Hacker News Reader

>>All is not positive for the white man though. There is the 'white tax' where prices are instantly increased when a white person is the one shopping and people are always hitting them up for money because white people are perceived to be wealthy.

They're not wrong, they assume a healthy looking white man in Kenya must have money. Honestly, it's hard for me to imagine any situation where a healthy looking white man in Kenya would be poor.

Also, as a American born Nigerian myself, when I'm in Nigeria my relatives there have to do the bargaining. I might look like every other Nigerian, but the moment I open my mouth revealing my "oyinbo"(white people) accent, the price doubles for anything.

Kenyan here as well. I too lament how Kenyans always treat foreigners better than they treat their own. Your story reminds me of the time when a Chinese restaurant in Nairobi was denying entry to black Kenyans [1], and this policy had persisted for a very long time, and nobody had the courage to step up and speak about it, up until the constant media exposure embarrassed people into speaking about it. When I travel to other countries I have to deal with prejudice and racism, it is just a major drag that I experience the same in my own country.

Anecdotal contribution as well, but I've noticed that Nigerians and various other West Africans tend to be more comfortable in their own skin than Kenyans, although I'm sure you'd hear similar stories of this type from them as well.

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010690/No-blacks-Ch...

Sorry to hear that.

I imagine the 'white tax' and better 'white service' are both caused by the belief that white people are wealthier. The club might expect a wealthier person to spend more, or a security guard might expect them to tip better. So it's somewhat rational (if unfortunate) to give wealthier people preferential service.

I guess the long term solution is to reduce economic inequality between racial groups.

This is the same way in China for clubs and restaurants and such, but I think it's just for marketing.

I hate to say it, but it doesn't have to do much with race, but more of the perception of "status" of the person.

I have been in Sweden few times (I am white), and when people hear me talk, and know that I am visiting from NYC, I get a bit of more friendlier service.

Including getting in a club as a single guy, because I had a california ID, while some Swedish guys were being left outside.

Swedes have a high affinity for America in general, and are extra friendly if they hear you are from the States, and often (with some small talk) you will get preferential treatment.

In NYC you will notice this "differential" treatment according to your status every day. A simple experiment you can run: Go to a good cocktail place/bar with normal t-shirt/jeans clothes, and go to the same place dressed sharp. You will get a lot better and faster service if you are dressed really well (and your perceived status is higher), while if you are dressed like a schlub, you might not even get in the place.

I think it is not just about race, but more of the perceived status of the person. It happens that most countries in Africa have very low GDPs, while most countries in Europe, and north america (US and Canada), have very high GDP. If you are an average person from those countries, your purchasing power is higher, and hence you will be given the preferential treatment.

It becomes about race in a post colonial country where race and status are deeply intertwined; saying it is about status doesn't mean it is not also about race.

Much of this falls under the phenomenon of "internalized racism".

(This generalizes, so women can be sexist against other women; those in poverty can be classist against other poor people. To take a recent interview: "Women are always the first to discredit other women, likely because they’ve personally experienced something worse and didn’t or couldn’t speak up for themselves." https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/interview-with-julie-ann... )

When discussing racism, it's not just about racist emotions. Also about institutional outcomes, which can be impersonal.

I believe there is much more to it than meets the eye. For example, a culture that biased hiring based on gender/skin colour encourages hiring and protecting of incompetent staff. My wife dislikes one (one) of her female colleagues because she's incompetent and protected (ala political correctness). This red forces the notion of incompetence.

When I go to Asia, I may be given preferential treatment, I may not be. I have also been treated badly - other locals apologised and excused those people as racist, and I would agree.

There are many shades of distinction in these discussions. The link to Julie Ann's Article strict me as superficial, anecdotal and selective in its assessments. Like the "black doll vs white doll" tests, these are a very flimsy basis to make an assessment. How did the children go with black vs white covered books? What about black vs white rocks?

Q: why is everyone saying white man when it should be white person? I think that statement says a lot about how people think.

Okay, but I'm pretty sure in Kenya, it's partially about race. There was a story a while back about the wealthy there paying a premium to see white people do the restaurant's dirty work:

http://m.independent.mk//articles/10478/Nairobi's+Latest+Nov...

I think you might be missing the forest for the trees. Stereotyping based on race is what you're describing, and it's still racist. Someone in the US refusing to hire a black guy because black men commit crimes at a higher rate is "discriminating based on the perception of the person's criminality". That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination based on race, since their perception is deriving entirely from "that person is of a race that commits crimes at a higher rate".

What is it called when in Japan patrons (mostly Japanese men) of the pink industry pay more for Eastern Europeans versus locals or other East Asians? Is it a fetish or is it racist of them? Or is it simply "exotic"?

I assume the pink industry is prostitution? The purpose of prostitution is almost entirely paying for what someone looks like. I should hope it's clear that it's not racial stereotyping to say that eastern Europeans have eastern European features.....throw in the fact that people reasonably tend to make an exception for racial preferences when it comes to sexuality (i.e. "I'm not attracted to East Asians" gets a hell of a lot less flak than "I won't hire east Asians", in large part because it's really damn hard to override sexuality preference), and it should be clear that your question really has no bearing on what we're talking about.

Yes, that's the industry.

>is almost entirely paying for what someone looks like.

No, not nearly. There may be some aspect of that, but no, people aren't looking for long-term commitments here. Anecdotally, I've known people who will not mind dating westerners but would never commit nor have any intention of marrying them (Social conventions).

That said, my point was more about the dominant society (Japan) where men express preference superficially based on "race" over another where the compared ethnicities include non-native. But I'm saying this preference may not be based on perceived racial ranking, but rather on other reasons, rarity (exoticism) a social signal (more disposable income), etc. And so I'm saying I don't think it's certain that the (preferential) treatment of "whites" in Africa can be strictly assigned to some racial ranking.

I'm also interested to see how Chinese might come to be viewed in the coming decades in Asia as they become known for their economic prowess and as their power and influence is felt in the African continent.