The Black Technologist Who Invented the First Internet Search Engine(daily.jstor.org)
daily.jstor.org
The Black Technologist Who Invented the First Internet Search Engine
https://daily.jstor.org/alan-emtage-first-internet-search-engine/
164 comments
I can probably count the number of dinner parties I've been to on one hand. The only one I remember is the one where, in the mid-90s, we discussed the fact that the web was wonderful but there was no way to find anything.
I recall using Archie, Wais and Gopher under MSDOS using clients pulled from FTP sites. Although useful, it wasn't until I discovered usenet that the world really opened up for me.
I was thinking, people proclaim that Google and internet search (like yahoo) in general precipitated the dawn of the internet, but what use is search if there's nothing to search for? Or at least no one knows what exists to search for?
HN is sometimes one of the more progressive wings of the geek community. It's disheartening to see the number of replies expressing dismay at race being an interesting and notable part of this story. Representation is a crucial concept in history and media, and a key element in why conversations about privilege are necessary.
Rather than stating that you don't know why it would be relevant to mention the man's race, why don't you just actually ask yourself the question? Why does it matter that he is black? You all are great problem solvers. I think you can come up with some interesting answers.
Rather than stating that you don't know why it would be relevant to mention the man's race, why don't you just actually ask yourself the question? Why does it matter that he is black? You all are great problem solvers. I think you can come up with some interesting answers.
> HN is sometimes one of the more progressive wings of the geek community.
I'll respectfully disagree with that. I think the rules set up in HN around both manual and automatic flagging mean that controversial stories quickly get buried, and only very straightforward, non-controversial articles get visibility.
Many users think this is a positive feature. I'm deeply ambivalent about it, but have come to accept that HN is simply not a place where controversial things are discussed with any measure of success. But don't mistake that for HN being a progressive haven.
EDIT: prophecy fulfilled. This submission got flagged off the homepage.
I'll respectfully disagree with that. I think the rules set up in HN around both manual and automatic flagging mean that controversial stories quickly get buried, and only very straightforward, non-controversial articles get visibility.
Many users think this is a positive feature. I'm deeply ambivalent about it, but have come to accept that HN is simply not a place where controversial things are discussed with any measure of success. But don't mistake that for HN being a progressive haven.
EDIT: prophecy fulfilled. This submission got flagged off the homepage.
Is this a controversial story? FFS it's about the first internet search engine. It is pretty on topic if anything on HN is.
You might be making a meta statement regarding other stories. Still this is pretty benign stuff.
You might be making a meta statement regarding other stories. Still this is pretty benign stuff.
I was making a comment about HN being a "progressive wing", not about this article.
Admittedly, I'm more of a lurker and slightly-more-than-occasional visitor, so my experience of HN is probably not representative of the norm. However, I have seen racism and other prejudice called out frequently enough that I felt justified in giving the community some credit. Perhaps more than it deserves. Sadly, can't help but look at the discussions happening here as vastly more enlightened when compared with the ones that take place, for instance, in many Facebook groups related to tech.
With respect - that's not what the OP is referring too. I'm sure if someone was being overtly racist they would be called out and banned. Most racists are smart enough to know that you're not going to get away with using a racial slur.
But power can be exercised in more subtle ways, including limiting what gets discussed in the first place or leaving comments like 'Thanks for not making it political' on threads about Haskell.
The flagging and downvoting of what I would call progressive but others would call 'political' themes falls under that category.
But power can be exercised in more subtle ways, including limiting what gets discussed in the first place or leaving comments like 'Thanks for not making it political' on threads about Haskell.
The flagging and downvoting of what I would call progressive but others would call 'political' themes falls under that category.
> It's disheartening to see the number of replies expressing dismay at race being an interesting and notable part of this story.
If only. Far worse is the number of replies saying that he isn't black enough. It's so weird when you get racially policed by white people if you don't conform to a media stereotype, or if you're not dark enough.
How about "of sub-Saharan African descent?"
Also, it shouldn't be confusing that the descendants of northern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans look Mediterranean. It really makes a lot of obvious sense.
If only. Far worse is the number of replies saying that he isn't black enough. It's so weird when you get racially policed by white people if you don't conform to a media stereotype, or if you're not dark enough.
How about "of sub-Saharan African descent?"
Also, it shouldn't be confusing that the descendants of northern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans look Mediterranean. It really makes a lot of obvious sense.
All those comments about whether someone is black are a pretty much inevitable result of turning race - which is something that, when it comes down to it, is basically made-up nonsense anyway - into the most important defining characteristic of someone. Doesn't matter if you're doing it for progressive or discriminatory reasons, either way the whole charade ends up running headlong into the reality that people don't actually fit all that well into those neat little racial categories.
[deleted]
> HN is sometimes one of the more progressive wings of the geek community.
Its really not, though it includes some member of the progressive segment of the community (as well as the diametrically opposite segment) and a moderation policy which suppresses neither, so it can sometimes appear to be either extremely progressive or extremely regressive (but mostly just a mix of both, and positions in between and off to the sides.)
Its really not, though it includes some member of the progressive segment of the community (as well as the diametrically opposite segment) and a moderation policy which suppresses neither, so it can sometimes appear to be either extremely progressive or extremely regressive (but mostly just a mix of both, and positions in between and off to the sides.)
"Rather than stating that you don't know why it would be relevant to mention the man's race, why don't you just actually ask yourself the question? Why does it matter that he is black? You all are great problem solvers. I think you can come up with some interesting answers."
I can answer to this. His race is mentioned because today's radical left wing journalists think that separating minorities and putting them on a spotlight is progressive and going to fight against racism.
Well...that's pretty much absolute bullshit. Actually it's doing the complete opposite. For example in this article the credit for the achievement is stolen from the person himself and given to a generic group of people with only thing in common being the race. This is active way of telling his not "us", but his "them".
When journalists and people stop seeing black, white, yellow, green, gay, straight etc. or just stop caring about race and start seeing just people we most certainly won't have society without racism but we might have a society with much less racism from all sides.
I can answer to this. His race is mentioned because today's radical left wing journalists think that separating minorities and putting them on a spotlight is progressive and going to fight against racism.
Well...that's pretty much absolute bullshit. Actually it's doing the complete opposite. For example in this article the credit for the achievement is stolen from the person himself and given to a generic group of people with only thing in common being the race. This is active way of telling his not "us", but his "them".
When journalists and people stop seeing black, white, yellow, green, gay, straight etc. or just stop caring about race and start seeing just people we most certainly won't have society without racism but we might have a society with much less racism from all sides.
> HN is sometimes one of the more progressive wings of the geek community.
Your statement is belied utterly by almost all of the below replies and it is savagely disheartening.
Your statement is belied utterly by almost all of the below replies and it is savagely disheartening.
Hacker News is full of alt-right people and trump supporters, which you'll see any time anything vaguely immigration, race or gender related gets posted. Just by nature of the subject matter, middle-aged white male libertarian types are going to be over-represented.
I don't think so. HN has a mix of all types, and in my opinion, the group has a nice mix of progressives and some libertarians. But given most libertarian stories, like involving online privacy, the two groups overlap, it gives people a false impression that HN leans libertarian in general.
