Hi! I've really been enjoying your blog and especially the current series. I just wanted to query this, from today's post: "The primary reason the United States could not live up to its potential was the quota system, created in 1924." It seems like a semantic thing but in my reading it's more that the US *chose not to* live up to its potential, not that it *couldn't*. Framing it as an impossibility feels like abdicating responsibility for policy choices.
Hey I remember your username! Hay girl hay etc. And, thank you for your kind words about my blog and the series :)
First of all, you are 100% correct. This is an important distinction, and I’m glad you pointed it out.
However, there are two things going on in that sentence. The first is that I used passive voice and didn’t notice it in my 25 re-reads even though I hate passive voice, especially in history-writing. The second thing is that I have to use vague language a lot in this post series in order to make the complex accessible and maintain accuracy. There are entire historiographies just about 1924, and the last six paragraphs (or so) from yesterday’s post came from at least seven different books. So sometimes I do make language choices not because I want to, but because I have to in order to avoid over-emphasizing certain points.
