6 ms·

Which other countries were much better? Obviously the fact that women and African Americans got the vote so late is not good, but America could still be one of

Which other countries were much better? Obviously the fact that women and African Americans got the vote so late is not good, but America could still be one of the freest countries in the last 150 years if most everyone else was even worse.

foldr 7y ago
I think there are lots of Western countries that have never had laws barring people from voting due to their race. E.g., there has never been any such law in the UK. Women in the UK also got the vote slightly earlier.
- philwelch 7y ago
  The UK is an abnormally successful democracy by world standards. I suppose you could quibble about the British Empire, but the main difference there is that Britain colonized much more of the world than America did. The main question I have concerns Britain’s history of anti-Catholic discrimination. It’s all well and good to point out that Britain never disenfranchised black people during a time when approximately zero black people lived there. Although I suppose Britain is responsible for colonizing South Africa and Rhodesia.... But sure, let’s concede Britain for the moment. France, West Germany, and Italy were effectively fascist dictatorships until the mid-1940’s. (Vichy being a “puppet government” is a lie concocted to spare French pride—Petain was a fascist sympathizer since before the war and he took power within the French political system at the time—its not like the Germans overran the government and installed him like they did in other occupied countries.) Spain and Portugal until the 1970’s. Yugoslavia had a communist dictatorship until the 1990’s. Which is incidentally the same decade that Switzerland achieved universal women’s suffrage.
  - foldr 7y ago
    >But sure, let’s concede Britain for the moment. Great - that was the point of my post. Not sure why you are going off on a bunch of other tangents. You haven't mentioned any other country which banned people from voting on racial criteria. >It’s all well and good to point out that Britain never disenfranchised black people during a time when approximately zero black people lived there. You say this as if Britain started disenfranchising black people once they were present in significant numbers, but this is not the case. (This is not to deny, of course, that there is a long history of racism in the UK. I'm merely pointing out that the US is relatively exceptional in passing actual laws banning black people from voting.)
    - philwelch 7y ago
      Because you’re comparing a continent-wide federation to a tiny island-sized country. > You say this as if Britain started disenfranchising black people once they were present in significant numbers, but this is not the case. No, they just colonized Africa and disenfranchised them there. Totally different.
      - foldr 7y ago
        >Because you’re comparing a continent-wide federation to a tiny island-sized country. I really don't see what you're getting at here. You yourself have been making (irrelevant) comparisons to France, which has about the same population as the UK. There is no such size as "island-sized". Islands can be big or small. >No, they just colonized Africa and disenfranchised them there. Totally different. Indeed, this is completely different.
        philwelch 7y ago
        > I really don't see what you're getting at here. You yourself have been making (irrelevant) comparisons to France, which has about the same population as the UK. I’m comparing the US as a whole to Europe as a whole. If you want to cherry-pick the best example of Europe, maybe I should cherry-pick one of the northern states that abolished slavery and enfranchised black people in the early 19th century. If you get to claim that France, Spain, Portugal, etc. don’t count, I should be able to claim Mississippi doesn’t count. Conversely, maybe we can compare the US to the entire British Empire. How many imperial subjects were truly enfranchised? Not the Indians, not the black Africans. Hell, even within the UK itself there was the entire Irish issue. But I guess Irish and Catholic aren’t technically races.
        foldr 7y ago
        You were not comparing the US as a whole to Europe as a whole. It is not clear to me what point your are intending to make with this array of different comparisons.

foldr 7y ago

I think there are lots of Western countries that have never had laws barring people from voting due to their race. E.g., there has never been any such law in the UK. Women in the UK also got the vote slightly earlier.

philwelch 7y ago
The UK is an abnormally successful democracy by world standards. I suppose you could quibble about the British Empire, but the main difference there is that Britain colonized much more of the world than America did. The main question I have concerns Britain’s history of anti-Catholic discrimination. It’s all well and good to point out that Britain never disenfranchised black people during a time when approximately zero black people lived there. Although I suppose Britain is responsible for colonizing South Africa and Rhodesia.... But sure, let’s concede Britain for the moment. France, West Germany, and Italy were effectively fascist dictatorships until the mid-1940’s. (Vichy being a “puppet government” is a lie concocted to spare French pride—Petain was a fascist sympathizer since before the war and he took power within the French political system at the time—its not like the Germans overran the government and installed him like they did in other occupied countries.) Spain and Portugal until the 1970’s. Yugoslavia had a communist dictatorship until the 1990’s. Which is incidentally the same decade that Switzerland achieved universal women’s suffrage.
- foldr 7y ago
  >But sure, let’s concede Britain for the moment. Great - that was the point of my post. Not sure why you are going off on a bunch of other tangents. You haven't mentioned any other country which banned people from voting on racial criteria. >It’s all well and good to point out that Britain never disenfranchised black people during a time when approximately zero black people lived there. You say this as if Britain started disenfranchising black people once they were present in significant numbers, but this is not the case. (This is not to deny, of course, that there is a long history of racism in the UK. I'm merely pointing out that the US is relatively exceptional in passing actual laws banning black people from voting.)
  - philwelch 7y ago
    Because you’re comparing a continent-wide federation to a tiny island-sized country. > You say this as if Britain started disenfranchising black people once they were present in significant numbers, but this is not the case. No, they just colonized Africa and disenfranchised them there. Totally different.
    - foldr 7y ago
      >Because you’re comparing a continent-wide federation to a tiny island-sized country. I really don't see what you're getting at here. You yourself have been making (irrelevant) comparisons to France, which has about the same population as the UK. There is no such size as "island-sized". Islands can be big or small. >No, they just colonized Africa and disenfranchised them there. Totally different. Indeed, this is completely different.
      - philwelch 7y ago
        > I really don't see what you're getting at here. You yourself have been making (irrelevant) comparisons to France, which has about the same population as the UK. I’m comparing the US as a whole to Europe as a whole. If you want to cherry-pick the best example of Europe, maybe I should cherry-pick one of the northern states that abolished slavery and enfranchised black people in the early 19th century. If you get to claim that France, Spain, Portugal, etc. don’t count, I should be able to claim Mississippi doesn’t count. Conversely, maybe we can compare the US to the entire British Empire. How many imperial subjects were truly enfranchised? Not the Indians, not the black Africans. Hell, even within the UK itself there was the entire Irish issue. But I guess Irish and Catholic aren’t technically races.
        foldr 7y ago
        You were not comparing the US as a whole to Europe as a whole. It is not clear to me what point your are intending to make with this array of different comparisons.