The alt-righters pop up once and again but they are usually downvoted out[0] when they turn to race baiting and blatant propaganda (posting of sketchy research supporting inherent differences between the races, for example).
[0] Hell, just look at the comments down in this section.
The alt-righters pop up once and again but they are usually downvoted out[0] when they turn to race baiting and blatant propaganda (posting of sketchy research supporting inherent differences between the races, for example).
[0] Hell, just look at the comments down in this section.
'Is full of alt-right people and trump supporters'? You could justly say that about Breitbart but unless you have a metric to support your assertions why should any credence be given to your opinion regarding the readership of HN? I have previously suggested the opposite opinion but I was wrong to do that. I simply do not know and neither do you. Room for a technical analysis if someone can be bothered.
Why the hell is this getting downvoted?
Removing my comments because this thread has sparked unnecessary discourse and reactions that this comment is the cause of.
> I understand the sentiment, but I also understand that if you truly want to get rid of racial bias, gender bias, whatever else bias completely, then not paying it mention in any sphere is how you get there.
We lived in a world where racism exists, regardless of your own personal attitude. This is just like global climate change - simply because you personally are carbon neutral doesn't mean we don't have a systematic crisis on our hands. You are far, far too willing to wash your hands of the whole topic, and it is very naive. The fact of the matter is that advantages and disadvantages are built into your socioeconomic class, and race is a very strong indicator of your class affiliation. On top of this, like or it not, there are a huge number of racists of all types, ranging from people who proudly burn crosses to much more subtle or unintentional racism. Denying that people's attitudes is something that must be taken into consideration is just... staggering. To put it quite simply: the fact that you, an enlightened individual, do not take race into your moral consideration is laudable but it in no way affects the fact that hundreds of millions of people are already racist and you are willfully putting blinders on to this fact. The most concerning part is that many of these actively (or passively) racist people are in positions of power. Ignoring that is just childish. [There is a strong analogy to this comic by XKCD about the ridiculous beliefs of US Senators.](https://xkcd.com/154/)
> And if you can't accept that people view this issue differently and think there are different solutions, you are part of the problem.
Pot, meet kettle.
We lived in a world where racism exists, regardless of your own personal attitude. This is just like global climate change - simply because you personally are carbon neutral doesn't mean we don't have a systematic crisis on our hands. You are far, far too willing to wash your hands of the whole topic, and it is very naive. The fact of the matter is that advantages and disadvantages are built into your socioeconomic class, and race is a very strong indicator of your class affiliation. On top of this, like or it not, there are a huge number of racists of all types, ranging from people who proudly burn crosses to much more subtle or unintentional racism. Denying that people's attitudes is something that must be taken into consideration is just... staggering. To put it quite simply: the fact that you, an enlightened individual, do not take race into your moral consideration is laudable but it in no way affects the fact that hundreds of millions of people are already racist and you are willfully putting blinders on to this fact. The most concerning part is that many of these actively (or passively) racist people are in positions of power. Ignoring that is just childish. [There is a strong analogy to this comic by XKCD about the ridiculous beliefs of US Senators.](https://xkcd.com/154/)
> And if you can't accept that people view this issue differently and think there are different solutions, you are part of the problem.
Pot, meet kettle.
[removed]
Getting the interview in the first place is a good marker of the privileged upbringing that most tech industry job applicants have. The path to getting a high paying, high quality job interview is littered with cul-de-sacs where smart, hard working people without access to those same opportunities are asked to build their houses and stay for good. And class mobility (the American Dream) is mostly a myth (for a good and accessible look at this issue, check out the recent On the Media series on poverty, Busted http://www.wnyc.org/series/busted-americas-poverty-myths ), so hard work is not the way out either.
The debate the OP is getting is this: 'people' vs. the individual. I think everyone agrees that the goal is for people to treat each others the exact same, but 'people' is a very messy concept.
Is it better for me, as an individual, to treat you the same as I do anyone else and wait for gradual societal pressure to push others to do the same, or is it better for me, as an individual, to highlight the oppression that very much still exists, in a bid to make others notice?
I don't think there is a right and wrong answer here, just different approaches to a problem. The good thing is that we can all agree the problem exists, which isn't always a given.
Is it better for me, as an individual, to treat you the same as I do anyone else and wait for gradual societal pressure to push others to do the same, or is it better for me, as an individual, to highlight the oppression that very much still exists, in a bid to make others notice?
I don't think there is a right and wrong answer here, just different approaches to a problem. The good thing is that we can all agree the problem exists, which isn't always a given.
I understand if my tone came off as more condescending than necessary - I am a corporate lawyer I am prone to being a bit incisive - so I apologize for that. I do tend to adopt a bit of snark when writing online - it gets those precious, precious upvotes.
However, in the end, my point is this: I am of the opinion that collective action is necessary to address this issue and I believe the weight of the evidence is on this side. The point that you (appear) to have made, and I am reacting to, is that ignoring the problem is the best way to address it, and I think that is demonstrably ineffective. It is just not the world in which we live.
However, in the end, my point is this: I am of the opinion that collective action is necessary to address this issue and I believe the weight of the evidence is on this side. The point that you (appear) to have made, and I am reacting to, is that ignoring the problem is the best way to address it, and I think that is demonstrably ineffective. It is just not the world in which we live.
The point that you (appear) to have made, and I am reacting to, is that ignoring the problem is the best way to address it, and I think that is demonstrably ineffective.
I think you are misunderstanding the point treehau5 wanted to make. I think he wants to say the same thing as I [1], we should take action to boost disadvantaged groups in order to close existing gaps as quickly as possible but that should be done in away that avoids focusing on the distinction one wants to go away. It is not about ignoring an existing issue, it is about not additionally emphasizing it.
What good is it, if you want to get rid of racial bias, to point out the race in a context where it does not matter at all? Maybe you could argue that there are people believing that black people made no significant contributions to our world and you are trying to correct that but that does not seem a very strong argument to me.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13707121
I think you are misunderstanding the point treehau5 wanted to make. I think he wants to say the same thing as I [1], we should take action to boost disadvantaged groups in order to close existing gaps as quickly as possible but that should be done in away that avoids focusing on the distinction one wants to go away. It is not about ignoring an existing issue, it is about not additionally emphasizing it.
What good is it, if you want to get rid of racial bias, to point out the race in a context where it does not matter at all? Maybe you could argue that there are people believing that black people made no significant contributions to our world and you are trying to correct that but that does not seem a very strong argument to me.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13707121
The (now deleted) comment said:
> I understand the sentiment, but I also understand that if you truly want to get rid of racial bias, gender bias, whatever else bias completely, then not paying it mention in any sphere is how you get there.
I do not see how that is open to interpretation and it appears to run entirely contrary to your point.
> I understand the sentiment, but I also understand that if you truly want to get rid of racial bias, gender bias, whatever else bias completely, then not paying it mention in any sphere is how you get there.
I do not see how that is open to interpretation and it appears to run entirely contrary to your point.
If you interpret »not paying it mention in any sphere« broadly enough as not talking about it and not doing anything against it, then yes, it would mean ignoring the issue.
