Hacker News Reader

Comment by commandlinefan | Hacker News Reader

I recall reading somewhere that American expats in central and south america usually employ many household servants (even paying somebody to do their grocery shopping) as it's part of the "deal" of being allowed to live in a low cost-of-living country: you can live there, but you have to spread the wealth around by employing some of the natives.

View on HN

Just me or the use of the word "natives" there just a little too reminiscent of how the term was often used in centuries past where there was no ambiguity as to the view that indigenous peoples were inferior to settlers?

Just you.

Humans are pretty good at seeing in the world whatever is on their mind or that they have fears or insecurities about. Sometimes that's the face of Jesus on a piece of toast, sometimes that's a scary figure that turns out to be a shadow, sometimes it's interpreting an innocuous word as reminiscent of injustices centuries in the past.

Still, I'd avoid probably avoid using "natives", even if it was meant purely as a neutral label. "Locals" would be better - if it really was important to mention their cultural/ethnic background, I'd use whatever term they prefer for themselves.

"Locals" would mean anyone living there, though, including immigrants. "Natives" implies people who were at least born there, and possibly the long-term traditional inhabitants of a place. "Native" is not a bad word.

Why's it important to distinguish though? It may not be an inherently bad word but given its use historically I'd still be wary of using it in the wrong context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com