Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmies | Hacker News Reader

It really surprised me that two of the books he mentioned were about the Vietnam war.

I am a Vietnamese millennial who have never experienced a day of the war and moved to the US as a college student. While most people have come to the agreement that the war is over, I have seen myself many ugly scars it left in people's minds. My friend and I would go to a Vietnamese supermarket, and after hearing that my friend was not speaking "hello, how are you" with the South Vietnamese accent (like a refugee), the cashier refused to look at or speak to her. We checked out in silence. We, as millennials, have never decided to invade the South. Our parents didn't either. We didn't fight that war, we didn't endorse that war. We don't have shit to do with it.

The war has ended 40 years yet we felt the pain every once in a while.

View on HN

The US is still not over the civil war which was 150 years ago. Stuff like this takes a very long time. I am surprised how quickly Europe moved on from WW2 but I wouldn't be surprised if old resentments from that time would flare up again in the future.

I live in the UK at the moment. They won't fucking shut up about WWI/WWII. It's one reason why the brexit negotiations have been such a mess: parts of the govt are still under the delusion that they're some sort of plucky saviour of Europe.

A few older working class specifically cited being ruled by Germany by stealth. I think that's totally ridiculous and I voted to remain, though I am a millennial and don't know life outside of the EU.

Irish tensions are resurfacing now too. A sticking point is the Irish/Northern Irish border. The government is being propped up by 10 fanatical, conservative unionist MPs (not the Tory kind) and have literally tanked what could have been significant EU progress.

Now the feeling is that the unions hold disproportionate power over the UK government and that doesn't play well with a fragile good Friday agreement.

Same story with Scotland. Now that NI potentially had single market access plus customs union, which those in power in NI didn't want, Scotland wants this too. Independence referendum was won based on "better together" and yet it seems they are now being dragged out of the EU against their will.

What a mess!

>A few older working class specifically cited being ruled by Germany by stealth. I think that's totally ridiculous

Not very ridiculous. The EU decision making process is a mess, and Germany controls the votes of many "proxy" states.

That is usch a big oversimplification it nearly makes the comment pointless.

Care to explain further for an interested American?

The EU processes are pretty complicated and limited in their powers. Each country remains sovereign and only signs up to deals they choose to so with for example the introduction of the Euro, which was mostly a French-German product, the UK and various countries chose not to join. The UK chose to join the single market which has common standards so Germany may indeed get input on our sausage standards for example but I wouldn't call that ruled by Germany.

The main things people get annoyed with in the UK are parts of the single market agreement that we signed up to such as free movement of people and the inability to cut our own independent trade deals but that stuff was there from day one.

That is not the complete truth, is it? There is a large expectation that different countries implement new laws or they could be fined for it. For example, my country implemented some data storing laws from the EU, the EU then decided that those laws were against human rights and removed them. Sweden then got fined because we still kept those laws and continued storing data on civilians that was against the human rights.

That is pretty much a bit of a special case, but I expect there exists a plethora of those special cases. Since Germany and France I believe have the most representatives (since they are the biggest countries) the thinking goes that they have more power than smaller countries such as mine.

The funny thing is that the UK is one of the biggest countries in EU in terms of population and thus have a lot of representatives in the EU parliament.

It would be unfair if smaller countries had as much representives as the bigger countries. The problem does not lie there. If the representatives decided in the interest of the country they are from and not in the interest of everybody in EU, then that is a problem.

Indeed what I wrote is a considerable simplification. Ironically the 'human rights' laws you mention and that annoy many Brexiters were largely a British thing:

>Originally proposed by Winston Churchill and drafted mainly by British lawyers, the Convention was based on the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ( https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-european-convent... )

The fact the individual countries are mostly sovereign and sign up to agreements is not that appreciated. Many have the idea that we can negotiate with Merkel/the EU and say give us free trade without free movement of people or we won't take your Mercedes and BMWs but they don't have the power to do that sort of deal. The EU trade agreements are what the 27 countries signed up to and they can't just go and change them after the event without getting everyone to sign up to a new agreement.

One of the key factors in the Scottish referendum was EU membership, with Spain having said the would veto Scottish membership. The EU referendum leaves many here feeling cheated

Spain said it would veto only if Scotland unilaterally declares independence. Big difference to what you're saying.

That's because they're nervous about two regions declaring independence from Spain, and Scotland setting a precedent. They can't permit that and be consistent domestically.

But it's ironic that Scotland got f'd over by England taking most of its petrol resources and Scotland got pretty much jack for it. So now their balance sheet may not qualify them for joining the EU alone, not dissimilar to how Greece probably wasn't but it wasn't caught in time because they cooked their books and banks looked the other way.

> Scotland got f'd over by England taking most of its petrol resources and Scotland got pretty much jack for it

Not before the recent squeeze:

the Barnett formula already allows Scotland to sustain higher levels of per capita public spending relative to the rest of the UK, which is approximately equivalent to its disproportionately high annual contribution of tax revenues to the central UK Treasury from Oil production.

