Anyway, this is an important problem that I’m working on, but literally I can only make a difference for my county in my state, and it’s clear that the problem is everywhere.
I think you mean “in the US”—things are different in France, or in Finland, or in Japan, or in China. You may see some similar patterns, but I think the whole “black/white” thing is pretty specific to the US; you get complicated relationships between ethnic groups in many countries, but they work differently (look at Belgium, or Ireland, or Canada, or China, or Rwanda, or Egypt, or Singapore - though Australia seems to be one of the rare countries comparable to the US).
I think taking a more international perspective is useful not only to be more accessible to non-US readers, but also to detach the issue from local politics (especially with examples from countries whose politics are quite different), and get a larger sample size in which it’s easier to see which theories hold water.
Huh. Even I, who am usually very peeved by that kind of things, automatically took “everywhere” to mean ‘in the US’ in that context without even noticing. (Possibly because the first paragraph explicitly mentioned the US twice, and because of the “county” and “state” earlier in the same sentence.)
Everywhere is all-quantified concerning the location, so obviously it means on other planets and in other civilizations as well. Elementary, my dear Watson.
(In certain posts, I do have trouble determining whether the writer is talking about the US, the Anglosphere, the western world, the developed world, the whole world, or what.)
though Australia seems to be one of the rare countries comparable to the US
That doesn’t seem right. Australia’s “black” group (which isn’t labelled ‘black’) is more closely analogous to Native Americans than African Americans in history and current status in ethnic politics. It would be altogether ironic to equate Australian Aboriginals with African Americans simply because they have similar skin color.
Can’t say I disagree with that, but do you agree that the American black-white situation is closer to the Australian situation (in term of current political and social dynamics, not in terms of history) than it is to the Walloon-Flemish situation, or the Hutu-Tutsi situation, or the Han-Tibetan situation?
Can’t say I disagree with that, but do you agree that the American black-white situation is closer to the Australian situation (in term of current political and social dynamics, not in terms of history) than it is to the Walloon-Flemish situation, or the Hutu-Tutsi situation, or the Han-Tibetan situation?
I’m afraid I can’t speak with confidence about any of those other ethnic situations. I’m not particularly familiar with them. Australia and the United States are the two countries in which I have resided and the cultures I am least unfamiliar with. I’ll take your word for it that the dynamics are more similar than the others mentioned.
Nice article (as usual, if true). Minor nitpick:
I think you mean “in the US”—things are different in France, or in Finland, or in Japan, or in China. You may see some similar patterns, but I think the whole “black/white” thing is pretty specific to the US; you get complicated relationships between ethnic groups in many countries, but they work differently (look at Belgium, or Ireland, or Canada, or China, or Rwanda, or Egypt, or Singapore - though Australia seems to be one of the rare countries comparable to the US).
I think taking a more international perspective is useful not only to be more accessible to non-US readers, but also to detach the issue from local politics (especially with examples from countries whose politics are quite different), and get a larger sample size in which it’s easier to see which theories hold water.
Huh. Even I, who am usually very peeved by that kind of things, automatically took “everywhere” to mean ‘in the US’ in that context without even noticing. (Possibly because the first paragraph explicitly mentioned the US twice, and because of the “county” and “state” earlier in the same sentence.)
Everywhere is all-quantified concerning the location, so obviously it means on other planets and in other civilizations as well. Elementary, my dear Watson.
(In certain posts, I do have trouble determining whether the writer is talking about the US, the Anglosphere, the western world, the developed world, the whole world, or what.)
That doesn’t seem right. Australia’s “black” group (which isn’t labelled ‘black’) is more closely analogous to Native Americans than African Americans in history and current status in ethnic politics. It would be altogether ironic to equate Australian Aboriginals with African Americans simply because they have similar skin color.
Can’t say I disagree with that, but do you agree that the American black-white situation is closer to the Australian situation (in term of current political and social dynamics, not in terms of history) than it is to the Walloon-Flemish situation, or the Hutu-Tutsi situation, or the Han-Tibetan situation?
I’m afraid I can’t speak with confidence about any of those other ethnic situations. I’m not particularly familiar with them. Australia and the United States are the two countries in which I have resided and the cultures I am least unfamiliar with. I’ll take your word for it that the dynamics are more similar than the others mentioned.