Hacker News Reader

Comment by shantanubala | Hacker News Reader

This is an excellent example of why you should never use Twitter to have a nuanced discussion.

It depends on your definition of racism, and most scholarly definitions are "power and prejudice." In other words, a white person who is in the majority has more power than a black person (think Silicon Valley[1]), so the actual impact of the prejudice has a greater magnitude that turns it into "racism."

The commonly-used definition of racism, though, is basically the same as prejudice.

[1] NOTE: If it is a black person in a position of power (CEO) exercising prejudice against white people, then it would also be classified as racism.

View on HN

> It depends on your definition of racism

racism - dictionary

1.The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

2.Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

This is the original definition of the word - 1 year ago, 10 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago.

The redefinition of racism is merely a fabrication meant to suit someone elses particular agenda, or to get you to submit to their particular argument or point-of-view.

> The redefinition of racism is merely a fabrication meant to suit someone elses particular agenda, or to get you to submit to their particular argument or point-of-view.

A dictionary only outlines common usage (it does not provide context), and I indicated the common usage in my comment as well. If you ever want to make a nuanced argument, you must clearly define (and sometimes re-define) the words you are using! Otherwise, someone with a dictionary or a thesaurus can quickly distort your intentions by distorting the original meaning outside of its original context.

Take a look at my other response below -- it may clear things up a little, but my point still stands: Adria was not using "racism" the same way you are defining "racism," and just because she did a poor job of explaining her position on Twitter does not automatically invalidate her opinions (it just means her opinions were not adequately explained).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Definitions

Or do you accept this definition as superior to one in a Physics textbook? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gravity?s=t

Mucking up the language is a crime against understanding.

Redefining established words is not acceptable.

Anyway, this discussion is a red herring.

Adria just wants an excuse to be racist, and you're defending her.

If twitter isn't suited for "nuanced arguments", well then you shouldn't be using twitter in the first place! Write a blog post and only share the link (and title). It's that simple. It doesn't matter how good something sounds in your head if you can't voice it correctly.

I was drinking with an Asian co-worker at work today and something somewhat relevant came up. A 3rd coworker asked my Asian coworker "Are you ok? Your face is red and puffy". And then he stated that Asians (saying all Asians is probably a generalization, but for this example let's assume it is true) lack an enzyme to process alcohol and that Asians are essentially allergic to alcohol. Under this definition, would it be racist to say that all other races except for Asians are inferior at processing alcohol? Even if the following is true: alcohol was less prevalent in Asian cultures and that is probably why they never evolved to possess the same enzyme, which was stated by the other coworker.

> this definition, would it be racist to say that all other races except for Asians are inferior at processing alcohol?

I don't follow. How did the co-worker discriminate against the Asian guy?

Now if he did, and said something like - your race is fucking weak, you don’t belong here with us - than yes, that would be racism.

But simply thinking that Asians don't handle alcohol as well as Europeans do, is not racism.

"they never evolved to possess the same enzyme"

... what? Asians are the same species as every other race. The idea that Asians somehow did not evolve this particular thing has nothing to do with the genetic change over time that causes speciation/evolution. I think you grossly misunderstand evolution and that your remarks are ignorant (and I think many people would claim racist).

Nice use of the R-bomb there. And adroit use of weasel words ("some would claim") to give plausible deniability.

Unfortunately your objections make no sense. It's well established that some human subgroups have different physical adaptations (eg. lactase production) that have been naturally selected in the presence of local food sources or production methods. How is that unrelated to evolution?

There are evolutionary differences between the races, and the fear of sounding racist makes people say thinks that are untrue scientifically.

Example: When exposed to the sun, white people have a higher risk to get a skin cancer than black people (especially if they live in Australia). On the other hand, black people having a skin that filter more UV and make them more vulnerable to a Vitamin D deficiency (especially if they live in NYC).

This is simply because they evolved to adapt to different climates. Just claiming "no, there is no difference because we're all the same species" is plain wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction

I think you're the one proving ignorant here.

What is your point exactly? The article you link to states that the flush reaction is genetic, "appears to have been positively selected in the past" and has been hypothesized to "have conferred protection agains certain parasitic infections."

> It depends on your definition of racism, and most scholarly definitions are "power and prejudice." In other words, a white person who is in the majority has more power than a black person (think Silicon Valley[1]), so the actual impact of the prejudice has a greater magnitude that turns it into "racism."

I don't know what scholarly sources you've seen that use that definition, but most scholarly sources I've seen define don't factor power into the definition of racism, but do certainly acknowledge that power dynamics have a pretty big impact on the effects of racism.

OTOH, the "only people in positions of power can be racists" thing is something I've seen pretty much exclusively in non-scholarly sources.

Perhaps I should have been more clear: the definition is fuzzy, but Adria's original tweet is not inherently wrong -- it just lacks context and adequate explanation.

I'm definitely not an expert in this, but I'm speaking from reading books on sociology and dominant group psychology. It would take more time for me to look up the original sources, but Wikipedia does agree with me (and they also agree that the definition varies!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Definitions

"David Wellman has defined racism as “culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”."

"Sociologists Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as “...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy."

Both of these definitions involve power as the main mechanism for preserving prejudice, do they not?

These definitions aren't scientific but politicized. They come from activists with a PhD. They just want to "prove" that capitalism is imperialist and racist.

Quite. The purpose of twisting the definition of 'racism' is to use the emotional power of the term to support an unrelated political agenda. The irony is that the academic definition of 'racism' is only rhetorically useful as long as the common definition remains dominant, otherwise all resonance is lost: Jim Crow and slavery cause universal revulsion; industrious individuals accruing wealth, not so much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com