2. Indian people in the United States do not identify themselves as "dot Indians". Perhaps it is easy to differentiate between different peoples who are called "Indians" by whether or not they stereotypically wear a bindi, but it also, unfortunately, propagates the notion that "them Indian people over there with them dots." It's yet another stereotype people have to deal with on a daily basis when trying to fit into society, and it takes away the focus from treating people as, well, as people, and focusing on the work they do or the value they bring.

3. Similarly, by speaking of "wild Indians" it does indeed marginalize a people and shoehorn them into a stereotype of being uncouth individuals. There are thieves and poachers in all parts of the world, and to say that Native American poachers are any worse than any others is, again, a stereotype and probably untrue.

4. In that light, I never really grew up in a society where rampant poaching by Native Americans was a problem. Perhaps living in a native tribal village, where everyone was part of an Alaskan Native tribe, the only people around to do any poaching were natives. But there is no reason to believe that they would be any more despicable than poachers of any other ethnicity.

This isn't about politics. It's about treating people fairly and equitably, and since that is something that we often do a poor job of doing, well, the things we write and say help form our culture.

And since we're on hacker news, where we tend to value correctness, the presuppositions that your comments make are unfounded and lack truthiness. That isn't being "politically correct"; merely "correct".

So, you're not racist, because of course you weren't talking about all Native Americans. But if not all 'feather indians' are wild, and not all of those that are wild are 'feather indians' then what was the point of comparing certain kids to them? The only purpose I see is in reinforcing a stereotype that does not apply.

Because Barbarian isn't a racial or ethnic group. It's a term basically meaning "the savage foreigner." It's demeaning to call someone a barbarian, but there's no Barbarian peoples that are offended by the use of the term.

edit: Gonna go ahead and disagree with this point too:

"Simply using existing stereotypes is not racism. I have neither commented on the superiority-level of Indians..."

Your interpretation of this definition seems to be that using a negative stereotype is not racist because it's not a direct value-judgement. That is wrong.

Even if you're not passing judgement, it is very much racist to say that (for example) Asians are all martial-artists and computer experts, or that Jews control the world, or that Native Americans are wild savages.

Why is that racist? Because it pigeonholes these people into weird and untrue stereotypes, and is therefore offensive to them.

If it's offensive to a racial group, it's probably racist.

> Did you immediately understand what set of behaviors I implied by saying "wild Indian" and "slovenly Barbarian"?

No, actually, I still have no idea. My guess was that those behaviors do not include "great table manners, is polite, shares, and is quite empathetic" but beyond that, I can barely guess.

> (Why isn't anyone upset that I included the Barbarians?)

Who are "the Barbarians"?

> Simply using existing stereotypes is not racism.

Response a) So what, only new stereotypes is racism? b) Yes, it is, when those stereotypes are based on race.

> I have neither commented on the superiority-level of Indians and Barbarians

Um, you said your kid is well-behaved, unlike those other people. That directly implies your kid is superior to them. And I guess your Alaskan Native friends are superior to the "wild" ones. Also, 'positive' racism (e.g. "asians are good at math") is just as bad,

> or have I modified their access to resources and opportunities.

Not directly, but racism is hardly so overt these days.

> In fact, stereotypes can be quite useful, for example, when you are trying to determine which VC to impress or what demographic is most likely to use your kitten-photo sharing Facebook App.

What?! I would never invest in someone that makes business decisions based on stereotypes rather than data, or that approached me because of stereotype they had about me.

hnhg seems correct here your arguments can definitely be 'distilled'. In that distillation process the references to 'Indians', 'Shamrocks' and 'Barbarians' would be the first to go as they add no support to your material point.

Of course, hnhg's comment approaches Ad Hominem. It could also be better worded.

Just trying to be fair.

I agree that I could have merely said something like, "...wild and slovenly behavior, such as x,y,and z...." At the time, I was trying to create a vivid verbal picture that conveyed additional concepts such as the Barbarian's penchant for tattoos and piercings. Maybe next time I should just spell it all out instead of refactoring it for the sake of brevity.

I think what he was trying to get across by using the term is this: http://vimeo.com/25239728

Edit Never Mind: missed the "Dot" part. Yes that was clearly over the line.

You are drastically missing the point. This has nothing to do with Left vs Right at all. In fact I agreed with you completely up until this point in your rant.

You're implicitly calling all Native Americans (a racial group) "wild" and comparing them to barbarians. That's dictionary-definition racism, plain and simple.

EDIT: keeping this short as I don't want to get into a slanging match but my for the record politics aren't on the left, I don't have the belief that cultures are morally equivalent, etc, etc.