Hacker News Reader

Comment by prayag | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that you don't understand what racism is. Racism isn't just treating someone differently because she belongs to a different race. Racism has more to do with power dynamics than with color of a person's skin.

For example, just because a college has different standards of admission for different races to promote diversity is not racism but to give preferential treatment to the group of people who have more social and economic power. That's racism.

BlackGirlsCode is not a racist organization. Actually to the contrary, its trying to improve the opportunities to the most under-represented group of people in tech industry. This is a good thing for the tech sector. To focus on blank girls, this organization can be much more effective in its goal (to make tech sector more inclusive) than if it was a "PeopleCode" or even a "GirlsCode" group.

View on HN

While that's an interesting view, it's also wrong. It might make for a good way of justifying things in your mind, you should really take a look at the more common definitions of racism to understand why this point of view you have in one held by a minority of people.

Hey, you know what? If every black person sees you and thinks "honkey," you will likely experience hurt feelings, and a slight discomfort when in certain neighborhoods. You probably will stop going to those places. It would be very hard to blame lack of progress in your professional or academic career on this perception. You could go almost your whole life without that perception having any tangible manifestation in your life.

If every white person thinks the N-word when he sees a black person, that fact creates an inescapable environment of hostility where anyone would feel completely helpless to create any sort of positive future for themselves. Of course we don't live in a world where everyone is this blatantly racist. The point of this is to explain to you in a different way why racism is more powerful than just "you exclude people based on race." Some people need environments where they can feel comfortable learning, before they can get up to speed and have the confidence to defend themselves against criticism and hostility.

...you should really take a look at the more common definitions of racism to understand why this point of view you have in one held by a minority of people.

Right. Because letting the majority population define which terms an aggrieved minority can use to describe its own situation is completely sensible. What a surprise, the discriminated minority has a different view of the majority's behaviors than do those in the majority!

> "Right. Because letting the majority population define which terms an aggrieved minority can use to describe its own situation is completely sensible. What a surprise, the discriminated minority has a different view of the majority's behaviors than do those in the majority!"

---

Perfectly stated. Seems like the people at BCG are trying to help girls learn to code, with an emphasis on those who are black--because of a range of obstacles that might otherwise prevent these girls from learning.

And let's be honest here: if BCG didn't do this work to encourage black women and girls to code, who would? I see nothing wrong with their desire to encourage black girls to learn more about coding.

>Right. Because letting the majority population define which terms an aggrieved minority can use to describe its own situation is completely sensible. What a surprise, the discriminated minority has a different view of the majority's behaviors than do those in the majority!

Ha! I've had to respond to this "point" more times than I can count and I really like how you put this. I think I'm going to steal this for next time :)

Not that it changes your overall point, but note that California no longer has a majority population along racial lines.

(Sorry, accidental downvote while attempting to select text)

> Not that it changes your overall point, but note that California no longer has a majority population along racial lines.

California still has a very substantial White racial majority (74.0% as of the 2010 census), it just doesn't appear to when people of Hispanic ethnicity are counted as a separate group from their race (non-Hispanic Whites were only 39.7% in the same census), as is frequently done in the US.

It makes sense to divide Hispanic and non-Hispanic White if we are performing this categorization for the purpose of analysing discrimination. This is because traditionally Hispanics have been discriminated against by non-Hispanic Whites. The same could be said for the Irish, or Catholics... but Protestant/Catholic discrimination seems to have simmered down in the US.

Or to put it simply: Does a Hispanic in California currently experience White privilege? If no, then they should be counted separately.

Christopher Lane

It is racism. It's just that it's racism you appear to like.

Nonsense. It is not racism at all, especially considering the group is open to girls of all racial backgrounds.

Deleted comment

>an opportunity created for one person //

An opportunity only offered to one person out of a group who would similarly benefit from that opportunity simply based on their racial heritage is racism. Yes. It's entirely unnecessary discrimination.

"All the blue-eyed children may leave early for recess." [not a direct quote AFAIK] - the brown/green/whatever eyed children would equally benefit from early recess.

There are plenty of other isms besides racism. Eye-colorism is a different kind of discrimination than racism, unless eye color is just a proxy for race (which is quite possible). Discriminating based on gender is called sexism, discriminating baed on nationality is called nationalism, etc...

Discrimination based on femins is feminism and discriminations based on socials is socialism and discrimination against babars is barbarism.

People learning English might be interested in my English Stack Exchange question: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/142750/why-is-fem...

> The problem is that you don't understand what racism is. Racism isn't just treating someone differently because she belongs to a different race. Racism has more to do with power dynamics than with color of a person's skin.

Some smart people cleared this up for me: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/1rwvc3/why...

To answer "is this racism?", you have to ask "which racism?"

erm, it is a potentially racist organization, here's why: BlackGirlsCode is specifically geared for one power dynamic, black girls vs white girls. While they may be attempting to level the playing field between white and black which is politically and socially acceptable, they are furthering the gap between black and (pick an underrepresented minority). This exclusivity is exactly how every power came into power and subjugated the rest. From the very beginning the set of principles that guide this rationale of pragmatism while understandable, is hypocritical.