However Scotland's per capita spending growth, relative to the rest of the UK, has in recent years, been nominally reduced by the operation of the Barnett formula, in order to bring public spending levels into line with the UK average, in a phenomenon that had been dubbed the "Barnett Squeeze"

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil

UK pushing hard on the multiculturalism agenda yet haven't even managed to unify Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. More variables - biting off more than they can chew.

Not sure what you mean? A big plank in Brexit rationale is restricting freedom of movement. I think some hope for a scale back on multiculturalism.

Due to once owning an overwhelming empire, I think a lot of people forget "British culture" is inherently "multicultural". A national British dish is chicken tikka masala, a curry, and nobody can tell if it was invented in India or the UK.

> "British culture" is inherently "multicultural"

This highlights the ambiguity. There is no single multi-culture - it is an adjective that can apply to many distinct mixed cultures.

Some of the pushback is because some multicultures are better than others.

As an American it was hard to relate to the fear of being ruled by Germany by stealth which it came up in the TV series Victoria because her husband Prince Albert was German - it seems fairly deeply rooted xenophobia? or something if it still gets brought up.

A huge chunk of the British Royal Family is German. Albert (of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) was Victoria's first cousin.

And at the time of the Great War, the monarchs of Britain, Germany and Russia were all first cousins.

This photo is particularly striking:

https://i.redditmedia.com/2ZKJnNVW1-Mn41TE8dqXFMten1_L6gBZ7I...

One small details from the months before the war: No one invited the greater family to the funeral of the murdered arch-duke.

Another detail near the end of the war: King George wanted to give his cousin Tsar Nicholas asylum after the Bolshevik Revolution but chose not to for political reasons.

Family eh?

> it seems fairly deeply rooted xenophobia

How does it seem that?

There's a question mark you left out in your quote because I was wondering what to call it but to express it as you ask - a sentiment by some in the country (UK) expressing a resentment or paranoia over another country (Germany) potentially having control somehow over what happens in the first country(UK) when there appears to an outsider (me) to be very little control by Angela Merkel (or whomever is in charge of Germany at this moment) of what the UK is doing or Brexit would not be happening ( at any and all costs from what I'm reading about the process favoured by the ruling party in the news)

That Brexit is happening doesn't mean Germany has no influence over the UK. Just not enough to prevent Brexit; "very little" is not the only alternative to "absolute".

>>Now the feeling is that the unions hold disproportionate power over the UK government and that doesn't play well with a fragile good Friday agreement.<<

I believe you mean that the "unionists hold disproportionate power". Your statement will, however, probably hold true after the next general election...

Yes, meant unionists. I don't agree with that though. Right now, they are feeble. That's not a good thing when really it's a body representing workers.

Productivity, wage growth in the UK is a problem. Is that going to get fixed by carrying on as we are? Should the workers not have more say?

I don't subscribe to the idea that what's best for the corporation and board of directors is what's best for everyone. Thats how we're operating. I think the next general election will change the record i.e what's best for workers, for the average person, for the sick and disabled, is ultimately best for the corporations. After all, a happy, healthy worker is a productive worker.

“Excuse me sir. Would you mind stepping over here for a moment? The delegates from the US and Russia would like to have a word in private.”

Perhaps Russia should be doing most of the talking. It paid 20X or so more in lives than the US or UK to win WWII. US and UK losses were about the same.

Data from Wikipedia.

WWWII deaths:

Russia: 20,000,000 to 27,000,000

UK and colonies: 450,900

USA: 419,400

WWII Military dead:

Russia: 8,668,000 to 11,400,00

UK and colonies: 383,700

USA: 407,300

At the time the population of the US was roughly 3X the UK, and the USSR was roughly 1.4X the US.

edit: I wondered, and found that about 25% of US casualties were in the Pacific theater. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualtie...

What terrible goddam war. Anyway, it's not like the Brits hid in a hole while the Americans saved everyone. No snarky comments at imaginary cocktail parties, please.

Since we’re giving credit where it’s due, let’s not mix the USSR and Russia. Ukraine and Belarus suffered proportionately greater losses.

>Since we’re giving credit where it’s due,

I thought this was going to be a joke about lend-lease!

Sorry about that. Too late to edit. Replace Russia with USSR in my parent post.

> It paid 20X or so more in lives

Took bad Stalin felt like he needed to match that count during his subsequent extermination of "political enemies."

"In “Europe A History,” British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties." [1]

Or doubled...

1: http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kil...

So then he exceeded his goal? Not sure that it made my previous statement any less true.. He still proceeded to kill a fuck load of citizens.

Oh no, I was agreeing with you!

Chinese deaths were quite large in number too, much more than American, French, British and German deaths, yet their role in conflict is seldom remembered.

That's very true, but in the context of the war in Europe - the current topic - that's not really relevant. China did not save Europe from the Nazis.

One could argue the price that the USSR paid had a lot to do with their lack of military prowess. They won by using their citizens as cannon fodder.

A great example is the Battle of Kursk. A defining moment when Germany lose as offensive capabilities in the East. It was a decisive win for the USSR, but the casualty numbers are astounding.

