[kenfox]

The nuclear family is an American white cultural norm. It may also be a norm for other groups. You are seeing black as the opposite of white and blackness as defined as the opposite of every white norm. That seems pretty extreme; a deductive fallacy even. The infographic didn't say anything about black culture though it would be interesting to see the identical format used to describe black culture.

[Maximus9000]

> The nuclear family is an American white cultural norm.

See this UN paper [1] regarding stats on the nuclear family. The nuclear family is a phenomenon that exists on all continents. It's not the only way, but it's certainly not a "white" thing. The nuclear family is actually most prominent in Northern Africa. See figure 10 on page 19.

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publicatio...

[AnimalMuppet]

I cannot imagine that infographic being produced about black culture without it producing a howling firestorm of opposition.

First, who produces it? Whites? Yeah, that will go over big. Blacks? That makes it look like propaganda or wishful thinking. Professional sociologists? Is sociology objective enough to produce a consensus?

Then there's the content. Black culture? Which one? (There are several.) Any one you pick, those in other cultures find your infographic to be nonrepresentative.

But every bit of what I said is true of the actual infographic. Who produced it? Whites? Blacks? Professional sociologists? And, which white culture? There is not one uniform white culture across the US.

[BrandonM]

Thank you, I appreciate your point that white isn't intended to stand in contrast to black in this context. I'll keep that in mind. Unfortunately, that only makes less clear to me what the infographic is attempting to convey, how it's supposed to contribute to the discussion. It seems to me to be implicitly encouraging some kind of comparison that it leaves to the exercise of the reader, and I don't think that's a great idea.

Separately, I'm not clear on how "white cultural norm" is defined or what exactly it means. Is it meant to imply "majority norms in much of Europe, the British Commonwealth, and the US"? If so, why call it "white" instead of something more precise like "EBCU"? Otherwise, is it implying the existence of a shared white culture based around color of skin? When Latino and African and Asian individuals/families share similar ideals, are they contributing to the white cultural norms, or not?

I think the terminology here is important to get right, as I believe that the popular terminology is a source of a lot of the strife at present, whether intentional or not. For example, the tyranny of the majority is a well established problem in democracies. Society has debated for centuries how best to protect the rights of minorities while implementing the will of the majority. Strong individual rights is one method, as it provides a platform for all of us to actively participate to expand and protect the rights of every person. Recasting that debate as white vs. black seems to needlessly alienate potential allies and to reinvent a bunch of concepts without benefiting from the lessons and debates of the past.

For a concrete example of the terminology issue, I think that a big part of the controversy around the Black Lives Matter movement is disagreement about the meaning of the omitted, implied adverb. Does it mean "Black Lives Matter too", or does it mean "Black Lives Matter more", or perhaps something else? Radicals and dissidents on both sides of the spectrum seem to assume the "more" interpretation and react accordingly, whereas sympathizers interpret it along the lines of the "too" interpretation. To complicate things further, some sincerely respond that "All Lives Matter" in a well-meaning way, apparently attempting to clarify and agree with the "Black Lives Matter too" interpretation. Declaring "All Lives Matter" is currently a fireable offense, which brings us back to the theme of PG's essay.

To summarize, I think that terminology is incredibly important. Using "white" as a placeholder for a nebulous concept, especially when it routinely has a negative connotation, only seems to make unified progress more difficult.