Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
This is the correct answer. The hair splitting and interest in semantic specificity is a common tool they try to use. She’s not African American, fine. Jesus Christ like anyone was overly concerned about that.
It’s especially disingenuous since they don’t give a squirt of piss about properly addressing people. They only say African American as a generic term since they’ll say they get in trouble for saying black. It’s another dog whistle argument designed to try and separate her more. I’ll give any one of those fools cash right now if they can show me them ever being concerned about the difference between Caribbean American and African American before her selection.
It’s so transparently trash that giving it this amount of energy is embarrassing. Voters don’t care, democrats don’t care, only right wing talking heads do.
|
It's not semantic specificity. (Although I find it interesting that people are happy to distinguish between the "diverse" latin community and the "monolithic" black community when it is Biden performing the semantics. Further, I find it ironic that liberals are now bristling at people drawing ethnic lines considering the left's constant harping on ethnicity. But I digress.)
Black communities in the US have significantly different outcomes depending on their origins. This isn't a new phenomenon.
https://quillette.com/2018/05/14/the-racism-treadmill/
Quote:
The first natural experiment occurred when Sowell used 1970 census data to compare the incomes of second-generation West Indian blacks and American blacks in the New York metropolitan area. Both groups would have looked and talked the same; both groups were born and educated in the same area; and both groups were trailing brutal histories of chattel slavery.
Indeed, aside from cultural differences, West Indian blacks would have been virtually indistinguishable from their American counterparts. There is no better demonstration of their superficial likeness than the fact that many prominent black leaders—including Marcus Garvey, Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, Harry Belafonte, and Sidney Poitier—were actually of black West Indian, not black American, ancestry.7 But despite being subjected to the same racist treatment by local whites, second-generation West Indian black families were highly successful, out-earning American black families by 58 percent, and even out-earning the national average income by 15 percent.8 Sowell’s conclusion was unequivocal: “Neither race nor racism can explain such differences.”9
The second natural experiment involves comparing the outcomes of black immigrants on the whole with the outcomes of American blacks (i.e., blacks descended from American slaves.) Although black immigrants (and especially their children, who are indistinguishable from American blacks) presumably experience the same ongoing systemic biases that black descendants of American slaves do, nearly all black immigrant groups out-earn American blacks, and many—including Ghanaians, Nigerians, Barbadians, and Trinidadians & Tobagonians—out-earn the national average. Moreover, black immigrants are overrepresented in the Ivy Leagues. Though they comprised only 8 percent of the U.S. black population in the 2010 census,10 41 percent of African Americans attending Ivy League schools were of immigrant origin in 1999. Five years later, the New York Times reported a finding by two Harvard professors that as many as two-thirds of Harvard’s black students “were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.”
|
I'll leave you to your own conclusions about all of this. However, it doesn't seem like hair splitting, and insofar as systemic racism exists, it does not seem to impact immigrants from the West Indies to the same extent as other black communities in the US.