Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SeanAppleby 2375 days ago
While I agree that it should be possible to mention nationality without being labeled racist, what legitimate value do you think his nationality adds to that sentence other than to preload whatever preconceptions people have about African businessmen onto that person? I just don't see how it adds any substance.
3 comments

I think the value it adds is subjective. In my opinion, it is a fact that further describes the individual. In fairness, it may not be the most relevant point.

We have to appreciate that his place of birth it is a fact, whether one thinks it preloads preconceptions or not.

Edit: "whether you think" -> "whether one thinks"

It's certainly notable to any US domiciled person. How many Zambian born CFO's do you know? How many Zambian born people do you know?
None! I also don’t know anyone from Mason City, Iowa. But everybody’s gotta be from somewhere.

Seriously, if you’re writing a whole article about someone it seems worthwhile to mention if they’re from Zambia, but if you’re writing a single sentence it’s a bit off putting.

look, in essence, I hear what you are saying, but when considering the readership of Bloomberg News, Mason City, Iowa and Zambia is a false equivalency.
His nationality is Zambian but he's Indian....not from one of the local ethnic tribes. With that context I don't think there was any ulterior motive mentioning his nationality.
I don't think anyone is suggestions a motive here. Looking at the wiki article for microagressions[0]

>Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups.

I think the idea of the parents is on point. We never say "An American CFO" or "An American CFO from the Mississippi delta"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression