>All that’s true, but you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.
That's exactly what I implied by my above comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42383753 ), which means the same as this part of yours: (i.e. you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.).
But mine was referring to the differences between Indians on the one hand, and East Asians (and some others) on the other hand.
Here, the ”East Asians” includes Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese and Koreans, among others, and the "some others" also includes Tibetans, Nepalese, Bhutanese and Sikkimese, and Burmese, and people of the North Eastern states of India, such as Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, and Tripura.
All of these above people can easily be distinguished from (the rest of) Indians by their narrow eyes.
I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. Nor is it discriminatory. It is simply stating obvious facts, that anyone can visually ascertain for themselves.
It is the people who behave in a discriminatory way towards anyone, based on where they come from, or their ethnicity, who are the real racists, not those who talk in an innocuous way about distinguishing visual characteristics of various categories of people.
>Yeah, I’m not buying that race is a uniquely American construction. It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.
(
>American
Say the word right, dude. USian, not American. :)
)
Discussing race may have the least social tolerance in USA (or not), but when it comes to actual behaviour, i.e. racism?
And I do not mean to single out the USA. There is plenty of racism in Europe and Asia too. I have myself experienced it in both places, and have heard of plenty of anecdotes about it from people whom I trust.
That's exactly what I implied by my above comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42383753 ), which means the same as this part of yours: (i.e. you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.).
But mine was referring to the differences between Indians on the one hand, and East Asians (and some others) on the other hand.
Here, the ”East Asians” includes Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese and Koreans, among others, and the "some others" also includes Tibetans, Nepalese, Bhutanese and Sikkimese, and Burmese, and people of the North Eastern states of India, such as Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, and Tripura.
All of these above people can easily be distinguished from (the rest of) Indians by their narrow eyes.
I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. Nor is it discriminatory. It is simply stating obvious facts, that anyone can visually ascertain for themselves.
It is the people who behave in a discriminatory way towards anyone, based on where they come from, or their ethnicity, who are the real racists, not those who talk in an innocuous way about distinguishing visual characteristics of various categories of people.
>Yeah, I’m not buying that race is a uniquely American construction. It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.
(
>American
Say the word right, dude. USian, not American. :)
)
Discussing race may have the least social tolerance in USA (or not), but when it comes to actual behaviour, i.e. racism?
See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States
What a huge amount of racism there is there, from the origin of the country until today. George Floyd, anyone (as just one example, as late as 2020)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd
And I do not mean to single out the USA. There is plenty of racism in Europe and Asia too. I have myself experienced it in both places, and have heard of plenty of anecdotes about it from people whom I trust.