German loses - ~54,000 deaths USSR loses - ~180,000 deaths

> It paid 20X or so more in lives than the US or UK to win WWII

The USSR's plan was to invade the whole of Europe anyway (Stalin was preparing for it well before Operation Barbarossa started - you can look it up, they had the largest tank division in the world back in the 30s, well above Germany, and with much more powerful tanks that were obviously not going to be used for peaceful purposes).

So presenting them as "allied forces" has always felt amusing to me. They showed their true colors anyway right after Germany's defeat.

The "Icebreaker" theory has been thoroughly debunked. It has no support among credible historians. And yes, they were building up their military in the 30's. They would have been complete idiots not to.

USSR entered WWII on Hitler's side.

"Is it true, in the last war, the only thing the Americans charged was the 10% on the money they lent us?", Corporal Jones.

"The American delegate is here? Late as usual"

Keep them coming...I love dragging up the old jokes

As someone else who currently lives in the UK, this is not true.

Which part?

>>> won't fucking shut up about WWI/WWII

That part. It was a long time ago.

If you think about it, if it were a pattern, WWIII should have happened around 1967. Instead (because of the bomb?) we got 50+ more years of peace.

They most definitely will not shut up about WWI/II; it's less an explicit verbosity than an assumed (and completely unwarranted) superiority.

I know a bunch of British people who've visited the continent, and the only place they could think of to visit was Normandy, Dunkirk or the Somme. Their entire mental framing of Europe is around the wars, and their grandparents or great-grandparents. And the poppies! Always with the poppies.

Insularity is real and many people, possibly a majority, outside the major metro areas are deeply incurious. The wars are the biggest semantic nodes in their heads associated with Europe, followed swiftly by something about bent bananas from Brussels.

If you look at the tourist habits of the typical British person, you will find that those examples are highly atypical. I don't think you'll find that the vast hordes going to Ibiza every year are "framing Europe around the wars".

Secondly it is a bit insulting to blithely state that anyone from a non-metropolitan area is some sort of country bumpkin thicko.

I'm not saying they're country bumpkin thickos. I'm saying they're insular and incurious; that says nothing about how smart they are. They can be outstanding in their field; their fields just aren't very worldly.

It's not even ignorance, per se; it's disinterest, combined with prejudice, in the literal sense of judged before the evidence.

The kids going to Ibiza are just visiting a sunny British resort with funny accents. I'd barely consider that abroad, for the amount of cultural adjustment it entails.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement that people who don't live in major cities are insular and incurious. This is just plain and simple snobbery and as far as I can tell there's nothing to back it up.

Secondly, I wouldn't even say British holiday making habits are especially different to those of other major European nations. If you want to paint a picture of the UK being uniquely backwards and insular then fine, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything outside snobbery and prejudice.

It is easy to claim that people you disagree with have all kinds of moral faults, but in doing so you become what you affect to criticise.

I'm from the north of England. Have genuinely heard people blame the Norman invasion and following anti-northen polices for issues.

Are they blaming the Roman invasion for anything?

You mean, besides roads, sanitation, medicine, education, irrigation, public health, freshwater system, baths, public order and peace. Or was that a different country?

Hey, the Romans never reached all the way to Cornwall and yet we still have... at least like, 1/2 of those.

In what way does the UK talk about WW1/WWII? In Australia the Anzac story seems to be pushed harder and harder every year.

If you want to know more about the ANZAC push, there's a good book about this glorification of Anzacs as a political means: 'What's wrong with ANZAC?' by Reynolds/Lake

There's a review here: https://overland.org.au/2010/07/non-fiction-review-%E2%80%93...

That was only 72 years ago.

To be fair the situation with WWII is even worse in Russia. It still is an absolutely religious topic over there.

The most amazing change in relationships happened between France and Germany. After having fought against each other for centuries they have developed a very close partnership. Germans love French culture/wine/food, French people admire Germany’s economic success.

PS: yes I know, all anecdotal

Although when you get to areas close to the German border you still can feel the resentment from time to time. Can't really blame them after WW1 and 2. But overall I have been treated extremely well as a German all over Europe (and the world). This often surprises me.

Only superficially.

Not that amazing. Vichy France was an ally of Nazi Germany

Are you implying that the Vichy government made the typical French citizen more friendly toward Germany? I'm not French and I wasn't there, but that seems... unlikely.

How easily we forget the Carolingian Empire.

> The most amazing change in relationships happened between France and Germany.

I think we tend to forget that wars are started by governments, not people. People usually have no hatred for people beyond their borders. Hatred is created through politics and brainwashing.

To start a war government needs the support from a significant part of the people. Sure, they are brainwashed, yet that doesn't make them blameless.

> To start a war government needs the support from a significant part of the people

There's a bunch of recent wars that had virtually no widespread popular support. Vietnam, Iraq, Syria... it does not seem to be a necessary condition anymore for any military action.

Nope, personal experience can lead to hate in individuals, or questioning their hate. People form opinions based on the examples they see. If the examples are bad, there is no need for any propaganda to instigate hate.

