Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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.

>>> This goes against popular opinion,

Indeed, just from my experience.

Speaking English?

>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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com