Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

The traditional definition of “racism” focuses on treating individuals differently because of their immutable characteristics. Democrats have turned that concept on its head, to encompass opposing cultural change to a community from mass migration of people from foreign cultures. Regarding the specific example, the “food versus pet” distinction is a core one in any culture.[1] Vance’s story aptly illustrates the cultural friction that’s happening. Stephen Colbert would call it “truthy.”

[1] When I was a kid, my muslim immigrant mom told me not to marry a white girl because “they eat snakes.” I married a white girl, and she had in fact eaten a snake before. Culture is a real thing that exists, and it’s okay to prefer your own!

View on HN

This so-called traditional definition returns too many false negatives. It would exclude, for example, the inflammatory newspapers of the Jim Crow era. Americans learned with tragic regularity in the Post-Reconstruction era why spreading racial rumors is so reckless. It doesn’t matter to the moral calculus that the rumors were "truthy." The norm against expressing racial prejudice predates the most recent party realignment; it's amply represented in WW2 training materials. This is not a new thing.

We live in 2025, not 1875. The sentiments we’re talking about aren’t rooted in “racial prejudice” constructed to maintain a slave society. They’re rooted in the same reaction that folks would have if tens of thousands of desperately poor Appalachians were resettled in a small town in Vermont or Massachusetts. It’s not antipathy over in immutable characteristics, but actual differences in the aggregate behavior of large groups of foreigners as compared to the existing population.

Democrats’ modern definition takes the social norm against declaring people inferior based on immutable characteristics and uses it to bash through cultural relativism and suppress criticism of cultural change. People have a moral right to use democratic means to create the kind of society they want to live in, and that includes policies to promote and protect their cultural preferences.

This analysis would seem to exonerate even Pat Buchanan, who by the 1990s had learned to couch all his rhetoric in terms of culture rather than race.

> I think God made all people good. But if we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them in Virginia, which group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?

Nevertheless, his comments drew contemporary accusations of racism. So how modern are we talking about? This was well-trod discourse in 1992.

Buchanan and Vance had every possible culture to draw from to make their points, but they reached for Zulus and Haitians, two nations of Black people whose most famous historical event is a somewhat-successful war against White people. It strains credulity that this messaging is not fine-tuned to the electorate.

> We live in 2025, not 1875.

Soon you'll get to relive 1875, but now with cell phones.

> Culture is a real thing that exists, and it’s okay to prefer your own!

Yes, it is. There is quite the leap from "preferring your own" to lying about a specific group are doing something morally objectionable, in order to reinforce your campaign's anti-immigration messaging, though.

And yes, it is racist to lie about a group of people you don't like to make them sound worse so that other people don't like them too.

Like it was racist when Nazis said that Jews control the world and ate children and whatever nonsense you can think of.

Targeting a specific group of people's immutable characteristics to slander them to paint them negatively fits your "original" definition of racism. The couch fucker treated them differently, by lying that they specifically are eating pets.

> Targeting a specific group of people's immutable characteristics to slander them to paint them negatively fits your "original" definition of racism

Nobody targeted anyone’s immutable characteristics. If you object to 10,000 Appalachians being resettled in your New England town, that’s not “racism.” It’s an objection based on not wanting them to do to your town what they did to their hometowns in Appalachia. It’s about peoples’ culture and how that manifests in the communities they create.

I think this is hard for liberals to understand because they’re so steeped in cultural relativism. They assume that cultural differences cannot be substantive—cannot shape the communities people create in substantive ways. So they cannot understand why anyone would object to mass settlement of culturally distinct groups except out of prejudice against immutable characteristics. Oddly, they seem to have this blind spot only for non-white people. Most would agree that West Virginia is the way it is because of West Virginians. But Bangladesh isn’t the way it is because of Bangladeshis, and it’s “racist” to suggest that importing 50,000 Bangladeshis to an enclave in the US would recreate dynamics that prevail in Dhaka.

Being a Haitian immigrant is an immutable characteristic. That aside, these were legal immigrants welcomed by the city and assimilating into the community, used as a scapegoat with a baseless conspiracy to stir anger on a campaign trail. I’m not sure what about this incident is defensible but it has nothing to do with culture. Are you being intentionally provocative or do you really believe this?

> But Bangladesh isn’t the way it is because of Bangladeshis, and it’s “racist” to suggest that importing 50,000 Bangladeshis to an enclave in the US would recreate dynamics that prevail in Dhaka

And that's fine to say. However, it isn't acceptable to invent a story that these Bangladeshis are eating pets with the goal to get everyone else to hate them though, especially when the place in question actually majority likes them, and was even asking for extra resources to help them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com