"Among those 34 OECD nations, only the United States spent centuries aggressively trying to stamp out literacy among a major part of its population." I'm Irish

"Among those 34 OECD nations, only the United States spent centuries aggressively trying to stamp out literacy among a major part of its population." I'm Irish, and I'd question the accuracy of that statement - whether the US was unique in that regard. You could argue over the specifics of what it means 'to try stamp out literacy', but for 100s of years here (Ireland), the native language (Irish/Gaelige), and education through it, got a very tough time from the occupying British government. More generally, the country had a tough time. The majority of the population (Catholics) had little to no opportunity, and little education ('the penal laws' etc). Many of those who could left as emigrants (going to places such as USA). Now, Republic of Ireland - the OECD nation - has been around less than 100 years, and we've made big strides in this time. Many peoples parents are now college educated; but this is probably the first generation where that's true. So, what does it mean to compare the population of Ireland 'corrected for the demography', as is done on the last chart in that page? And then make statements about the legacy of slavery in the USA, using that comparision? I really think the analysis lies in tatters at that point. While this post is - clearly - raising interest in the measurement of education (a good thing) the method used is just much too crude to possibly draw the kind of conclusions the author, and others, are making. There's just too much historical differences between what it means to be an immigrant in different countries, and too much different history, for such crude analysis to support the conclusions drawn.