My interpretation as a non-native English speaker focused on »mention« and so I did not interpret it as excluding any actions. But with you pointing this out and after having a second look I can see how »in any sphere« could make the point stronger than what I thought.
I the end I am neither in the position to judge what the correct interpretation of the phrase is, nor what statement treehau5 actually intended to make. I of course stand by my point, whether it is the same one treehau5 wanted to make or not.
My interpretation as a non-native English speaker focused on »mention« and so I did not interpret it as excluding any actions. But with you pointing this out and after having a second look I can see how »in any sphere« could make the point stronger than what I thought.
I the end I am neither in the position to judge what the correct interpretation of the phrase is, nor what statement treehau5 actually intended to make. I of course stand by my point, whether it is the same one treehau5 wanted to make or not.
I argue about words for a living, so I am always happy to hear competing interpretations.
However, here it is pretty clear to me, and likely why he deleted his post, that he meant "we should just ignore it." Which I don't think is a particularly defensible position.
However, here it is pretty clear to me, and likely why he deleted his post, that he meant "we should just ignore it." Which I don't think is a particularly defensible position.
That is correct.
There are black people who are very privileged (e.g. Obama) and white people who are very unprivileged (e.g. the homeless). So focusing on race will inevitable lead to bosting outcomes of some privileged people and ignoring other non-privileged people.
A better way to solve this problem would be to focus on people from disadvantaged backgrounds (== poor), regardless of race.
There are black people who are very privileged (e.g. Obama) and white people who are very unprivileged (e.g. the homeless). So focusing on race will inevitable lead to bosting outcomes of some privileged people and ignoring other non-privileged people.
A better way to solve this problem would be to focus on people from disadvantaged backgrounds (== poor), regardless of race.
No, it is not correct. The problem, as above, is not just the socioeconomic background of an individual - it is about whether the power structures in society are, themselves, full of people who bear animus toward unimportant birth-characteristics of certain people - not merit characteristics, not moral characteristics, not regarding intelligence or achievement, but simply being born to parents of a certain ethnic or religious heritage.
The playing field is not level. I truly do not know why this point is so hard to communicate.
You can be the wealthiest, smartest black man alive - you are never going to be a grand dragon in the KKK. That should be quite obvious.
Now back down from that hyperbolic example - what about being a black man in the Mormon Clergy? That was impossible until very recently.
Now what about being a black man as a corporate CEO? Definitely doable. There have been 14 such individuals in the history of the Fortune 500: http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/black-women-fortune-500/ # But it may be less doable depending on the organization. Don't you see there is a continuum here? That the qualifications of the individual, including their privilege, are irrelevant when the ladder that individual is trying to climb has a "no [characteristic] need apply" sign at the third or fourth rung? Why is this so hard to understand?
# Note that this is a pretty low number.
The playing field is not level. I truly do not know why this point is so hard to communicate.
You can be the wealthiest, smartest black man alive - you are never going to be a grand dragon in the KKK. That should be quite obvious.
Now back down from that hyperbolic example - what about being a black man in the Mormon Clergy? That was impossible until very recently.
Now what about being a black man as a corporate CEO? Definitely doable. There have been 14 such individuals in the history of the Fortune 500: http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/black-women-fortune-500/ # But it may be less doable depending on the organization. Don't you see there is a continuum here? That the qualifications of the individual, including their privilege, are irrelevant when the ladder that individual is trying to climb has a "no [characteristic] need apply" sign at the third or fourth rung? Why is this so hard to understand?
# Note that this is a pretty low number.
Ah yes, if you truly want to get rid of bugs in your software, then not mentioning them is the best way to get there. Start acting like your code has no bugs now!
The status quo doesn't change if people don't talk about, analyse and challenge it.
The status quo doesn't change if people don't talk about, analyse and challenge it.
"Fuck it, ship it" as applied to bugs in political systems... I like it.
Maybe it can help get through to people who write code all day that racism is built up technical debt, and ignoring it doesn't mean it will go away?
Maybe it can help get through to people who write code all day that racism is built up technical debt, and ignoring it doesn't mean it will go away?
[deleted]
I think that the solution lies in shining a light on, and whenever possible, celebrating differences, not ignoring them. Maybe some far off day we will be 'one people', after a few (dozen) generations of widespread interracial coupling, but that mostly misses the point.
There are real divisions between people, socially constructed ones. That will likely always persist, and discussing categorical representation (or lack thereof) is an important part of making genuine strides toward diversity (in the workplace, in culture, etc). The goal is not to have everybody be the same, it's to make the 'thing' representative of the the diverse people that make up the 'thing'.
Do you not agree that a young black kid deserves black heroes that she can relate her own story to? Why ignore that aspect of the story?
There are real divisions between people, socially constructed ones. That will likely always persist, and discussing categorical representation (or lack thereof) is an important part of making genuine strides toward diversity (in the workplace, in culture, etc). The goal is not to have everybody be the same, it's to make the 'thing' representative of the the diverse people that make up the 'thing'.
Do you not agree that a young black kid deserves black heroes that she can relate her own story to? Why ignore that aspect of the story?
Probably much healthier to celebrate diversity than pretend it does not exist.
[removed]
It's irresponsible to mention quotas and affirmative action, but not the systemic (and legal) racism and sexism that made those programs necessary in the first place.
[removed]
Not sure why you think calling the ACLU to fight on your behalf grants you a license to promote color-blindness as viable tactic against racism in this country.
[deleted]
probably better to be silent than to feed the alt-right, neo-Nazi trolls. Why can't privileged white people just keep quiet and listen for a while. It's time we recognize the tremendous contribution to computer science made by African-Americans. There is no place on HN for intolerance and hate.
[deleted]
HN has diverse commenters, some "progressive", some "libertarian", and some "concervative"
There's a fair number of programmers here, and they use regex; why does race matter? Well, now we have two problems.
;)
;)
Here's the 1990 USENET announcement of "archie".[1] This wasn't a full text search engine. It just collected what it got from "ls".
"Alan has a set of shell scripts that automagically calls up some subset of our list of servers each night (to keep load down on any one machine) and do a remote 'ls' on that machine. We cycle through the entire list in about a month, so no entry can be more than that old. For what it's worth, we currently know of about 210 sites."
Archie allows anyone to rlogin into one of our machines and query our archive lists. Another one of my guys, (Bill Heelan, [email protected]) wrote a bare-bones front end, which allows people to login, get a help message, ask for a specific string (using ed-like regular expressions) or get the contents of a specific archive server.
Currently, archie is pretty brain-damaged. The files are stored as flat ASCII files and the "prog" command just launches a "grep" with the appropriate arguments. Future plans (once we get the latest start of semester out of the way) is to add a real database (we've compiled postgres (sp?) and Alan has started to code the program to parse the raw input).
So that was Archie. That's like a library shelf list, or Active Directory, not a search engine.
Long before WWW search engines, there were computerized keyword and catalog databases. The US National Library of Medicine (MEDLARS) and Mead Data Central (later Lexis/Nexis) were early big ones. Big libraries also had online catalogs by 1990.
