and add supporting info in the future.
    - dang 8y ago
      Appreciated!
  - porphyrogene 8y ago
    This is an attempt to squash meaningful discussion. The right-wing bias of HN moderators is readily apparent, as usual.