Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I'm positive that Satya and Sundar are great motivators for indian kids to look up to (as they should be).

I'm doubtful about that. At least among my cohort (first generation south asian immigrants to the east coast) there's not a strong sense of racial identity. There's strong identity in the sense of ties to religion, home countries, culture, and traditions, but not group identification or a feeling of collective destiny. I recently told my dad about being at a professional event where there were three south asians "at the table" so to speak. He was like "huh, that's interesting." He had a stronger positive reaction when I mentioned that Chris Sununu (governor of New Hampshire) went to the same high school as my brother and me. I have to think it's similar to Jewish Americans--they're not looking up to Mark Zuckerberg because he's Jewish.

I also disagree that Indian kids "should" look up to Pichai or Nadella because of their ethnicity. Insofar as there is an "us"--a definable group with distinct interests--"representation" will never advance those interests. Pichai or Nadella will run their companies how white shareholders want them to, exactly the same way as a white CEO would. They wouldn't have been selected if that wasn't the case. The "representation" doesn't advance the agenda of the group in any meaningful way.

To the contrary, "representation" is used by white people to obtain the support of minority groups without giving them anything. I see white people pressuring my daughter to look up to Kamala Harris (because Harris "looks like her"). This is just manipulation. Harris will not meaningfully advance the distinct interests of south asian people, nor is she a good model of south asian culture or values.

As to your main point--for sure people on the internet have better manners today. Is that creditable to DEI initiatives? Can we have online spaces and workplaces where nobody is made to feel excluded because of their immutable characteristics without forcing people to write diversity statements or having Robin Di Angelo types come in to lecture white people about their inherent racism?

I was hoping to find a reply like this; glad someone could articulate it better than I could.

Overall, I believe that culturally-same role models is a stand-in for lazy parenting. Children whose parents constantly push their kids to be better, push harder will look towards successful people of any cultural background. Compare that with children with apathetic parents, who I surmise will only have the imagination to self-associate with those who "look" like them.

It also robs even involved minority parents and communities of power. If you persuade minority kids to look to “representation” for ethnic role models, then the white people who select those representatives gain tremendous power in defining ethnic identity. Call me crazy, but I want my kids to learn what it means to be Bangladeshi from me and my parents and my extended family, not from teachers or role models selected by white people for that purpose.

It also reduces identity to something that’s offensively shallow. White people think Kamala Harris is a role model for south Asian girls because she has the experience of walking around with dark skin in America. But white people’s reaction is extremely low on the list of things that define south Asian identity.

> To the contrary, "representation" is used by white people to obtain the support of minority groups without giving them anything. I see white people pressuring my daughter to look up to Kamala Harris (because Harris "looks like her"). This is just manipulation. Harris will not meaningfully advance the distinct interests of south asian people, nor is she a good model of south asian culture or values.

It's also not hard to receive this behavior as completely fucking racist. Do whites presuppose that just because we have the same skin color, ethnic background, or similar physical features, that we will be aligned on political or philosophical points?

How has it become acceptable to participate in such blatantly racist behavior, while still somehow being able to publicly label one's self as "liberal" or "anti-racist?"

I think it's time we conduct an audit of all self-identifying liberals or DEI advocates to determine which ones are actually free from unconscious bias and implicit associations, and which have merely co-opted the movement to weaponize minorities as part of a political power struggle.

> It's also not hard to receive this behavior as completely fucking racist. Do whites presuppose that just because we have the same skin color, ethnic background, or similar physical features, that we will be aligned on political or philosophical points?

Yes. There are many white people who align on skin color. That's how the US Antebellum South, SA Apartheid and WW2 persecution of Jews worked.

Look how far afield those examples had to be drawn from!

It is "anti-racist" because "anti-racist" does not mean against racism. It is a specific ideological term within DEI.

Not sure about where you live but where I am, people (especially direct family) were very proud that Pichai and Nadella were CEOs of famous companies, they pushed us to want to be more like them. I don't see why they wouldn't serve minority interests therefore. As to your white shareholders comment, I am not sure why white shareholders would be any different from other shareholders in that they want to all make money. Go to an Indian company's board and you'll see that they act exactly the same way.

So in other words, without DEI, white people are evil and with DEI, white people are evil. Are you sure "white people" are actually in control?

Yes, by white people who use DEI for power.

so no non-white person has ever profited from DEI? It's all just white people's fault?

Good point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com