AltaVista was the first big full-text search engine. AltaVista was in the old telco building behind the Walgreens in Palo Alto. where PAIX is now. AltaVista was built as a demo of DEC Alpha servers. It was the first data center built telco-style, on open racks with the cables overhead. This was because they had the racks in place, but it became a trend.
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.archives/LWVA50W8...
"Alan has a set of shell scripts that automagically calls up some subset of our list of servers each night (to keep load down on any one machine) and do a remote 'ls' on that machine. We cycle through the entire list in about a month, so no entry can be more than that old. For what it's worth, we currently know of about 210 sites."
Archie allows anyone to rlogin into one of our machines and query our archive lists. Another one of my guys, (Bill Heelan, [email protected]) wrote a bare-bones front end, which allows people to login, get a help message, ask for a specific string (using ed-like regular expressions) or get the contents of a specific archive server.
Currently, archie is pretty brain-damaged. The files are stored as flat ASCII files and the "prog" command just launches a "grep" with the appropriate arguments. Future plans (once we get the latest start of semester out of the way) is to add a real database (we've compiled postgres (sp?) and Alan has started to code the program to parse the raw input).
So that was Archie. That's like a library shelf list, or Active Directory, not a search engine.
Long before WWW search engines, there were computerized keyword and catalog databases. The US National Library of Medicine (MEDLARS) and Mead Data Central (later Lexis/Nexis) were early big ones. Big libraries also had online catalogs by 1990.
AltaVista was the first big full-text search engine. AltaVista was in the old telco building behind the Walgreens in Palo Alto. where PAIX is now. AltaVista was built as a demo of DEC Alpha servers. It was the first data center built telco-style, on open racks with the cables overhead. This was because they had the racks in place, but it became a trend.
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.archives/LWVA50W8...
I loved Archie and it was still useful for a good year or two after the weww got going. Nice to finally learn who was behind it - back then people rarely shared photos of themselves since they took forever to download.
Not related but Montreal is mentioned every once in a while on HN but I still feel a bit of pride every time.
I vaguely remember Archie. On the topic of early web search, does anyone remember "Jump Stations"? They were basically collections of curated web links (as I recall, 25 years out now).
Was just thinking this earlier this week, can anything, at this point, hold a candle to Google in terms of search? Or possibly compete well with it such that people could switch?
Recently heard about the news Google is discontinuing enterprise site search, not that that is such a huge problem, but it's just another example of the issues that arise from having a monopoly control everything with no alternatives. They can pull the plug and everyone is left lacking.
Recently heard about the news Google is discontinuing enterprise site search, not that that is such a huge problem, but it's just another example of the issues that arise from having a monopoly control everything with no alternatives. They can pull the plug and everyone is left lacking.
The cost of entry in the search market just went way, way up due to Google implementing neural nets extensively in its search algorithms (Deep Mind whatever.) No question about that. Someone else might find a way to do that better, however; if so they could now take the market away. (But that doesn't mean I think that's likely.)
The years of collected data on personalizing search results, what different demographics expect, etc...Is a big barrier as well.
I believe they are able, for example, to know I want "Apache" the software organization even if I've never typed it before, because they've seen my previous software related searches. And...Injected some behavior based on searches by other people like me.
Someone else is getting much different results for the same term...Again, even if it's for the first time.
When I hear people say they don't like duckduckgo's results for a search term, it seems to usually trace back to "no tracking equals no personalization".
I believe they are able, for example, to know I want "Apache" the software organization even if I've never typed it before, because they've seen my previous software related searches. And...Injected some behavior based on searches by other people like me.
Someone else is getting much different results for the same term...Again, even if it's for the first time.
When I hear people say they don't like duckduckgo's results for a search term, it seems to usually trace back to "no tracking equals no personalization".
I agree with all of that. I think it's all well known. Which is why I said I'm not saying that someone overtaking Google is likely - just more possible now.
One of the things I love on the old Internet is how people took off with the Archie theme on other search engines. Gopher's main search engine was Veronica (Very Easy Rodent Oriented Internet Something Something). I also recall a Jughead search engine.
The second generation search engines killed the theme off (Altavista, Lycos, Webcrawler, Infoseek, etc...), but it was fun while it lasted.
The second generation search engines killed the theme off (Altavista, Lycos, Webcrawler, Infoseek, etc...), but it was fun while it lasted.
Neat.
I clearly recall connecting to archie.au and archie.nz to do (slow-ass!) searches back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Why those? Easy to remember!
I clearly recall connecting to archie.au and archie.nz to do (slow-ass!) searches back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Why those? Easy to remember!
Sad to see some people here be upset at the harmless mention of a subject's race. Though it is proof positive to me that even a community as dedicated towards intellectual pursuits like Hacker News has its fair share of regressive elements as well.
This escalated quickly. But I would actually somewhat side with the commenters saying that it is odd to explicitly mention the race in the article. I get that it is Black History Month in the US and in that context it seems appropriate but I would question whether having a Black History Month is a good idea in the first place.
It is not obvious to me that explicitly pointing out a distinction is the best way to get rid of said distinction, be it black or white, male or female, gay or straight. It is a historical accident that one of the groups in each case was at a disadvantage in the past and that this continuous on to today with the gap narrowing slower than one may want.
So I understand that it seems warranted to give the disadvantaged group special attention to close the gap as fast as possible. But does this necessarily require pointing out the distinction in the way this article or Black History Month does? Sure, any program targeting a specific group can not totally avoid making use of the addressed distinction, but would it not be better to keep this as inconspicuous as possible?
It is not obvious to me that explicitly pointing out a distinction is the best way to get rid of said distinction, be it black or white, male or female, gay or straight. It is a historical accident that one of the groups in each case was at a disadvantage in the past and that this continuous on to today with the gap narrowing slower than one may want.
So I understand that it seems warranted to give the disadvantaged group special attention to close the gap as fast as possible. But does this necessarily require pointing out the distinction in the way this article or Black History Month does? Sure, any program targeting a specific group can not totally avoid making use of the addressed distinction, but would it not be better to keep this as inconspicuous as possible?
There are not many efforts to get rid of distinctions.
People mostly work to get rid of unfair discrimination that is based on an arbitrary distinction.
People mostly work to get rid of unfair discrimination that is based on an arbitrary distinction.
That is of cause what I was referring to, you would certainly not attempt to get rid of different skin colors, sexes or sexual orientations to achieve equal treatment for all.
Why mention his race 'cause there's no such thing as unconscious bias and Valley funding and hires are as diverse as society is and... ah... oops, no, wait...
This did not really add something to what I said, I did not deny the existence of the problem. You have to argue why mentioning the race is helpful, why it helps to reduces biases. Why does it not do the opposite, why does mentioning the race not reinforce its importance?
I think I did mention that bias was unconscious; we all know brains are association machines, therefore associating more colors with computing achievements is obviously a good thing. If you know of a perverse effect, I'd be glad to hear of it.
No, Valley hiring is about as diverse as Valley job applicants (= CS graduates) are... at least regarding to sex, I'm assuming it's similar for race as well. So I'd say you're focusing on the wrong problem.
the OP here. as it seems there are some queries in peoples' mind re: the article's title; I am copying below the author's thoughts (from her social media feed) about the article, which I think is useful.
