4 ms·
>"Does that make Wax a white supremacist for saying that culture matters for poverty-related outcomes, that not all cultures are equally good for escaping pover
by ABCLAW 9y ago
>"Does that make Wax a white supremacist for saying that culture matters for poverty-related outcomes, that not all cultures are equally good for escaping poverty, and that the 1950s American “bourgeois cultural script” was particularly good for that purpose?"
This is the core premise of the article, the conclusion, of course, being 'no'. Unfortunately, it does not accurately deal with the fairly clear subtext being delivered by Ms. Wax.
> "In an interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian about the op-ed, Wax was quoted as saying that “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans,” because, in the phrasing of the DP article’s author, “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior.” … [they then affirm Wax’s right to express her opinions, then say:] We categorically reject Wax’s claims."
This, in particular, is striking. Why is 'being ruled by white Europeans' the draw to migrants over, say, the relative wealth of the west in the aggregate? France and Germany certainly offer troves of opportunity, but is Greece really more of a destination for economic migrants than, say, Singapore? Would India's quasi-british culture provide a counter-example when compared with China's?
The lack of any of these comparative examinations leads us immediately to question the argument provided. Ms. Wax doesn't even make case compelling to show that it was the 1950s script itself, rather than other causes before she jumps into discussing the superiority of the white european ruling establishment. Could it be that America's economic rivals had just been bombed to ash which led to an influx of capital to the country during an era where unions had clout? Nah, its just the fact that it was ruled by white europeans (/s).
Give me a break.
- ameister14 9y agoI think the evidence of mass emigration from White European countries in the recent past does enough to prove her point wrong.
- djrogers 9y agoThis is clearly an aside from TFA, but what are you talking about? Europe has had mass immigration recently, not emigration.
- zhemao 9y agoPretty sure GP means the mass emigration of Europeans to North America in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
- sologoub 9y agoWhat does this have to do with the article? People (all people) fled violence, hunger and death that came from a series of conflicts so dire that some populations haven't fully recovered still. Add to that incredible amounts of political violence at the dawn of the 20th century, and you have the immigration flows. Similar thing happened when the Soviet block collapsed and economic/political strife spilled out.
- chickenfries 9y agoExactly. Can you imagine being a black student from the "inner city" (which has been a dog whistle term since the 90s) and taking a class with her after this? Would you feel like you were being assessed objectively, say if you were late to class once or if you asked for an extension?
- gort 9y ago> Why is 'being ruled by white Europeans' the draw to migrants over, say, the relative wealth of the west in the aggregate? It isn't of course. But suppose there's a country, Foobaria, and "everyone" (hyperbolically speaking) wants to migrate there. But it has notoriously bad weather. In one sense it's true to say that "everyone wants to migrate to a country with bad weather" and in another sense it isn't. (This is the extension/intension distinction.) She can still be wrong. And of course it's hard to see inside people's heads and know what they really meant. One can certainly wonder why she phrased it like that -- but then, I don't know what she was asked. I'm having trouble finding this interview; is there a link somewhere?