The Germans seem to have moved on; they weren't given a choice, I think. From what I can tell, they've put a lot of thought and effort into coming to terms with the role their ancestors played in the first half of the 21st century, and the generation born after the beginning of the 80's, at least, seems admirably sane.

The rest of Europe definitely seems to cling to nationalist illusions of some form or another, still.

Edit: I should note, an entire supranational governmental entity/trade alliance was put in place to ensure Europe moves on. It is now called the European Union. After WW2, a lot of effort went into making sure WW3 doesn't start in Europe. We'll see how that goes now that the EU seems to be struggling...

>The Germans seem to have moved on; they weren't given a choice, I think. From what I can tell, they've put a lot of thought and effort into coming to terms with the role their ancestors played in the first half of the 21st century, and the generation born after the beginning of the 80's, at least, seems admirably sane.

You'd be surprised.

Not only the didn't de-nazify their higher echelons for decades post-war (tons of the establishment, politicians, business and media moguls, etc, being the same pre/war Nazi elite and sympathizers), but they've never leaved that superiority mindset either.

Turkish immigrants have yet to be fully accepted and integrated there, except nominally -- after 50+ years.

The far-right wing party AfD scored a big hit these elections: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/24/german...

And that's the tip of the iceberg. E.g.

"More than 60% of the hate mail came from well-educated Germans, including university professors, according to their study, “The Language of Hostility Towards Jews in the 21st Century,” released earlier this year. Only 3% came from right-wing extremists."

https://forward.com/news/world/188764/german-hate-mail-comes...

Oh well. I'll admit my sample group of Germans is probably not terribly representative, as it consists mainly of art students and design professionals.

Yeah, those kind of circles would have been against the Nazi's even during the 1930's anyway.

I'm not sure of that. More than a few intellectuals supported the regime.

Hitler was an art student, Mussolini a journalist.

No way. The Nazis had supporters from all professions including many scientists, artists and philosophers.

Yes, that is indeed quite true. And, we tend not to talk about it too much these days, but they even had supporters in other countries too (including the US), who admired the changes brought by Hitler as he ascended to power. Of course, hindsight changes everything.

Similarly, communism in Russia / USSR had plenty of support in western intellectual circles in the early XX century and well past WWII - despite evidence being available that horrible things happen there to regular people.

I think you're confusing the words communism and fascism.

And in the UK. Indeed it seems that the UK government were very close indeed to forming a pact with Hitler.

There was a UK facist movement, and the Daily Mail newspaper(still going) ran the headline 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts', the blackshirts were the UK facists. It is a liberal joke to call them the 'Daily Heil' in return for this.

It just goes to demonstrate the absurdity of the idea of a country being good or bad. People are good or bad, not the rocks they stand on.

> And in the UK. Indeed it seems that the UK government were very close indeed to forming a pact with Hitler.

I don't know how close they were, but Hitler was clearly an admirer of the British Empire, and highly respected them (before the war broke out). He was led to believe that invasion of Poland would not cause France nor England to declare war on Germany (despite the existence of the alliances). Even after the war broke out, there were multiple cases where he tried to negotiate peace with the British Empire, but then Churchill was in power and was dead against the idea.

Don't be so harsh. The Nazi-mindset does not have any support in the German society anymore.

The scepticism of taking in the refugees is certainly politically "right" but not Nazi-level at all and many people that voted for the AfD party just did that out of protest.

The integration of the Turkish immigrants is another topic entirely; don't forget that mostly the most uneducated, rural people came.

You should know better than me that the 'anti-nazi' mentality is there and it's strong, so much that people don't even want to become policemen because it's often associated with this nazi thinking, although it's totally wrong. And yes, I have seen nazis in the streets, but you can't change life - society has right and left wings extremists always. You can try to make it better, sure.

The problems you talk about are different, and they are due to several factors, one of them being the fact that Germany never had a proper immigration law. It all started out of needs and this created differences in how migrants were treated: do you really want to compare the life of a Turkish migrant to the one of a Nigerian or Indian migrant? You simply can't. Because they don't have to follow the same rules. At least not in the past, not sure about nowadays.

Also, as for the integration. Seriously, this is a country that doesn't ask of you anything. Anything at all except that you of course speak a little the language. It offers everyone the same chances equally. Now, the main issue here is that in the past the greatest amount of immigrants were low educated people who didn't actually do anything to help their own kids become someone different, to study etc. The ones who did now are certainly in better positions. The so called 2nd and 3rd generation of migrants.

Regarding the anti-jews part, unfortunately that's something I can hardly understand. I simply don't get these people hating them, educated or not.

The superiority mindset in my opinion is due to the way they work and they are structured. It can often be confused with arrogance, I myself made such mistakes, but I think that this is simply the way many people think. Let's not forget that Germans used to have a highly hierarchical structure. And let's not forget that it's also thanks to that mentality that they were the first in all Europe to recover from the war. All other countries are still suffering from it, while they rolled up their sleeves and worked hard. I assume you are a foreigner like me. I suggest you to make some German friends who are open about this sort of topics, because not all people are, and ask them.

