racism: > The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
And that is what you're doing. Its not about oppression or discrimination, its about the (wrong) belief that each race has some intrinsic properties. When you start with this, you eventually end up putting people of different races on a pedestal, which does inadvertently discriminate against another race.
I'm not sure where you got that from. Did you respond to the right message?
Finally, people alive today who were direct victims of institutionalized racism should be compensated individually. However, I take issue with the idea of assigning benefits or penalties based on factors beyond an individual's control, such as one's ancestors' or genetic makeup. If the idea is to help less fortunate people, we should develop programs that help less fortunate people, regardless of their genetics or ancestry.
Also, I doubt that there is any place on earth that is colourblind and somehow race is not a problem. And no, "nobody speaks about it =/= the problem does not exist. Most countries have some issues with race, are largely homogeneous (sometimes despite spending decades brutally exploiting countries with other races a century or two ago), or have a long-running kerfuffle with some local minority.
why not Ask HN, there are black people here. what's interesting to me is that your interpretation prioritizes things that aren't really factors, and some child comments are already trying to mold that into their unworkable world view.
the only person triggered is the top level comment and thats the non sequitur on its own.
Black and black are equally benign adjectives and interchangeable, it doesn't need to be rationalized. the absence of capitalized white is an editorial choice, be the change you want to see?
I know the US is the world leader in backwards decisions that ignore history (while virtue signalling harder than ever before), and then being as racist as possible ("but in a good way!!!!"), but this is just sad now.
If I speak to someone, I don't ask "Are you black? Are you a woman? Were your ancestors oppressed (particularly in the west, anything else doesnt matter, see past enslavement of slavic people)?". If it matters so much to you what race someone is, or what ancestry they have, that is not a healthy way to treat people. It's the same thing as racism, its literally, by definition, the same thing.
There is a reason people in a lot of countries like Germany fight for everyone to stop using "Black" to describe someone, and instead refer to them as an individual like they are. History will repeat itself if you keep separating people based on their ethnicity
I don't want to ban you, so if you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this, that would be good.
We've already had to warn you a bunch of times, including recently:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37561065 (Sept 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35920403 (May 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33014228 (Sept 2022)
Thing is, white immigrants' national identities were largely, um, white-washed in the late-19th thru mid-20th c., as part of Progressive ideals that back then were quite racially slanted, and included such things as eugenics. German immigrants were especially affected by this for obvious reasons, but not only. So the argument for capital-W 'White' is hardly any weaker than for capital-B 'Black'.
But then articles should use, based on context, both 'Black' and 'White', or both 'black' and 'white', while rarely it makes sense to use 'Black' and 'white' in one article, but that is the pattern used by newspapers.
So, if you wanted a capital W whites, that likely would be WASPs, also a specific cultural and geographical unity of white-skinned people, but by far not all white people.