"My latest piece for JSTOR Daily looks at a hugely influential technologist who is strangely absent from most lists of Black inventors. Alan Emtage invented the world's first search engine -- so I look at the massive impact of search, not only on how the web works, but how our brains work, too."
P.s. Am notifying the author about the discussion here. If she has time & so inclined, to engage.
P.p.s. as for myself, I was hoping to see interesting HN discussion about search before pre-Google, & how search is affecting our brain + thinking process.
"My latest piece for JSTOR Daily looks at a hugely influential technologist who is strangely absent from most lists of Black inventors. Alan Emtage invented the world's first search engine -- so I look at the massive impact of search, not only on how the web works, but how our brains work, too."
P.s. Am notifying the author about the discussion here. If she has time & so inclined, to engage.
P.p.s. as for myself, I was hoping to see interesting HN discussion about search before pre-Google, & how search is affecting our brain + thinking process.
Unfortunate title, since it's already dragging this into flamey territory...
Any good information on the actual search engine? I'd never heard of it, it's before my time. TFA has about two paragraphs about it before bloviating into a philosophical discourse on the effect of search technology on society.
Any good information on the actual search engine? I'd never heard of it, it's before my time. TFA has about two paragraphs about it before bloviating into a philosophical discourse on the effect of search technology on society.
[deleted]
Why is the race of the man relevant? Seems a bit odd to point it out in the title that he was of presumably african heritage?
If your question is honest, I'll give you an honest answer: When you're a member of a minority that is commonly portrayed in the media as being an 'other' / 'not good enough' / 'not likely to succeed', this kind of identification is heartening. It shows you that people like you can succeed, people like you have succeeded, and people like you matter. I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not a part of a group that experiences this, and that's why you're asking this question. This is me assuming the best in your comment. Be aware, though, that lots of times when this question is asked, the underlying sentiment is: "I'm tired of hearing about race," or "why can't everyone just shut up about what group they belong to."
So the next time you ask that question or hear it being asked, be aware of how it's often heard. It might help you understand the potential reactions.
So the next time you ask that question or hear it being asked, be aware of how it's often heard. It might help you understand the potential reactions.
I find it demeaning to make it a point that someone from a certain race "actually succeeded this time!"
It seems to me that in doing so, one also indirectly makes the point that most people from race X don't succeed.
It's good sentiment at best and racism at worst.
It seems to me that in doing so, one also indirectly makes the point that most people from race X don't succeed.
It's good sentiment at best and racism at worst.
You raise a valid point. Our celebration of "Minority successes" does often border on infantilization. This is a sentiment that comes up in the disability community: "I don't exist to inspire you, I just want to live my life and be respected like anyone else."
It's a fine line. As more fields (I.e, CS) have visible minority successes, this need will fade. But we are not there yet.
It's a fine line. As more fields (I.e, CS) have visible minority successes, this need will fade. But we are not there yet.
[deleted]
Do you say this as someone from a member of a minority? Because I am a "minority" and I certainly don't care about going out of my way to find this kind of identification.
As with anything, there are no universals. Happy you don't need affirmation that "someone like you" can succeed, has succeeded, and matters. I don't want to use my own (potential, theoretical) "minority status" to boost my own argument. That's cheap. Sufficed to say, the demand exists as evidenced by the supply: If no one cared, there'd be no clicks, no Black History Month, and no ongoing discussion about the topic :)
I guess. I just can't imagine any so called minorities appreciating the assumption that they are so fragile and need special treatment.
Why would a person who doesn't require validation in the first place be concerned with the assumption they are fragile and need special treatment? Seems like such a 'so-called' minority is fine either way.
It was honest. Didn't know that it was black history month, I live in Scandinavia where we never used black people as slaves (albeit you could see them in a zoo hundreds of years ago, but that was while arabic slavers was still pillaging islands taking virgin girls as far as the Danish west coast for slavery in harems).
I just don't see the point in poking a wound like that at frequent intervals...
I just don't see the point in poking a wound like that at frequent intervals...
Reading "black technologist" my first thoughts goes to some malicious figure in a science-fantasy novel, not the color of ones skin. What is next, "the yellow programmer"?
I'm so glad I don't define who I am based on my skin color. Is the color of your skin of any importance when we are talking about your achievements? If he was white, would making the first search engine be less remarkable?
I'm so glad I don't define who I am based on my skin color. Is the color of your skin of any importance when we are talking about your achievements? If he was white, would making the first search engine be less remarkable?
I think it's pretty important if the descendant of someone who was kidnapped and enslaved to provide for a legally enforced illiterate underclass is able to not only read and write but read and write code and make significant contributions to the field of software engineering. Like if someone who lost a foot won the 100 meter in the olympics, not the paralympics . . .
Annnd they used the whitest photo of him they could find.
Provided by the man himself, as evident by the "Courtesy Alan Emtage" directly under the (whitest?) photo.
He's from Barbados. I'm glad the article didn't mistakingly call him an African American. Though black history month is also called African-American History Month.
He doesn't look black at all to me. Not even like the mixed people I've seen. I'm not contesting it so much as saying I'd have gone with white or latino based on the pic. I wonder what ethnicity is in family tree. Probably mixed in interesting way.
im not sure what him beeing black has to do with the first search engine
Black History Month - that's why.
h4nkoslo(3)
Why is his skin color mentioned as part of the headline? Also, isn't Emtage a French name, and the guy doesn't look black?
neoeldex(3)
This concept does not conform with my confirmation bias.
I don't understand why one would point out a person's race (unless it's relevant to the situaiton), but since the title did...
I cannot fanthom how anyone could call this person "black". If anything, his complexion is similar to what US people call "hispanic" (although to me that's just southern European, not a distinct race).
I cannot fanthom how anyone could call this person "black". If anything, his complexion is similar to what US people call "hispanic" (although to me that's just southern European, not a distinct race).
The guy is from the Caribbean. Race is always complex, but it is especially complex in the Caribbean.
How pale a person looks doesn't really have bearing on whether they consider themselves black. We don't know what his parents looked like, but they might have been fairly dark. We don't know what his sibling look like, but you'd be surprised at the variation there is. I have a black family friend and he has some blond grandchildren. Don't know if they consider themselves black, but they have a better claim to it as I have to consider myself Swedish.
I also think you're off on what the US considers hispanic. While many hispanic people have some southern European origin, the term really mean people from Mexico on south from a Spanish culture of any race or ethnicity. It's a little weird, but you can have hispanic black Dominicans and hispanic Indian Brazilians. Actual Spanish people probably aren't hispanic in the US sense, although I get different answers on that. Filipinos are another people difficult to slot into the standard US hispanic definition.
How pale a person looks doesn't really have bearing on whether they consider themselves black. We don't know what his parents looked like, but they might have been fairly dark. We don't know what his sibling look like, but you'd be surprised at the variation there is. I have a black family friend and he has some blond grandchildren. Don't know if they consider themselves black, but they have a better claim to it as I have to consider myself Swedish.
