Hacker News Reader

Comment by OJFord | Hacker News Reader

> Kamala Harris also made history as the first Black woman to become vice president, an achievement that comes as the U.S. faces a reckoning on racial justice. The California senator, who is also the first person of South Asian descent elected to the vice presidency, will become the highest-ranking woman ever to serve in government, four years after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton.

Can someone explain that last sentence to a non-American? Doesn't it simply reduce the whole paragraph to 'first female VP'? Or does it mean 'first female senator to go on to government, but not the first including non-senators', in which case.. uh-ok, is that significant?

Just seems like it's slicing her up into as many 'firsts' as possible.

View on HN

You are slicing her up not the article. It is simply stating that no woman has ever achieved a ranking as high as she did and it also happens to be a woman of color. I don't think it's that hard to understand, is it? Also, this is indeed significant because it puts hope to so many woman and woman of color that they can achieve it too and not be afraid of be who they are in America.

I'm not, maybe I haven't explained clearly, because you've just repeated the 'a ranking as high' bit that I don't understand rather than answering it. Does it refer to her having been a senator, or to now being VP?

From what you're saying, I think it's that she's first female VP and also happens to be black and also happens to have a South Asian background?

I don't have an agenda here, I just didn't understand that paragraph, and, if I'm correct in my understanding above, think it was written in just about the most confusing way possible.

Coming from the outside it might be easier to work forwards to the statement instead of backwards from it:

All vice presidents (2nd highest executive position) and presidents (highest executive position) up until this point have been white males with the exception of former president Barack Obama who was a black male and former vice president Charles Curtis who was native american male. Kamala Harris is a black/asian female who looks to be the next vice president.

Hopefully that helps :).

To be as clear as I can, it's specifically:

> will become the highest-ranking woman ever to serve in government,

that confuses me. Is she to be the first female VP? Or does 'highest ranking woman' refer to her present position in the senate?

I think I understand now that it's the former. It just seems strange to me to lead with the more specific 'firsts'. I would have written something more like:

> Kamala Harris also makes history as the first female Vice President, and, notably at a time when the US faces a reckoning in racial justice, a black woman, and the first of South Asian descent.

(Borrowing phrasing and emphasis from the original nevertheless, since I understand they may be more relevant in the US than they perhaps are to me.)

I just honestly didn't realise from that paragraph originally that she was the first woman entirely. It was sort of there, but so hidden that I thought I was wrong.

There are kind of these two exceptions (below in links), in addition to the ones noted above. Diversity at the highest level of government isn't exactly a strong suit for the US.

https://www.history.co.uk/articles/edith-wilson-america-s-fi...

https://www.thoughtco.com/americas-only-gay-president-336794...

It says "will become", so your first interpretation is correct.

It could also say 'will become the most South Asian woman ever to...', doesn't mean that she has only now become South Asian.

'highest-ranking woman ever to serve in government' just makes it sound like her 'high-ranking' is independent of her serving in government to me. Especially given that it's a bigger more general milestone than the preceding sentences.

It might help to know that the perceived ranking is President >> VP > US Senator. Though a “more honest” ranking would be President > US Senator > VP (since they only ever vote in ties in the senate or sit around until the sitting President can’t serve.)

But if you read the constitution of the US, it’s more like SCOTUS > House Speaker > President > Senate leader > US Senator >> US House Rep. And then there’s the state governments. The ranking of the House Speaker is because that person actually has the power of the pen and can in large part dictate what happens. The genius move is all the rules and political factors make being the House Speaker essentially destroy a politicians political clout, standing - everything. The oddball is that you don’t have to be an elected official to be voted in as House Speaker - you just have to get a majority support in the House and not be otherwise disqualified (I.e. no former 2-term Presidents).

The makeup of the US government does not reflect it's population. Harris wasn't the first female VP candidate to run for a major party. Geraldine Ferraro was the first, and Palin also ran in 08. Being a minority candidate doesn't mean they are qualified, but the lack of diversity in the US government is a huge problem. About 50% of America are women, and a large portion of America is not white. That's not represented by our government. Those firsts are important.

That's fair enough, I just think if it were me I'd be thinking 'geeze can I just be VP like every white man before me?' - but who am I to whitemansplain how she/people who feel affinity should feel :)

My comment above though was mostly just that from that quoted paragraph I was pretty confused, if I now understand correctly it starts with more specific 'accomplishments' (if finally getting that representation can be called one) and then generalises massively to a much broader category, in a vague way that makes it sound like nothing or more specific than where it started.

I don't know, maybe it's just my reading.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com