Your last paragraph doesn’t quite capture the whole picture. Germany didn’t rebuild into an economic powerhouse on its own. I’m no expert but even with a little search it’s clear that there were many macro economic actions taken by the allies to rebuild the entire continent. Now, you can say that Germany people maximized that assistance. But their actions alone didn’t create the outcome. And is it true that they were the first to recover?

> Germany didn’t rebuild into an economic powerhouse on its own. As almost all other European countries after WW2 [0].

> And is it true that they were the first to recover?

Well, I can say for certain that after WW2 lots of people migrated from their countries to find "wealth", or simply an opportunity, in Germany, so, I'd say that maybe they were not the first, ok, but among the first ones, which says a lot about the country and how determined and good at planning these people used to be already 60-70 years ago. They were the ones who created the brand "made in Germany" without registering it anywhere, which the current generation abuses to make money (by producing in China...yeah). If you like that brand, then you must also understand that it comes with a price - and this is not necessarily openness, being easy, relaxed, laid back, etc.

I think we (nowadays) often make the mistake of underestimating the impact that culture has/had in the progress of a society, which is sad, because it's an important aspect of any society. Denying what and how something happened doesn't falsify it.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Poland as one example gets very upset from time to time regarding Germany and WW2. I forget the exact context now, I think it was involving the Penrose voting suggestion (or shortly after that). Germany upset Poland in a debate over how to determine voting weights. Poland's response was an angry point about how they'd have a lot more people if it weren't for Germany.

Poland, Greece and other states that have _huge_ internal problems does use the Nazi trick---not that surprising. Its a clear sign that something is not working correctly in their own countries.

The Nazi-similes from brexit politicians is also a clear sign that someone has run out of _good_ arguments. Promise too much, and then when it is obvious that you can not deliver, the other part is Nazis.

What huge internal problems in Poland are you referring to? I'm genuinely curious, because the situation in Poland is quite stable (single party government), the economy is growing and we don't have migration problems like Germany or France.

Surely you mean an 'immigration' problem. Poland must surely have suffered for the massive emigration of young working people to the rest of Europe. We in the UK have been paying the pensions gap with the toil of Polish people for a number of years.

The single party government.

Google "democracy Poland".

Could you elaborate? Are you implying that government in Poland is undemocratic?

Isn’t it very common for democracies to have a government created by a single party (provided it got enough votes)?

> I am surprised how quickly Europe moved on from WW2

People have "forgotten" about WW2 because of the terrible threat of the Cold War that ensued leading to half of Europe being under USSR occupation/control.

There's a bit of cyclic thing going on here. Wars are emotive and are effective tools to manipulate people's opinions. Politicians often keep old conflicts (real or imaginary) alive to consolidate their support base. So while they are in themselves "raw wounds" for many people, they do have a lot of help in staying that way from people in who's advantage this is.

I can only speak about France and Germany, but we didn't move quickly from our past. We made a conscious effort "this can't be sustained, let's be friends" and worked toward that goal. It didn't come naturally. It required sacrifices.

Still today, both side of the border, if someone attack that friendship either media or politician, they get flamed back into shutting up.

We know what our friendship is worth, but we didn't just have it one day, we built it.

That's why I think Japan attitude to ww2 is misguided.

I went to Hanoi 10 years ago. First thing I tried to do was to get new batteries for my camera but the cashier (really old lady) just told me "Fk you, you fking American!" and gave me the finger.

First and only time I have been subjected to racism as a white european guy. Obviously not in a serious way, but was still interesting as an experience.

Maybe it wasn't racism, maybe she went through hell during the war, lost relatives/parents/kids; frankly, why should she be nice? Would you be automatically capable of being nice to individual Germans, when their army massacred your relatives, 40 years after it happened?

Treating someone badly because of what ethnicity they have is racism, yes, even if they might have reasons for feeling that way.

American is not a race.

The poster explicitly mentions not being American. And "White American" is an ethnic category.

But she says she thinks he is!

And she didn’t say white anything. Might have done the same with anybody she takes as an American of any color and shade.

That's racism.

It’s anti americanism.

Was it racism? Ia "American" a race?

Sounds like discrimination based on nationality.

Useless pedantry is unhelpful.

The use of “racism” to describe prejudice against traits other than inborn ones, such as nationality or ethnicity, goes back many decades and this is well recognized except by pedants. Take a look at the OED entry for “racist”.

> Maybe it wasn't racism, maybe she went through hell during the war, lost relatives/parents/kids;

That's not presenting an explanation of how it would not be racism, that's presenting an explanation of the manner in which the racism was formed. And, yes, racism usually forms based on negative experience (either personal or relayed through others, some of which may be intentionally or unintentionally distorting events) of either specific target races or “not-like-me” races generally.

And, it's cyclical, because racism contributes to such experiences in others when it is put into action.

Racism implies race. I am pretty sure she would go along with other white nations that weren't involved, likely viewing Russians favorably. You can probably call it anti-americanism (or anti-usanianism if you are British). She didn't call him "gringo" nor "farang".

