3 ms·

But views and norms are shared within a country and you can make accurate predictions about people based on their race, country of birth and country where they

by sjducb 2y ago

But views and norms are shared within a country and you can make accurate predictions about people based on their race, country of birth and country where they grew up. - A white person from Sweden is likely to be pro choice by American standards. (95% chance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden#:~:text=A%202024%20report%20by%20Pew,well%20as%20other%20abortion%20rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden#:~:text=A.... ) - An Egyptian is likely to think that FGM is normal and a good thing. (Over 85% https://egypt.unfpa.org/en/topics/female-genital-mutilation-5#:~:text=FGM%20in%20Egypt&text=According%20to%20the%20Egyptian%20Family,percent%20of%20whom%20by%20doctors https://egypt.unfpa.org/en/topics/female-genital-mutilation-.... ) - A Lebanese person will probably have antisemitic views (Over 85% chance https://global100.adl.org/country/lebanon/2014 https://global100.adl.org/country/lebanon/2014) I recently went to a wedding. Who got drunk and started a fight? Was it the only Irishman? I would predict that a white British person thinks that gun ownership should be restricted to military and police. A Swiss person will think that everyone should be given a rifle by the government. (Over 95 percent of Swiss households have a fully automatic rifle) You can group people by ethnicity and nationality, then observe big differences between the groups.

Earw0rm 2y ago
Nationality? Certainly. Race / ethnicity? With extreme caution. Most Black people in the US have enough of a shared history that it's a useful label, for example. But Ghana, Eritrea and Eswatini share almost none, even if their people might be superficially lumped together as ethnically Black African. But even if you can successfully draw a boundary around a people (Brits? White Brits? And that's before we even get into the whole Welsh-English-Scots thing), which stories do we tell? And how do we update them as - for example - it has become more and more apparent that Britain's relative prosperity during the 18th & 19th centuries was largely at the expense of conquered peoples and Empire territories - many of whose descendants (Indian, Irish, Jamaican or Ghanaian) are now an integral part of society here? How do we avoid crude re-tellings of WW2 where the Nazis are cast as certain and irredeemable baddies from the beginning, when the greatest of their atrocities - the one that marked them out forever as a greater monster than any of the Western allies, who had a far from unblemished record - wasn't actually known to our leaders until very late on in the war, by which time the Nazis were facing almost certain defeat? (I'm not saying, to be clear, that the Nazis were anything other than utterly evil - but up until the scale and nature of the Holocaust became apparent, the story did not resolve so cleanly into "good vs evil" as the way it's commonly told today).

by sjducb 2y ago

Earw0rm 2y ago

Nationality? Certainly. Race / ethnicity? With extreme caution. Most Black people in the US have enough of a shared history that it's a useful label, for example. But Ghana, Eritrea and Eswatini share almost none, even if their people might be superficially lumped together as ethnically Black African. But even if you can successfully draw a boundary around a people (Brits? White Brits? And that's before we even get into the whole Welsh-English-Scots thing), which stories do we tell? And how do we update them as - for example - it has become more and more apparent that Britain's relative prosperity during the 18th & 19th centuries was largely at the expense of conquered peoples and Empire territories - many of whose descendants (Indian, Irish, Jamaican or Ghanaian) are now an integral part of society here? How do we avoid crude re-tellings of WW2 where the Nazis are cast as certain and irredeemable baddies from the beginning, when the greatest of their atrocities - the one that marked them out forever as a greater monster than any of the Western allies, who had a far from unblemished record - wasn't actually known to our leaders until very late on in the war, by which time the Nazis were facing almost certain defeat? (I'm not saying, to be clear, that the Nazis were anything other than utterly evil - but up until the scale and nature of the Holocaust became apparent, the story did not resolve so cleanly into "good vs evil" as the way it's commonly told today).