No: Black Girls Code is focusing on

black vs white (dominant paradigm in US)

female vs male

young vs old

It's attempting to do successful intervention & marketing, essentially, by focusing on a specific demographic. As we all should know, focusing on a specific demographic is a fine way to produce a product targeted to that demographic's needs. Young black women have different pain points in tech than Zuckalikes or male first-born children of Chinese immigrants. It is obvious that other organizations with mainly white or male constituents are not effectively serving the market and it's no surprise that something better for this target group has come along.

The rest of your comment is pure silliness. Every power that came into power, to repeat your phrasing, did so by claiming they were the best and then grabbing the money. When I see the black girls of code claiming they are racially and morally superior to everyone else, and making tons of cash, I'll consider believing you.

You're right, but I'd say my comparison is at least a subset of what you're covering.

Yeah, targeting is one thing, exclusion is entirely another. If you're excluding other races from your product that's well...racist.

>The rest of your comment is pure silliness. Every power that came into power, to repeat your phrasing, did so by claiming they were the best and then grabbing the money. When I see the black girls of code claiming they are racially and morally superior to everyone else, and making tons of cash, I'll consider believing you.

Well, I said potentially and you said 'claiming' implying an active process of obtaining power. We are in agreement that black girls are not a powerful force in the development community, but neither were (pick small exclusionary group/minority that came to power). Rwanda anyone?

They aren't now, but could be, especially with the principles they are using that are in place.

Ah, please regale us with your tales of successfully combatting racism and evening a tilted playing field. I know many people who need the benefit of your undoubtedly extensive experience in the trenches. I'm sure that your comment is not merely an uninformed effort made from your armchair.

I'm half black half white, born of a polish father who managed to make it from Poland in 1975, and an army brat african american mother. I grew up in a predominantly white irish and white jewish community on the North Shore of Chicago, racism was subtle but it was there. My older sister has significant experience in this particular field as a woman who was pushed into various programs like this. I happened to end up in CEED at UCLA, a minority focused engineering program and went through the fun stuff of National Achievement related stuff.

So, I know something of the subject.

This in no way diminishes the ridiculousness of the statements you have made. In fact, it makes it all the more perplexing why and how you think that BGC is on the same spectrum as the massacre of the Tutsis in Rwanda, as given your background, perhaps it should be expected of you to know just a little better than that.

The analogy is one of how principle matters. There are plenty historical examples of minority groups defending and supporting themselves, rightly so, some would say, and eventually gaining power and subjugating others. The one thing that rarely changes in those organizations is the principles behind them. Those with little power in the beginning can only defend themselves, with great power they can do that by subjugation of others.

So I will reiterate, it is the principle of exclusion that puts it on the same spectrum. No they haven't and I will assume most likely will not cause a genocide. However, principle...matters. It is unwise to perpetuate the same beliefs and systems of an oppressor and expect a different outcome! 'Only certain people of a certain group because of race and gender can be here'.

Since you insinuated I could know nothing of the subject because of my background, and then upon revelation suggest I should know better because of it, I'd suggest to you that instead of making assumptions about me and my background what I should be like, and chaffing at the fact that I don't fit the mold of someone you'd expect with this background, maybe heed what I have to say as it is from a unique position that is not common.

No. Your position is ridiculous, as in it deserves ridicule. A stupid but equally valid conclusion falling out of your absurd insistence that the principles at play -- as you identify and interpret them -- must not have any overlap with those of historically oppressive regimes would be for me to stop segregating my flour and sugar in my cupboard. These same principles of segregation -- as you define it so broadly as to be without meaning almost -- are at play in my kitchen and I can extend your silly argument to conclude that I also have been sowing the seeds of oppression in the place where I keep my food!

As far as I can tell, your argument is,

1) BGC starts out by identifying a target population based on race.

2) All genocidal massacres have begun with this step.

3) Ergo, BGC may result in a genocidal massacre.

> BlackGirlsCode is specifically geared for one power dynamic, black girls vs white girls.

I'm pretty sure its not geared for that at all.

This was in context to the previous comment about power dynamics, but you're right.

> This was in context to the previous comment about power dynamics

There is no reasonable sense in which it is accurate to say that Black Girls Code is geared for "black girls vs. white girls".

There might be some vague sense (though its still a very bad and misleading way of putting things by inventing a conflict which is not essential to the focus) to saying it is geared for black girls vs. white boys.

can a white girl join black girls who code? a conflict nonetheless exists whether or not it is intended by the organization. remember the segregation concept of 'separate but equal' ? it wasn't intended and it was not the focus of segregation to deliver unequal qualities of life, but by the implementation that is exactly what happened and I'd say, conflicts created by organizations like this shouldn't be ignored. you call it misleading, I say it should be addressed. I wouldn't sacrifice the principal for the pragmatism.

> can a white girl join black girls who code?

From everything I've seen about their actual policies, including in this thread, yes.

Well that just sunk a big chunk of my argument, hah!

>For example, just because a college has different standards of admission for different races to promote diversity is not racism but to give preferential treatment to the group of people who have more social and economic power. That's racism.

So, building women founders, is, as is building male founders, a way to create a few more people with "social and economic power" to rule over the rest of us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com