> Racism implies race.

“Racism” is well-established for discrimination by race or ethnicity (the distinction between which is entirely arbitrary, anyway.)

Seeing as American isn’t a race or ethnicity, it would seem the commenter is correct in saying this isn’t a case of racism.

It is in that she assumed he was American because he was white though.

We do not know that the cashier’s assumption of his Americanness was based entirely on what she perceived to be his race. What is probably most true is that her mind, based on a large dataset, “guessed” his Americanness and that his race may have had as much to do with that guess as his shoes (probably wearing sneakers, as American tourists tend to), his hat, glasses, shorts, phone, etc. Ever been to Europe as a white male American? They can tell you apart from white male Europeans instantly (usually from your shoes).

Edit: words and grammar.

Most Americans have an accent and manner of speech than makes them stand out.

And in Europe, while we learn British English in school, we actually hear American English through music, TV, videogames, etc. So a typical English speaker from continental Europe will likely sound more like an American than like someone from the UK.

How did she determine that they were American? By making assumptions based in appearance or voice?

Most likely his good manners (not being sarcastic). I genuinely find Americans to be more polite and friendly than any other nationality, generally speaking.

This goes against popular opinion, I know, but it has been my experience.

>>> This goes against popular opinion,

Indeed, just from my experience.

I think this depends greatly on where you go, as more invested travelers tend to handle themselves more responsibly. For example, this might be more noticeable in many parts of southern Europe dominated by other European tourists (thanks to cheaper flights). Less traveled Americans tend not to visit these places, so the Americans that do visit are more considerate and polite.

That's a good point and certainly I've not encountered that many Americans in Spain, where I live at the moment. Those I have met tend to be 19 - 25 year age group, studying the language rather than your average tourist.

However, I have visited the States once and was very much impressed by how approachable and friendly people are - much more so than anywhere else I have been (border control staff excepted, of course).

I know a few people who say they hate Americans but, when pressed, they usually admit not having much of a reason that's based in any sort of reality. In other words, they have never been there and haven't met that many in real life.

Speaking English?

I mean, just definitionally, "racism" requires a notion of superiority. I know we use that word to serve a million tiny, individual purposes now, but "I don't like Americans because my country was once involved in a horrific war with Americans" isn't racism.

Again, just definitionally; that's not what that word means.

Fine, bigotry, then. Doesn't make it better.

Really? I don’t believe you. “I don’t like Americans because my country was once involved in a horrific war with Americans” is the same to you as “the African people are genetically fit to be slaves”?

When everything is equally bad, then nothing’s any worse than anything else. I think that second statement is clearly worse than the first and, as an ideology, has implications that are orders of magnitude more awful.

Never did I equate any of those things; please don't put words in my mouth. Bigotry is also bad, but in different ways. Systemic racism is in general worse, but that doesn't make bigotry ok or ignorable.

> I mean, just definitionally, "racism" requires a notion of superiority

Viewing an identity group as morally inferior (and yours, therefore, as superior) based on what some members of that identity group did in the past does involve a notion of superiority.

This plainly doesn't follow. Again, just using the ordinary definitions of ordinary words, not liking Americans because your country once fought a horrific war with them does not imply that you think you're a superior race of people.

On the one hand, this is a very silly debate and I don't know why I'm having it. But on the other, I don't really understand this new impulse to widen the tent doors of racism so that we can definitionally have more of it and maybe if I did understand that I'd have less to disagree about with people on the Left with whom I'm otherwise politically sympatico.

>That's not presenting an explanation of how it would not be racism, that's presenting an explanation of the manner in which the racism was formed.

The explanation about it not being racist is simple: this has nothing to do with your race, and more with what your people and army did to them.

Others with the same race as you, but different nationality, wouldn't haven't gotten the same treatment, thus, not racist.

Given the arbitrary nature of "race", this strikes me as splitting hairs. We group so many races under the umbrella of "white" that I think it's fairly safe to include discrimination against "the other" as racism, but that just shows the arbitrariness of race as a classification.

Well, if the other's country has bombed yours, when you've done nothing to them, and you were 10,000 miles away from their borders, then it's quite safe to assume non race-based motivations for hating them too...

I agree, we need a better word for that. When Poles complain about Germans because our grandparents were killed by their grandparents in WWII, you don't call this "racism", because there's no racial or ethnic difference. The situation here is similar - it's resentment because of a military invasion.

> When Poles complain about Germans because our grandparents were killed by their grandparents in WWII, you don't call this "racism", because there's no racial or ethnic difference.

There is, in fact, an ethnic difference between Germans and Poles. On the other hand, you are correct that people often don't describe something as racism if they feel it is justified (or at least excusable) based on history.

It still is racism, and a lot of what is described as racism has similar roots; people are highly selective (and often racist) on which ethnic bigotries they describe as “racism”.

>you are correct that people often don't describe something as racism if they feel it is justified (or at least excusable) based on history.

They also don't describe something as racism if it's not based on race.

