Hacker News Reader

Comment by fareesh | Hacker News Reader

- Indian is not a race (see my other comment)

- Even if you use the broader definition to include nationality, in this case, the "hackers" are physically located in the geopolitical boundaries of India

- Nearly every major country with a large enough population has people in whitehat/blackhat infosec professions. It is an incredible reach to suggest that newspapers should not identify the national origin of these individuals because of what some racist readers might start to believe or become biased towards, by drawing non-existent lines to patterns that don't exist except in their own bubbles. Editorial standards and responsibility should not be driven by the weakest minds.

View on HN

I wasn't making any argument about this specific case (which I didn't mention at all), just pointing out that "recipient of racism (or anything similar like sexism or xenophobia) doesn't notice = there was no racism" isn't a valid argument.

Definition of racism that includes nationality is not "broader". It is the definition of racism. It is also very common form of racism worldwide.

The only prominent definition one could cite which includes national origin is the one used by the United Nations

Popular dictionaries (Webster/Oxford) don't include national origin

"Indian" is not just an national identity but also an ethnic one. A person of Indian origin born in America or the UK is still very easily identifiable and is identified by their Indian identity.

The usage of the word "racism" to include xenophobia is common enough in a casual context that I cannot believe that you are simply not aware of that usage. By choosing to argue over the semantics of the word racism over usage you probably already are familiar with, you are diverting attention from what really matters here: that said racism or xenophobia exists and negatively affects real human beings.

If you need such a broad term, use the word 'bias'. Racism has a specific meaning, people are holding to account for a reason.

Good luck trying to control how people use language. I was just saying that it was already a common enough usage that you should be aware of it, even if you disagree with that usage.

It is not an ethnic identity (see my other comment)

Did you read my justification for saying that it is also an ethnic identity. It was literally the next sentence.

Has common usage subsumed any geography-based xenophobia into the word “racism”?

(Not that any xenophobia is particularly better than any other, but it’s difficult to talk to people when they use broader meanings for words you thought meant very specific thing. See also terrorism vs insurgency, genocide vs occupation, etc.)

Racism as something based on skin color only would make Nazi basically not racists in their worst acts. Cause their racism was literally Aryan race against all other races - Slavic, Jews (European Jews where white, the physical features were like somewhat bigger nose), British, French. With Jews on the bottom, as the wort enemy worst then blacks. And they would not care a bit about different kind of Indians either.

If anything, attempts to redefine racism as only American variant where it is all about shades of color is redefinition.

And obviously, ethnicity and geography goes with races.

Yes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com