Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 127 posts

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#61

Post by yoodenvranx »

codegeek wrote: post #9
yumraj wrote: post #2

I wonder why the headline says 'Asian' instead of saying Chinese, since all three researchers were Chinese with ties to China. As an ethic Indian, I'm kinda offended when all Asians are just lumped together as I believe it promotes general racism and bias against anyone from that continent .

Funny you say that because in the US, Indians are not considered Asians in practice even though of course South Asia is, well in Asia. I have seen many people argue that Asians only mean East Asians and does not include South Asians. However, the official census lumps all Asians together.

In Germany 'Asians' and 'Indians' are two distinct groups. When we talk about 'Asians' we usually mean Japan/China/Korea/Thailand but never Indians (or even Pakistani).

My theory is that this comes from restaurant culture. There is 'asian food', e.g. 'stuff with rice' and there is 'indian food', e.g. 'stuff with curry'.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#62

Post by hpkuarg »

crunchiebones wrote: post #48
robbintt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese is a nationality or citizenship status. If the focus were reporting han chinese then it would enter the territory of racism.

it obviously depends on the context, but China is homogeneous enough that 'chinese' is often used to mean more than just nationality

Considering China to be a homogeneous entity in any dimension is borne of ignorance. Linguistically, the four largest cities in China (Guangzhou, Shanghai, Chongqing, Beijing) speak "dialects" that range from barely mutually intelligible to not at all. Politically, the region has had a long history of provinces disregarding central rule, rivalry between major power centers, etc. Cultural boundaries have been somewhat muddied in the modern era, but one should not assume that the united front that the CCP presents to the outside world is reflective of internal unity.

Sure, the Han make up 90%+ of the population (and in that sense you could call China homogeneous), but I struggle to say that Han == Han when it comes to the overwhelming diversity of the country.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#63

Post by billfruit »

Razengan wrote: post #54
yumraj wrote: post #2

I wonder why the headline says 'Asian' instead of saying Chinese, since all three researchers were Chinese with ties to China. As an ethic Indian, I'm kinda offended when all Asians are just lumped together as I believe it promotes general racism and bias against anyone from that continent .

Yes, “Asian” as used by most Westerners† is the current socially-palatable “Oriental” or “Mongoloid”, but it’s no less lazy, ignorant, annoying and even racist. Imagine calling Canadians and Mexicans “American” because of the continent. † If you’re annoyed by being lumped under “Westerner” you might be able to relate.

I think it is an Americansim, the British do not generally use "Asian" with that specific connotation.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#64

Post by Steko »

umvi wrote: post #36
danso wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are Indians not considered “Asians in practice” when they are considered as such by the Census, the authoritative organization that sets the categorization standard?

Colloquially, in America, Asians are identified as having slanty eyes and white skin. Indians have brown skin and are therefore not colloquially referred to as Asians. Instead, they are referred to simply as "Indian".

This is an oversimplification, most Americans will also be quick to categorize darker skinned Southeast Asians as Asian.

Historically most Asians in the US were from East Asia and later SEA so the label tends to evoke those groups. Lacking familiarity, it may also be harder for many Americans to easily discriminate (lol?) between East Indians and other non-white/non-Asian groups.

Still there are plenty of people that do include Indians as "Asian" in the US, it's hardly a universal standard to exclude them as a lot of comments here seem to think.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#66

Post by radicalbyte »

duxup wrote: post #27
IdontRememberIt wrote: post #8

I remember when I was young (+40 years ago), many Swiss private banks would only hire Swiss people. That rule was due to the French IRS equivalent having their own employees sent to Switzerland and hired by Swiss bank. They were mole transmitting confidential information about French clients. So these private banks had to restore trust and security. Honestly still today, for some critial jobs, I do not understand com…

When worked as technical support we had some large banks as customers who insisted everyone who worked their cases be US citizens. We worked with some semi sensitive technical data, but nothing directly banking related. A few banks required drug and credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb). Amusingly they were happy to hire on connected people in less friendly nations when operating overseas. I think the citi…

> credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb).

Credit checks are extremely smart. People who are financially vulnerable are high risk.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#67

Post by PhasmaFelis »

eternalban wrote: post #37
codegeek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny you say that because in the US, Indians are not considered Asians in practice even though of course South Asia is, well in Asia. I have seen many people argue that Asians only mean East Asians and does not include South Asians. However, the official census lumps all Asians together.

It is the 'Anglo Colonial Atlas of Races' masquerading as "geography". Middle East -- a geographic figment of colonial imagination -- is code word for 'lightly colored sand dwellers'. Asian means 'of the yellow races with strange eyes'.

It's dumb that we call the group "Asian" instead of "East Asian," but there are notable ethnic and cultural similarities that East Asian nations don't share with the rest of Asia. Ditto the Middle East.

I don't think it's automatically bigotry to refer to people this way. "Western European" and "South American" are less controversial examples.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#68

Post by fzeroracer »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #52
haditab wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. By his logic "birth place" shouldn't be the determining factor. FYI, birth place does not determine nationality.

While that's true, personally I'm ok with birth place being a restriction for some things e.g. in order to run for President in the US, one needs to be born in the US, not merely a citizen. Not sure how it is in other Western countries.

The problem with this logic is that when applied, it can absolutely be racist.

For example, in your example what happens to those born in say, Puerto Rico? Are they barred from running for president because they weren't born in the US?

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#69

Post by PhasmaFelis »

Razengan wrote: post #54
yumraj wrote: post #2

I wonder why the headline says 'Asian' instead of saying Chinese, since all three researchers were Chinese with ties to China. As an ethic Indian, I'm kinda offended when all Asians are just lumped together as I believe it promotes general racism and bias against anyone from that continent .

Yes, “Asian” as used by most Westerners† is the current socially-palatable “Oriental” or “Mongoloid”, but it’s no less lazy, ignorant, annoying and even racist. Imagine calling Canadians and Mexicans “American” because of the continent. † If you’re annoyed by being lumped under “Westerner” you might be able to relate.

> Imagine calling Canadians and Mexicans “American” because of the continent.

I've seen "North American" used like that pretty often, actually.

> If you’re annoyed by being lumped under “Westerner” you might be able to relate.

I'm not. Should I be? It makes sense.

I agree that "Asian" doesn't make sense in the way the West tends to use it. "East Asian" is somewhat better, though still not 100% geographically accurate. But then "Westerner" isn't really accurate either; it's just the best commonly-accepted term for a useful concept.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#70

Post by duxup »

radicalbyte wrote: post #66
duxup wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When worked as technical support we had some large banks as customers who insisted everyone who worked their cases be US citizens. We worked with some semi sensitive technical data, but nothing directly banking related. A few banks required drug and credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb). Amusingly they were happy to hire on connected people in less friendly nations when operating overseas. I think the citi…

> credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb). Credit checks are extremely smart. People who are financially vulnerable are high risk.

I wonder how accurate that is. There's plenty of evidence of folks who are desperate doing desperate things... but also plenty of people doing bad things simply for "more" money.

As far as financal status goes I'm not sure how good an indicator this is, for say a support role where you may or may not interact with a bank.

Post reply on HN