>It still is racism, and a lot of what is described as racism has similar roots; people are highly selective (and often racist) on which ethnic bigotries they describe as “racism”.

It seems like you fall into the error of describe something as racism if you feel it is not justified and non-excusable, not caring one iota whether it has to do with race or not.

Most ethnic bigotries are totally unrelated to race. And not forgiving some country for bombing yours, or gasing your parents in concentration camps is not an "ethnic bigotry" anyway.

Yes, of course. Modern Germany is a moral leader of the world. German culture did massive soul searching after the war.

Would you do that without Germany's soul searching? Or would they do soul searching if they won or the war ended up in tie? Would you be easily willing to forgive?

Japan lost the war, yet they still can not educate their population about the horrors performed in Korea and China. They pretend nothing happened. That kind of response does not foster forgiveness. Germany on the other hand _really_ have taken a responsible path after the war, and I also believe there is an understanding (at least in northern and western Europe) that a big part of the blame that Hitler could take power was on the victors of the first world war (England and maybe more France).

I guess better forgiveness for German aggression are due to good behaviour from post-war Germany, okay education in north and western Europe, and also that Germany behaved _relatively_ good on the western front. Of course it will take longer for eastern Europe mostly due to the extreme ugliness of the eastern front, and the huge economic differences.

This is not about Germany, please don't get defensive and apologetic ;-) Please read my comment again and substitute Germany for some other nation. Would that change your perspective? What post-war Germany did is admirable; now we are discussing two other nations which don't adhere to the same principles and don't go to same great lengths to fix it. Germany was used just as an example of a "repentant nation" which might deserve forgiveness. Would that be different if you weren't a repentant nation, which was the previous question?

I am not defensive, even though it might sound so, you see I am not German, in fact, my grandfather did flee Nazi Germany. I believe they deserve credit for how they are handling their history.

Many countries have done terrible things and then lost wars and empires. How many of them unambiguously and thoroughly confronted their past, memorialised it, sought to make amends with their victims, and then built an entire state centered on protecting those principles whose violation was their business a few decades ago. It's practically unheard of.

The amends with victims are, at least in case of Polish people, more of an excuse than anything else. For example - my grandma’s father was bestially exploited and murdered in Auschwitz, leaving her without a father at the age of nine. Moreover, Germans closed the school around the same time, which left her uneducated for life. Add years of stress and malnutrition (hunger) as a child on top of that. If US government did such thing to its citizen, the damages awarded in court would be astronomical. Meanwhile, my granda got exactly $0 from the German government. And there are millions of people like her. So, when I hear about Germans making amends, I call it more a propaganda in action than anything else.

> Would you be automatically capable of being nice to individual Germans, when their army massacred your relatives, 40 years after it happened?

Um... yes? I'd be pretty ashamed and disappointed in myself if not. I think I know the difference between the actions of a government versus the beliefs and values held by any particular individual, even if they lived under that government. Not to mention the fact that people are not responsible for the sins of their ancestors.

Also 10 years ago and nothing but nice people and real friendly towards me and my group. We didn't speak English though.

Although it's perhaps unfortunate that this was her reaction, on other hand I think it's frankly pretty amazing how quickly some countries, such as Vietnam, start welcoming tourists from countries that they recently had very unpleasant wars with.

As someone who has been living in Vietnam for the last 7+ years, my bullshit meter is pegged to maximum.

I have some connections with people back in Vietnam. While the situation was extremely unlikely and most unfortunate, I can imagine this happening. There are many grandmas and grandpas who own shops that don't care about profits in Hanoi.

I was visiting my old neighbors living in the countryside when I came back a couple of years ago. That particular gentleman is a farmer and he has one finger blown off while he was cutting a bomb or something. When I was growing up he has a little pond in front of his house, it's literally called the bomb pond. He has many people in his family killed in a bombing campaign. He told me something like "You're learning from the imperialist USA, I wish you the best. They know many that we don't." So he does hold a certain unfavorable view about the US, but I don't see that he would go as far as being hostile if, say, I take my US friends to him.

This doesn't address the rest of your comment, but I have a theory about the presence of Vietnam War books on this list. Ken Burns and co. released their multi-part series on the Vietnam War this year: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-vietnam-war/episodes/ That has likely contributed to an uptick in general interest in the subject.

In the southern US I have atteneded rich old southern parties where it is traditional to have a toast to "the confederacy/south rising again"

Yeah the old pre-civil war government who's main ideological difference was that slavery should be legal. People are just nutcases in general.

My guess is that it isn't really about slavery or the actual Confederacy - it's just a proxy for "we want to be rich and for our region to be important again". Basically the same reason here in Poland people are digging through history, and probably why every place ever brings up their own things from the past.

Totally agree. At age 14 I moved from Michigan to small town southern Virginia, where I lived on and off for the next 20 years. So I have some sense of the contrast between north and south.

I think most Southerners don't reminisce for the "good old plantation days" as much for a sense of identity and a reason to be proud of who they are and respect for their heritage. It's not the Confederacy (per se) that they identify with; it's "being a southerner", and hailing from a specific state (though I suspect few could describe how their state's history is distinct from other southern states any more).

