3 ms·

I guess replacing "white" with "Chinese" is a good idea. Another option is "Russian".

mtrower 6y ago
That would seem to be a category error. One of those is race, two of those are nationality. Whether or not that’s a good idea depends on context. When you’re talking about matters of race, invoking race night make sense. When talking matters of nationality, invoking nation might make sense. When talking matters of nation, invoking race does not make sense. Naturally, invoking nation as a means of stereotyping and discrimination is a terrible thing as well.
- astkaasa 6y ago
  Actually on the daily communication context these two nationality words are used as representation of races. You probably will not call a black/white people with China nationality "Chinese". And I will present you another example if you consider the previous too rare: you will definitely not call people from Tibet or Uighur "Chinese", right?
  - mtrower 6y ago
    What else would you call a person born and raised in those countries, if not Russian or Chinese? Are descendants of Irish immigrants to America not American? Perhaps language is used differently in our respective circles. If you're born in Russia, raised in Russia, you're certainly Russian to me. A black man born in China, I'd absolutely include him in "Chinese" if the context was nationality. However, yes; Chinese is commonly used for both race and nationality, I'll give you that. > you will definitely not call people from Tibet or Uighur "Chinese", right? I will confess I am not educated enough on these regions to have an opinion here. Do Tibetans(?) identify as Chinese nationally? Or do they resent the Chinese takeover and view them as unwelcome oppressors? I think that would have a lot to do with my perspective on them (and I think maybe a lot of label-based identification comes down to perspective).
    - astkaasa 6y ago
      Blah blah blah, so the answer is no. I get it.
      - mtrower 6y ago
        ...excuse me? There’s no call for that. Why come to a discussion forum if you don’t actually want to talk? Furthermore, the answer is not “no” —- I acknowledged that your usage may be acceptable, not that mine isn’t. I explicitly stated that while you may not call those people that, I would.

That would seem to be a category error. One of those is race, two of those are nationality. Whether or not that’s a good idea depends on context. When you’re talking about matters of race, invoking race night make sense. When talking matters of nationality, invoking nation might make sense. When talking matters of nation, invoking race does not make sense. Naturally, invoking nation as a means of stereotyping and discrimination is a terrible thing as well.

astkaasa 6y ago
Actually on the daily communication context these two nationality words are used as representation of races. You probably will not call a black/white people with China nationality "Chinese". And I will present you another example if you consider the previous too rare: you will definitely not call people from Tibet or Uighur "Chinese", right?
- mtrower 6y ago
  What else would you call a person born and raised in those countries, if not Russian or Chinese? Are descendants of Irish immigrants to America not American? Perhaps language is used differently in our respective circles. If you're born in Russia, raised in Russia, you're certainly Russian to me. A black man born in China, I'd absolutely include him in "Chinese" if the context was nationality. However, yes; Chinese is commonly used for both race and nationality, I'll give you that. > you will definitely not call people from Tibet or Uighur "Chinese", right? I will confess I am not educated enough on these regions to have an opinion here. Do Tibetans(?) identify as Chinese nationally? Or do they resent the Chinese takeover and view them as unwelcome oppressors? I think that would have a lot to do with my perspective on them (and I think maybe a lot of label-based identification comes down to perspective).
  - astkaasa 6y ago
    Blah blah blah, so the answer is no. I get it.
    - mtrower 6y ago
      ...excuse me? There’s no call for that. Why come to a discussion forum if you don’t actually want to talk? Furthermore, the answer is not “no” —- I acknowledged that your usage may be acceptable, not that mine isn’t. I explicitly stated that while you may not call those people that, I would.