I also think you're off on what the US considers hispanic. While many hispanic people have some southern European origin, the term really mean people from Mexico on south from a Spanish culture of any race or ethnicity. It's a little weird, but you can have hispanic black Dominicans and hispanic Indian Brazilians. Actual Spanish people probably aren't hispanic in the US sense, although I get different answers on that. Filipinos are another people difficult to slot into the standard US hispanic definition.
I can tell you why it's important to note the race of an underrepresented minority who made a notable contribution.
I teach programming to a group of black young adults. Self image is very important to most young folks. Just seeing other black people who are successful computer programmers helps them imagine themselves as computer programmers.
Identity matters to young people who are trying to shape their own self image.
I teach programming to a group of black young adults. Self image is very important to most young folks. Just seeing other black people who are successful computer programmers helps them imagine themselves as computer programmers.
Identity matters to young people who are trying to shape their own self image.
I would have thought that it would have been more powerful for the article not to mention race, as it really doesn't except in the title, and just have the picture of the guy.
Why? Because then the article isn't trying to claim that one of the most notable things about him (notable enough to be in the title of the article) is his race. Young black people would see him being lauded for his work, regardless of any other aspect about him.
Otherwise, you end up with the idea that the article is saying "Hey look! A black person actually did something notable in tech!" Not the message you want to get across.
Why? Because then the article isn't trying to claim that one of the most notable things about him (notable enough to be in the title of the article) is his race. Young black people would see him being lauded for his work, regardless of any other aspect about him.
Otherwise, you end up with the idea that the article is saying "Hey look! A black person actually did something notable in tech!" Not the message you want to get across.
Then why is it strictly forbidden to write an article with a title that caters specifically to young white children?
I don't think I'll be able to do satisfactorily answer that question in a couple sentences, but I'll try.
White people are a majority in technology, so it's assumed to be obvious to white children that they too can be a technologist. There's not a significant gap in perceived identity between themselves and Mark Zuckerberg, for example.
So, that begs the question, why focus on encouraging specifically white children? They don't face racial barriers and have many famous role models. Preference for white people has a long and ugly history in America.
White people are a majority in technology, so it's assumed to be obvious to white children that they too can be a technologist. There's not a significant gap in perceived identity between themselves and Mark Zuckerberg, for example.
So, that begs the question, why focus on encouraging specifically white children? They don't face racial barriers and have many famous role models. Preference for white people has a long and ugly history in America.
We probably need more white role models who didn't go to Harvard or Stanford, though.
> White people are a majority in technology
BS, have you seen us brown folks? we are literally the IT race. You could say white blokes are at a disadvantage. Point being, I feel kids should be taught their code and their core values are important, and should be also taught the art of not giving a shit about stuff that clearly doesn't matter. No black folks in tech? all the more reason to become a God
BS, have you seen us brown folks? we are literally the IT race. You could say white blokes are at a disadvantage. Point being, I feel kids should be taught their code and their core values are important, and should be also taught the art of not giving a shit about stuff that clearly doesn't matter. No black folks in tech? all the more reason to become a God
Ignoring whether it's forbidden, I'm not sure it's useful. I don't remember having some identity tied to being "white" as a child. I think white children are more likely to identify as being "Catholic" or "of French ancestry" or "poor" or "from Philly" or some other dimension apart from race.
If there is no identity tied to being white, then how are there hundreds upon hundreds of articles in WaPo and the New York Times which almost literally say "White Men Ruin the World" and contain detailed accounts of how white supremacy won Trump the presidency?
Either you're right, and white supremacy is not a problem at all, or you're wrong, and culture today has made it acceptable to say "fuck white men", which is disgustingly racist and yet no one is willing to publicly acknowledge it except "white supremacists" themselves.
Either you're right, and white supremacy is not a problem at all, or you're wrong, and culture today has made it acceptable to say "fuck white men", which is disgustingly racist and yet no one is willing to publicly acknowledge it except "white supremacists" themselves.
Sure, there's some white identity. I'm questioning if there's enough to market to it as a specific segment.
I'm also not convinced that xenophobia is the same thing as white identity.
I'm also not convinced that xenophobia is the same thing as white identity.
Young white children can see and relate to a large chunk of tech workers. Black people do not have that privilege. Have you noticed that young people generally achieve more when they can model themselves after those who are like them?
One could say that almost every article caters specifically to white people.
Why do you think so?
Could you not also say that almost every article caters specifically to Jewish people? Or would that be anti-Semitic in your mind?
Could you not also say that almost every article caters specifically to Jewish people? Or would that be anti-Semitic in your mind?
Can you elaborate on that? Why is this so?
it implies some of the following:
- whites are a non-diverse group of people
- whites (of all types, as a group) have been as historically unempowered as nonwhites in America
- whites think whiteness is underrepresented in America
- whites aren't bothered by how nonwhiteness affects outcomes
- messages about race are currently at peak broadcast capacity, so talking about race is a zero-sum game where prioritizing one audience takes a potential piece of information away another audience
- race is something other than ingroup/outgroup attribution
- whites are a non-diverse group of people
- whites (of all types, as a group) have been as historically unempowered as nonwhites in America
- whites think whiteness is underrepresented in America
- whites aren't bothered by how nonwhiteness affects outcomes
- messages about race are currently at peak broadcast capacity, so talking about race is a zero-sum game where prioritizing one audience takes a potential piece of information away another audience
- race is something other than ingroup/outgroup attribution
>whites are a non-diverse group of people
Even if we assume that this is true (despite the fact that it's not) what does it have to do with printing articles with headlines that read "{INSERT NON-WHITE RACE HERE} miraculously succeeds in life!"?
Even if we assume that this is true (despite the fact that it's not) what does it have to do with printing articles with headlines that read "{INSERT NON-WHITE RACE HERE} miraculously succeeds in life!"?
I agree, none of those implications are true. That example causes discomfort because the logic is unsound but believed deeply by its proponents.
The reason people like headlines like that is that milestone accomplishments by minorities is inspiring.
The reason people like headlines like that is that milestone accomplishments by minorities is inspiring.
Wouldn't it be better to encourage kids to not be racist, and thus encourage them to take inspiration by people different from them (different race, men/women, etc)?
And I don't understand why, with such alarming, metronomic regularity, is there always someone who pops up and says that race is a non-issue and that we shouldn't mention it. Or even in this case, that we shouldn't recognize his blackness. I mean really - would you go and tell him he wasn't black to his face because his skin wasn't dark enough?
The guy's race matters because it's important that people from minorities see that people that look like them and sound like them can succeed. The guy's race matters because in the past history has been rewritten to give prominence to white faces even when black faces have carried out exactly the same roles [1]. It matters because they've had to overcome, in many instances, a system that is structurally biased against their success. And it matters because middle aged, white, heterosexual men, who completely coincidentally stand to gain the most from things staying as they are, are the ones who argue the loudest that we shouldn't recognize these structural biases. It matters because in order to succeed they have had to overcome obstacles that you haven't.