Tradition has long been much bigger in the South than the North. Southerner are less likely to move away from the South than Northerners move from the North. And I think social status is also more important there; honorific titles have long held more sway (e.g. Colonel Sanders), as has the tradition of serving in the military and hailing from a long military lineage.

IMHO, the Confederacy is mostly just a a "high water mark" for southern identity and independent spirit, but not especially meaningful in defining their values today.

You have to be an idiot to think Southern Pride is based on slavery being legal.

I just watched Gone with the wind, and I realized real life is much more nuanced than just 'slavery being legal.' Planning to read the book whenever I have time.

Originally I am from the South but I have lived throughout the US and overseas - New Mexico, Idaho, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Turkey and I have traveled through Europe (western/eastern), Asia and the Middle East etc...

Southern Pride is about heritage where both black and white people are fond of their Southern roots. Southern culture is distinctive, containing certain mannerisms, language and traditions, distinct from the rest of the US. Cultural nuances occur regardless of place, though they are more noticeable in the South.

Now is the south racist? Yes, but every person everywhere carries a certain level of racism or a level of prejudice. It is human nature, biological I would argue, a mechanism to protect ourselves. Eastern Europe was noticeably prejudice of anyone they didn't know. I took their distrust based from living under the Iron Curtain for many years. Attempting conversation in their language broke many barriers but not always, which I understood so I went on with my business.

I think your case is rare and such person would hold an extreme political view which exists in any culture. I live in Anaheim, Orange County, the biggest Vietnamese community here in the US for 15+ years, and I haven't experienced that. I've been through other Vietnamese communities also and I haven't seen such attitude either. Vietnam War has been a wound to the Vietnamese that would never heal. The new Vietnamese generation after the war rarely think about it except the Vietnamese outside of Vietnam including myself.

Part of my family is Jewish. I went to my cousin's wedding and the rabbi spent about 20 minutes talking about the Holocaust. At a wedding. Wars leave permanent scars.

More Soviets were victims of Holocaust than Jews, yet modern popular imagination of Holocaust appears to be as an exclusively Jewish tragedy.

Do you mean more Soviets died fighting the war than Jews were rounded up and exterminated? Because that is not at all the same thing.

I was referring to the large numbers of Soviet POWs and civilians who were killed in concentration camps and in mass executions.

Its definitely worth remembering. But i think the reason its more particularly associated with Jews is it represented the culmination of thousands of years of persecution, ultimately resulting in an attempt to literally wipe them from the earth. That, and the fact that the Russian's managed to both resist and ultimately defeat the Nazi's, probably cements the more generalized view of what happened.

I have many relatives who work in a nail salons with a mix of both northern/southern vietnamese. Northern vietnamese gets teased over liking dog meat and having an accent. But I don't think there's any actual hate and more of a cultural and language difference. Kind of how city folks don't get along with hillbillies/rednecks? They will still get together to talk shit about anyone not vietnamese.

Oh Hello, I found your reply on one of my posts awhile ago. At first I was puzzled, but then I recognised the writing style. It's nice that you were able to stay in the States. I am still in Vietnam advocating for FLOSS and GNU/Linux, and also the sole OpenSUSE user in a company full of MBPs.

Glad to hear you're doing well and cheers that we still recognize each other on this international forums :)

He's a baby boomer so though he was much too young to go it was likely still influential as he grew up.

He was too young, but not by much. Gates was born 1955-10-28. The war ended 1973-01-27. Gates was then 17 years, 92 days old, so only 272 days too young to be drafted.

He definitely would have been quite aware of the Vietnam war, not just as a current event, but as something that he might very well have to either fight in or take active steps to avoid.

Heck, I'm about 5 years younger than him, and even kids my age were quite aware of that possibility. For us, this was something that we had seen on the evening news for as far back as we could remember. We knew people whose older brothers had gone. Our schools had plaques or other memorials to recent graduates who had died there. We had no reason to expect that it would not still be going on in six or seven years when we were draft age.

Interesting, maybe those scars are part of why it takes this long to see better histories.

I think US-Vietnam war books and documentaries are also popular now because of the parallels to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other traumas today.

Which city were you in when the South Vietnamese cashier refused to talk and look at you? I've been to various Vietnamese community (New York, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, admittedly NOT California yet), and it has never been an issue.

Just curious how our experiences differ. I very much think that the Vietnam War isn't as big a factor in people's daily, commercial life anymore.

It was in St Louis. I would say that was extreme. But I understand that -- if my family was killed in the war or on the way fleeing, I might never get over it.

Maybe this isn't the time/place, but after visiting Hanoi and being surprised by the differences in cuisine I found I was wondering how much Vietnamese food in the US is it's own thing vs mostly just South Vietnamese food.

> The war has ended 40 years

Even if you have nothing to do with the war, it may be good for you to understand how horrible it actually was (especially for Vietnamese people). That kind of thing will leave scars for a very, very long time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com