It's hard to untangle the confused premises in the parent. What people want isn't dependent on their skin color. A person in the United States who has black skin has nothing at all to do with people in Australia who are aboriginals.
> Maybe ...
If I understand correctly, the parent is saying that they have no idea. Maybe people with red hair like orange marmalade, but I don't know what I'm contributing by saying that.
> they ...
An underlying problem is that word; it should be 'we'. We're not talking about Martians, but people in the same country and culture as the majority (plurality?) of readers. It says a lot about HN that the word is 'they'.
> It's hard to untangle the confused premises in the parent. What people want isn't dependent on their skin color.
Never said anything like that. Aboriginals are white in tasmania anyway but the OP used black so i assumed that was what people want to use.
> A person in the United States who has black skin has nothing at all to do with people in Australia who are aboriginals.
I don't get what your trying to say. Are you making the tabula rasa claim that race is just skin color or some kind of weird pseudo-science?
> If I understand correctly, the parent is saying that they have no idea. Maybe people with red hair like orange marmalade, but I don't know what I'm contributing by saying that.
So i proposed an idea that different ethnicities that have evolved in different environments with different cultures have different ideas of what classifies success. I don't pretend I know what indians want for india or Japanese for japan and it would be ignorant to just apply my cultural norms to them.
> An underlying problem is that word; it should be 'we'. We're not talking about Martians, but people in the same country and culture as the majority (plurality?) of readers. It says a lot about HN that the word is 'they'.
Because im making a classification between european-americans and african-americans? How can i do that with we?
> Are you making the tabula rasa claim that race is just skin color or some kind of weird pseudo-science?
I'm saying the fact that people have the same skin color does not make them similar in any other way; people in Australia who are aboriginals and people in the United States who have black skin have nothing to do with each other. Because you bring it up, I do agree that race has no validity other than in the eye of the beholder, partly because it's not defined, and totally because it predicts nothing but the response of racists.
> i proposed an idea that different ethnicities that have evolved in different environments with different cultures have different ideas of what classifies success.
Obviously, the parent didn't propose this idea; it's an old one. To suggest it is novel and needs to be addressed from scratch (tabula rasa indeed!) is disingenuous.
> it would be ignorant to just apply my cultural norms to them.
It is equally ignorant to ignore their humanity and the universal things that humans share, or to assign to them anything particular based on their skin color or 'ethnicity'.
> Because im making a classification between european-americans and african-americans?
That is precisely the problem, and one we know well, which has led to more misery than perhaps any other human failing. Defining people by their race, rather than letting people define themselves, is to do the ignorant thing the parent says they wish to avoid.
Also, ethnicities are as undefined as race. Look at 'european-american' - Europeans in Europe often despise each other based on what they perceive as distinct 'ethnicities'; Russians and Ukrainians are shooting each other; think of Serbs and Croats; Brexit voters who want the other Europeans out; Germans and French (and many others) were shooting each other in the 20th century; in the U.S., Italians and Irish would riot, Catholics and Jews were persecuted; but there's an historic European-American ethnicity? What people mean by this conservative ethnicity is 'what I perceived at a certain time should be fixed in concrete, and applied to all these individuals'; but what they perceived was only a snapshot of a rapidly changing landscape, and of course was highly subjective. And the individuals get do define themselves.
> 'm saying the fact that people have the same skin color does not make them similar in any other way; people in Australia who are aboriginals and people in the United States who have black skin have nothing to do with each other.
You would have to be pretty damn ignorant of aboriginal politics if you think they have nothing to do with african-americans.
In any case, i brought them up as an example I am familiar with since there isn't many african-americans in australia and there are many parallels between the two groups if you just open your eyes.
Another example is the culture, most aboriginals identify with american black culture and adore those african american hip hop artists.
> Because you bring it up, I do agree that race has no validity other than in the eye of the beholder, partly because it's not defined, and totally because it predicts nothing but the response of racists.
Ah so you are a tabula rasa believer. Maybe you should read up on the topic a bit more as the genetic evidence that racial divergence evolution has occurred is pretty much settled science at this point. Also just looking at the quantitative evidence with books like the bell curve which still haven't been formally disputed it's very difficult to hold the position that all racial differences are simply caused by racial oppression.
> It is equally ignorant to ignore their humanity and the universal things that humans share, or to assign to them anything particular based on their skin color or 'ethnicity'.
I don't ignore out universal commonalities? You just assume that the only thing we don't share is skin features. Like from what you say it seems like you would even reject the claim that asians have a relatively high ability in rote memorization because that's racist.
> That is precisely the problem, and one we know well, which has led to more misery than perhaps any other human failing.
And you think just ignoring racial differences will lead to no human suffering? If so you are truely not looking at reality. How about a chart looking at the state of marrige of black america and the amount of children being born out of wedlock.
We know this is directly feeding into the crimainal gang problem which is causing genocide in cities like chicago to these poor kids but what could the problem be if things are the worst they have every been? Are you going to say it's caused by racism? That racism peaked above and beyond slavery and jim crow in the last few years?
I find the idea we are more racist now than 100 years ago to just be such an immature way of seeing world.
> Also, ethnicities are as undefined as race. Look at 'european-american' - Europeans in Europe often despise each other based on what they perceive as distinct 'ethnicities'; Russians and Ukrainians are shooting each other; think of Serbs and Croats; Brexit voters who want the other Europeans out; Germans and French (and many others) were shooting each other in the 20th century; in the U.S., Italians and Irish would riot, Catholics and Jews were persecuted; but there's an historic European-American ethnicity?
I could do the same song and dance with arabs. None if it really discounts the idea of race because when it comes to all those different europeans settling in america, they had more in common with each other than the african american, the american indians, the arabs, the chinese, the indians, etc.
If your going to claim that the only reason why people back then otherised asians the same way asians still otherwise other races was because they couldn't get past the skin color then don't bother responding because it's not going to get us anywhere.
> Maybe ...
If I understand correctly, the parent is saying that they have no idea. Maybe people with red hair like orange marmalade, but I don't know what I'm contributing by saying that.
> they ...
An underlying problem is that word; it should be 'we'. We're not talking about Martians, but people in the same country and culture as the majority (plurality?) of readers. It says a lot about HN that the word is 'they'.