Strangely Telemundo/Univision's American arms don't have to deal with this type of criticism. The "for" is clearly indicating a target audience, not that you can't sign-up if you're not Black with photo identification, which is the courts' criteria for illegal discrimination and segregation.
Majority of Black Americans are a distinct shared cultural group, like Hispanic folk, who come in many different pigments, also like Hispanic folk, who also tend to have an identifiable manner of speaking and protocol, also like Hispanic folk.
The problem is that while "hispanic" indicates a linguistic origin, "black" (like "white") indicates a physical trait - having skin pigment past an arbitrary threshold of darkness/lightness. You can be black and hispanic, or white and hispanic. You can't be a white black american, even if that accurately describes your skin and culture respectively.
Also, you're problematically lumping all sorts of people who happen to have dark skin into a single category. The African immigrants I know want nothing to do with "american black culture" and resent being associated with it.
Finally, in order to be able to discuss these issues clearly, it's important to have distinct terms. If someone wants to criticize "american black culture", they cannot do so without being labelled as racist, despite that fact that criticism of cultural practices is generally accepted.
Basically we have two concepts:
1) Being "black" - being of african descent and/or being above a certain threshold of darkness in skin pigment. We should not tolerate discrimination for being black. It's also worth noting that this sort of categorization of people into black/white is not very scientific.
2) Belonging to American slave-descended culture. You can belong to this cultural group regardless of your skin color. We should be tolerant of criticism of this culture's ideology and practices.
These two concepts need different names. I'm aware "slave-descended" isn't an ideal (if accurate) name, so open to suggestions here.
That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize.
It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here?
>That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize.
I literally wrote "Majority of Black Americans...who come in many different pigments"
> It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here?
This is why I wrote "Majority" but you should also consult a Nigerian-American
> It's pretty easy to accuse the latter statement of being racist isn't it? Not so much the former though huh? Why do you think that is?
I'm not sure that it's easy; it depends on the context. As we know well, many racists use conceivably non-racist criticism to find ways to denigrate African-Americans, so it's important to be careful and sensitive to that.
But the big difference is the vulnerability of the groups. If I post on HN 'software developers are morons' or 'SV billionaires are morons', it really doesn't matter. Devs and billionaires aren't in danger of losing their jobs, being subject to hatred, etc. But if I post that '(vulnerable minority) are morons', that's a very different matter - they are in danger.
> As we know well, many racists use conceivably non-racist criticism to find ways to denigrate African-Americans, so it's important to be careful and sensitive to that.
This, of course, deeply depends on your definition of racist/racism. If I criticize some behavior that happens to be more prevalent among black americans than other americans, to some people that simple fact makes that critique, and thus me, a racist. That's the problem with the modern definition of racism. It's an ex-post-facto evaluation and it's way too easy to slap that on to pretty much whatever you want.
> But if I post that '(vulnerable minority) are morons', that's a very different matter - they are in danger.
No, they're not. I don't know a single reasonable human that would read that comment and go immediately fire '(vulnerable minority)'. Come on..
> If I criticize some behavior that happens to be more prevalent among black americans than other americans, to some people that simple fact makes that critique, and thus me, a racist.
You'll have to talk to those people, whoever they are. What I'm saying is that actual racist behavior often uses arguably non-racist arguments to attack African-Americans. It's an obvious and well-used tactic.
> No, they're not.
Hate speech spreads and promotes hate, of course, and that is dangerous to vulnerable minorities. And yes, people lose their jobs because they are minorities.
You think some boss reads a forum comment and then goes and fires their minority workers the next day because “hate speech”? I’d say that bigoted boss is the problem. Seems like a stretch to me..
It's a stretch that people are fired (or not hired) because of their race, and that racism is not spread through speech? How else do ideas and influence spread, if not through speech?
Maybe, if we keep parsing for the rest of the day, we can solve all of racism on a message board thread. But because it's unlikely to happen, and because this isn't the purpose of this thread, I decline to try.
I'd say the very fact that you have to read into the detailed post to understand which "black" is indicated in the title supports my claim that the term is problematically overloaded.
You are expected to read the posts on HN before commenting. It's one of the norms of the site. This isn't a newspaper article; it's a post they wrote specifically for us, in our norms. You should not feel good about trying to litigate this at their expense.
We're here to talk about the startup they're launching, not about this. Again, I don't think you should feel good about trying to score points like this.
> you're problematically lumping all sorts of people who happen to have dark skin into a single category
United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone for over 400 years; the GP didn't invent it today on HN. It's already been done and well-ingrained. If your skin is black, many people will treat you differently, to the extent that you may be subject to violence, many won't hire you, loans are more difficult to obtain, you'll experience stereotypes and racism regularly. In the end, rather than deal with danger and abuse every day, you end up living in the same neighborhoods, socializing with the same people, going to the same schools and restaurants, visiting the same websites ... to make your daily life peaceful and safe. As I mentioned in another thread, you can't even watch porn without encountering endless racist stereotypes.
As a result, while you may not think so and there are always exceptions, Americans with black skin share a lot with each other.
> slave-descended culture
What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)?
> We should be tolerant of criticism of this culture's ideology and practices.
Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical. More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not. It's obviously easy, and often done, to say things that are arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism.