If you think that we are somehow overcompensating by even recognizing the color of someone's skin, perhaps you can also tell me why there were two BAME people in my year of four thousand people at Oxford. One of whom went to Eton.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Seacole
The guy's race matters because it's important that people from minorities see that people that look like them and sound like them can succeed. The guy's race matters because in the past history has been rewritten to give prominence to white faces even when black faces have carried out exactly the same roles [1]. It matters because they've had to overcome, in many instances, a system that is structurally biased against their success. And it matters because middle aged, white, heterosexual men, who completely coincidentally stand to gain the most from things staying as they are, are the ones who argue the loudest that we shouldn't recognize these structural biases. It matters because in order to succeed they have had to overcome obstacles that you haven't.
If you think that we are somehow overcompensating by even recognizing the color of someone's skin, perhaps you can also tell me why there were two BAME people in my year of four thousand people at Oxford. One of whom went to Eton.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Seacole
> would you go and tell him he wasn't black to his face because his skin wasn't dark enough?
Well, I wouldn't tell him, but I would definitely ask him if he claimed he was black. Then he would probably explain that he doesn't mean "black" as color but "black" as culture (same as "Jewish" religion vs. "Jewish" ethnicity) and that's fine.
> people that look like them and sound like them can succeed.
After a (semi-)black president, is this really still relevant?!
> why there were two BAME people in my year of four thousand people at Oxford
Maybe because Oxford is in England and England is predominantly white?
In general, I oppose such categorisations, because (1) they're racist, and in emphasizing race, they encourage other people to do so as well, and (2) race is far less relevant than other characteristics, in particular class (wealth), and by focusing on race, you're playing a divide-and-conquer game, making groups of people hate each other, while ignoring the most important inequality in existance. (Which, coincidentially, was the most likely cause of the discrepancy you saw at Oxford.)
Well, I wouldn't tell him, but I would definitely ask him if he claimed he was black. Then he would probably explain that he doesn't mean "black" as color but "black" as culture (same as "Jewish" religion vs. "Jewish" ethnicity) and that's fine.
> people that look like them and sound like them can succeed.
After a (semi-)black president, is this really still relevant?!
> why there were two BAME people in my year of four thousand people at Oxford
Maybe because Oxford is in England and England is predominantly white?
In general, I oppose such categorisations, because (1) they're racist, and in emphasizing race, they encourage other people to do so as well, and (2) race is far less relevant than other characteristics, in particular class (wealth), and by focusing on race, you're playing a divide-and-conquer game, making groups of people hate each other, while ignoring the most important inequality in existance. (Which, coincidentially, was the most likely cause of the discrepancy you saw at Oxford.)
> After a (semi-)black president, is this really still relevant?!
When the current President has committed to rolling back much of what said President achieved socially, economically and culturally, it's fair to say that Obama being elected wasn't the panacea people thought it would be.
> Maybe because Oxford is in England and England is predominantly white?
The number is off then by two orders of magnitude - and there are specific patterns of underachievement amongst black youth in England which exist when you control for other factors such as class and wealth. Black youngsters in the U.K. are twice as likely to be unemployed as white ones.
Focusing resources on the specific problems these communities face is not playing 'divide and conquer' any more than is providing specific support to LGBT communities who have a higher prevalence of mental health issues.
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-black-young-men-are-o...
When the current President has committed to rolling back much of what said President achieved socially, economically and culturally, it's fair to say that Obama being elected wasn't the panacea people thought it would be.
> Maybe because Oxford is in England and England is predominantly white?
The number is off then by two orders of magnitude - and there are specific patterns of underachievement amongst black youth in England which exist when you control for other factors such as class and wealth. Black youngsters in the U.K. are twice as likely to be unemployed as white ones.
Focusing resources on the specific problems these communities face is not playing 'divide and conquer' any more than is providing specific support to LGBT communities who have a higher prevalence of mental health issues.
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-black-young-men-are-o...
Interesting article. However, I wonder what's really causing the difference in achievement - at first, it would seem that just skin color doesn't explain it, as Indians (also darker-skinned) outperform even whites (according to the article). In theory it's possible that they're being discriminated against (in a racist way) but they outperform despite that, though I've never seen any study that would suggest such genetic superiority (in terms of IQ). Could it be culture (Asians/Chinese are well known for their "Tiger moms", maybe Indians have a similar achievement-oriented culture), or possibly family wealth (Asians coming to study to the UK are more likely to be from wealthy families)? I'm really curious.
There's an attainment gap. It's definitely not genetic. It is partly cultural, and involves for instance the lack of positive black role models, visible success stories, the idea that succeeding is a 'white' thing to do.
One black guy being elected President doesn't solve that - you need to see examples of black guys as doctors, lawyers, computer scientists, engineers for it to work. Studies have shown that one of the greatest predictors of whether someone goes on to do a certain career is whether they or their family knows anyone in that profession.
That's why it's important and not 'racist' to proactively point out examples of successful black people. It's not that there aren't successful white people as well - they're visible everywhere, and we recognize them anyway (ever see the Oscars?). We do it because sadly the status quo leaves some people without black role models.
One black guy being elected President doesn't solve that - you need to see examples of black guys as doctors, lawyers, computer scientists, engineers for it to work. Studies have shown that one of the greatest predictors of whether someone goes on to do a certain career is whether they or their family knows anyone in that profession.
That's why it's important and not 'racist' to proactively point out examples of successful black people. It's not that there aren't successful white people as well - they're visible everywhere, and we recognize them anyway (ever see the Oscars?). We do it because sadly the status quo leaves some people without black role models.
08-15(1)
The gender and racial identities of underrepresented populations is relevant to a whole host of readers, including researchers, educators, social scientists, etc. But beyond that, it's also relevant because the article references Black History Month and is even tagged with a "Black History Month" tag.
As far as why he is considered black, it's probably because someone found it economically advantageous to consider one or more of his ancestors black at some point in their history, and the norm was that a son of a slave was also a slave (i.e. "black"), regardless of complexion.
Relevant: https://psmag.com/why-your-race-isn-t-genetic-559908897f93#....
As far as why he is considered black, it's probably because someone found it economically advantageous to consider one or more of his ancestors black at some point in their history, and the norm was that a son of a slave was also a slave (i.e. "black"), regardless of complexion.
Relevant: https://psmag.com/why-your-race-isn-t-genetic-559908897f93#....
1:) It's black history month, and he's black and part of history.
2:) That lighting makes his complexion look much lighter.
3:) If they say he's black, i'll take their word for it, skin colour varies significantly.
2:) That lighting makes his complexion look much lighter.
3:) If they say he's black, i'll take their word for it, skin colour varies significantly.
> Researchers also offer alternatives to the color-blindness discourse. Reason and Evans call for people to become "racially cognizant", that is they need to acknowledge the role that race plays in their everyday lives. Being racially cognizant also demands a continuous examination and reinterpretation of race and how it affects our lives. It is also important to balance looking at a person as an individual and acknowledging the role their membership to a social group plays in their daily lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(race)_in_the_...
As to how someone could call them black... "it's not the color of your skin, it's the race of your kin"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(race)_in_the_...
As to how someone could call them black... "it's not the color of your skin, it's the race of your kin"
> reinterpretation of race
In other words "making up shit". It's time to stop listening to this bullshit.