Also, criticizing groups seems inherently stereotypical. An at-will club, such as the Libertarian Party or local Linux User Group, is different. But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible or at fault for some stereotype which may have nothing to do with you (and usually are false and often racist anyway). Let's look at people as individuals, responsible for their own actions.
Finally, there's a lot of effort to create space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism?
> United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone
Wouldn't the best solution to this problem represent a rejection of such categorization? Wouldn't that necessarily exclude "X for Black People" in the same way it excludes "X for White People"? I'd like to live in a society where skin tone is no more important than hair color. Surely the best way to get there is to de-emphasize skin tone and therefore "blackness" and "whiteness"?
> What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)?
From tptacek in another post:
"Black culture ... was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture (while uniting them for another 100 years in the experience of apartheid and the civil rights movement). It's its own powerful, interesting thing."
I have a hard time disagreeing - it seems to be a distinct cultural group.
> Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical
I disagree. I would say many people are able to make the distinction, and the lack of appropriate terminology to discuss it is universally frustrating.
> More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not.
It's quite easy. If you criticize a practice of cannibalizing visitors then it's reasonably clear the culture/practices are at issue, not the inherent traits of the people, unless of course we can prove some genetic predisposition to cannibalism.
> arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism
Yes doublespeak is a thing, but that doesn't mean frank discussion should be off the table.
> But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible
I would say that it exactly does. Who else can be responsible for a culture's practices than the people who maintain and perpetuate that culture?
> space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism?
Because these are intrinsically related. As long as we can't disentangle the criticism and solutionizing of very real problems with black culture and ideology from racist bigotry against black people we'll never solve the problem. As long as black people are in a special class that's protected from serious criticism they can never be equal to the rest of us.
>> United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone
> Wouldn't the best solution to this problem represent a rejection of such categorization? Wouldn't that necessarily exclude "X for Black People" in the same way it excludes "X for White People"? I'd like to live in a society where skin tone is no more important than hair color. Surely the best way to get there is to de-emphasize skin tone and therefore "blackness" and "whiteness"?
That would be ideal and I want to live in that world too. I also want to live in a world without war, but for now I support having a military because war is still a thing. Today, tomorrow, and likely for years to come, African-Americans do and will suffer from racism and are stereotyped into a class by much of society. Also, they should do whatever they want; who are you and I to tell them what to do? Why do they need your approval?
> As long as black people are in a special class that's protected from serious criticism they can never be equal to the rest of us.
That's not at all what puts African-Americans into a different class and makes them be seen as unequal by racists. The racists and systematic racism are the overwhelming cause; the discrimination and classes is already there; the question is, how do we provide 'liberty and justice for all' to the people in that class, as best we can, while it persists?
>> More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not.
> It's quite easy. If you criticize a practice of cannibalizing visitors then it's reasonably clear the culture/practices are at issue
Again, it's not; you call it double-speak.
>> But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible
> I would say that it exactly does. Who else can be responsible for a culture's practices than the people who maintain and perpetuate that culture?
How do you know if that individual 'maintains and perpetuates' the culture - culture being an undefinable, changing thing, defined by you? And if they do, what about you and I therefore maintaining and perpetuating widespread racism, which is common among white people, and which is probably the worst evil of American history?
Why is it so important to you to criticize other people's business? How about we focus on our own 'culture', conduct and its consequences?
They clearly don't. I'm just pointing out that "X for Black People" seems to perpetuate and deepen racial tension and division, rather than helping alleviate them. It's moving the needle in the wrong direction, much like a nuclear arms race would.
> The racists and systematic racism are the overwhelming cause
This is not at all clear, and is hideously complicated (see below). To what degree are cultural practices prevalent in (some) black neighborhoods responsible for outcomes?
Yes but as I said, its existence shouldn't take frank discussion of the table.
> How do you know if that individual 'maintains and perpetuates' the culture
I'm no cultural anthropologist, but if an individual engages in a cultural practice that they learned from the cultural group they are a member of, then they can be seen to be perpetuating that practice.
> And if they do, what about you and I therefore maintaining and perpetuating widespread racism, which is common among white people
It's quite simple: I don't engage in the practice of racial discrimination or bigotry, in spite of the fact that it was a common practice among my family and community. I have therefore identified a cultural practice which I consider wrong (or just plain dumb), and consciously chosen not to engage in the practice and not perpetuate it. I am thus an active participant in the evolution and stewardship of my culture. I expect the same from everyone else.
> Why is it so important to you to criticize other people's business? How about we focus on our own conduct and its consequences?
These are not mutually exclusive. I'm not aware of any issues with my conduct. However given this topic's overall popularity, polarization and the aforementioned problematically overloaded terminology, I find it extremely beneficial that these conversations be had in whatever forums can support them. To me, this is what depolarization looks like.
A bit strange you're not even willing to entertain other causes, or elaborate a even little as to why this is absurd, no? This stuff isn't exactly universally agreed on, academically speaking.
Just for context those channels are more culturally specific than “Spanish-speakers” it’s basically Mexican which isn’t interchangeable with Spain or Bolivia for example.
Telemundo was founded by Puerto Ricans/Boricuas in Miami FYI, and both expressly target the Hispanic public in America with content of various origins.