In other words "making up shit". It's time to stop listening to this bullshit.
Please stop posting uncivilly and unsubstantively. We're trying to have thoughtful, insightful discussion, and name calling doesn't help us get there.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>I don't understand why one would point out a person's race (unless it's relevant to the situaiton). [sic]
The first two sentences of the article says
>At a time when “googling” has become the generic term for conducting an internet search, it can be hard to remember that search had a long history before Google came along. But it’s worth revisiting that past during Black History Month, because the pre-Google era saw one of the most momentous black contributions to the development of the internet: the invention of internet search itself, by Alan Emtage.
Emphasis mine.
The first two sentences of the article says
>At a time when “googling” has become the generic term for conducting an internet search, it can be hard to remember that search had a long history before Google came along. But it’s worth revisiting that past during Black History Month, because the pre-Google era saw one of the most momentous black contributions to the development of the internet: the invention of internet search itself, by Alan Emtage.
Emphasis mine.
It is Black History Month in the US, as the very first paragraph of the article says.
"Black" as a racial label or identity is only tangentially connected with complexion (or even predominant ancestry, because cultural attitudes of race are shaped by history, including in the US specifically, the One Drop Rule [0].)
Effectively, racial labels and identities are more about ethnicity (that is shared cultural identity [on the identity side] or shared ascribed kind of "otherness" [from the imposed labelling side]) than biology (either phenotype and genotype), though the latter influences the former.
(And "hispanic" is explicitly an ethnic label/identity, which applies to people ranging from completely European descent to completely African descent to descent completely from the indigenous peoples of South and/or Central America, and every possible combination in between, as well as some others.)
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
Effectively, racial labels and identities are more about ethnicity (that is shared cultural identity [on the identity side] or shared ascribed kind of "otherness" [from the imposed labelling side]) than biology (either phenotype and genotype), though the latter influences the former.
(And "hispanic" is explicitly an ethnic label/identity, which applies to people ranging from completely European descent to completely African descent to descent completely from the indigenous peoples of South and/or Central America, and every possible combination in between, as well as some others.)
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
Are you american? The term isn't used to describe skin color per se, but to classify someone as a member of a certain group with attendant right/privileges and cultural traits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
Recently 'blacks' weren't allowed in certain venues/institutions and were required to take a generally subservient stance vis a vis 'whites'. White also receive(d) preference for admittance to the country and citizenship.
The non-denotative nature of the language is well-discussed: http://forward.com/opinion/318667/im-a-mizrahi-jew-do-i-coun...
Recently 'blacks' weren't allowed in certain venues/institutions and were required to take a generally subservient stance vis a vis 'whites'. White also receive(d) preference for admittance to the country and citizenship.
The non-denotative nature of the language is well-discussed: http://forward.com/opinion/318667/im-a-mizrahi-jew-do-i-coun...
> I don't understand why one would point out a person's race (unless it's relevant to the situaiton)
If you read the first paragraph of the article, you'd know that his race is the reason the article was published:
At a time when “googling” has become the generic term for conducting an internet search, it can be hard to remember that search had a long history before Google came along. But it’s worth revisiting that past during Black History Month, because the pre-Google era saw one of the most momentous black contributions to the development of the internet: the invention of internet search itself, by Alan Emtage.
If you read the first paragraph of the article, you'd know that his race is the reason the article was published:
At a time when “googling” has become the generic term for conducting an internet search, it can be hard to remember that search had a long history before Google came along. But it’s worth revisiting that past during Black History Month, because the pre-Google era saw one of the most momentous black contributions to the development of the internet: the invention of internet search itself, by Alan Emtage.
While I agree 100% the US and most of the Western world has a weird definition of "black", I think the photo in the article is just unlucky lighting. If you look at the guy's photos on Google Images [1] it's clear he has mixed features that are commonly associated with Caribbean blacks.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=Alan+Emtage&source=lnms&tbm=...
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=Alan+Emtage&source=lnms&tbm=...
It comes from a legal tradition-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
Black in this context is a race, which is an extremely broad spectrum of ethnicities and nationalities of various skin tones.
In any case, I don't know anyone who would consider this man to be black. Perhaps it's the lighting or angle of the photo?
Well, like I said. Black is a race, not necessarily a skin tone but mostly identified as a complex and arbitrary delineation of class, nationality, ethnicity, and general skin tone as the easiest identifier but not necessarily the qualifier. I have a white friend who's tan as hell, and studied under a woman from South Africa who was about as tan as my friend. The woman was considered a black woman, while my friend was considered a white man, even though their skin tones were similar.
Life is full of such arbitrary nuance and complexity.
Life is full of such arbitrary nuance and complexity.
I wasn't speaking about skin tone, but also physical features indicative of African descent. At any rate, in the United States (which is the context of the holiday), class, nationality, and ethnicity don't contribute to perceptions of race; it's effectively the presence or absence of indigenous African physical traits, skin-tone being but one example. Perhaps class, nationality, and ethnicity could be used in 'tie-breaker' cases where race isn't visibly apparent, but that's the extent.
Is who you know relevant?
Yes, because it's a sample of human racial perceptions, but at any rate "who I know" isn't the sample I quoted, it was "who I know of", and the latter is a larger sample than the former. Further, "who I know of" is a pretty good informal indicator given that I know of mostly Americans (and a particularly diverse group of Americans at that). Perhaps you mean "is this sample statistically significant?", in which case the answer is "No, and I never pretended otherwise".
Not to mention that (as of 2016) Black People don't even exist any more. Everyone who previously was "Black" is now "of Color".
A Black Technologist is an expert in Black (=incomprehensible to laypeople) Technology. Since we're talking about search engines, I figure that's accurate enough.
A Black Technologist is an expert in Black (=incomprehensible to laypeople) Technology. Since we're talking about search engines, I figure that's accurate enough.
That's as silly redefinition of language. And racist as well - unless white people are also "people of color" (technically, we're not white, but yellow-pink or something).
Sorry. I'm being overly cynical.
But it seems that "people of color" is the hot new Politically Correct term for black people (or non-white people depending on who you ask). Do not ask me why.
But it seems that "people of color" is the hot new Politically Correct term for black people (or non-white people depending on who you ask). Do not ask me why.
The article is for Black History Month, a...holiday? here in the US which I think is now called "African American History Month". So does a guy from Barbados working in Canada not count now? I'm not good at that kind of math
If you're genuinely confused and not trolling, it's okay to use black as an adjective. African American is okay too if they are that, but the 90s trend of referring to everyone black as AA is over.
Not trolling. I think you either call it African American History month and write stuff about blacks who were descended from American slaves or you call it Black History Month in which case the inclusion of a Barbadan(?) working in Canada makes more sense
Neither "Black" nor "Hispanic" are used strictly as races in the US. They both largely refer to heritage.
There was always a story it was named after the comic, and after it there were the Veronica and Jughead systems which were named the same way. I just checked then and Wikipedia says he didn't name it after the comic and hated it. So there goes another 1990's myth.
Archie itself actually never worked very well, but nothing did in those days so we were amazed when it actually returned a result.