DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
Based on your extensive research, do you think that this factor figures into the equation of how and why certain groups of people have more challenges in being accepted in the usa? Or in other countries? In the vice video that you referenced in your article, several of the american participants mentioned that "when people see me, they don't see me as american", which is a direct reflection of my observation/question above. I think.It's a good question. The short answer is: the melting pot is by no means perfect, but it's a hell of lot better than the alternative (i.e. maintaining and reinforcing ethnic/racial boundaries with a government or institutional imprimatur). The latter approach has consistently resulted in persistent group antagonism--and often outright violence or genocide--throughout history.
The issue is really whether group distinctions are officially sanctioned, regardless of discernible physical differences. The "racial" difference between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda is minimal and inconsistent. In fact, there was no systematic conflict between the two groups.....until Belgian colonialists arrived and formalized the distinction with "racial" identity cards and group preferences. Same goes for Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. It was not the racial difference that caused the problem in these countries, it was the politicization of the difference.
On the other hand, societies that have worked hard to "erase race"--avoiding any official distinction between groups--and forging a shared identity, have generally done quite well. Botswana is an outstanding example of this: they don't even allow racial/ethnic/tribal questions on their census. Batswana who travel outside their country experience culture shock: they just don't get racial distinctions:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/31/botswana-offers-u-s-valuable-lesson-achieving-racial-harmony/2731108002/
Post-genocide Rwanda has made huge strides toward reconciling and uniting with a dogged insistence that "There are no Hutus or Tutsis; we are all Rwandans." Job applications there have any information indicating gender, race, ethnicity, tribe blacked out. Given the scope and recency of the genocide, Rwanda's new "race-blind" policy has been spectacularly successful.
I'm told that locals can tell who is ethnically Thai or ethnically Chinese in Thailand. But Thailand has avoided the path of Malaysia, where they have an "affirmative action" system that distinguished between groups. So relations between the large Chinese minority and the majority in Thailand are extremely good. Everyone considers the Chinese to be Thai, with a slight Chinese flavor. Race is only what people make of it. When I was a kid living in Germany in the 1960s, I tended to immediately assume anyone who appeared Asian or Black was one of my fellow Americans and would heartily greet them as such (I don't ever remember getting it wrong). The ancient Romans were curiously oblivious to race: they had both Black and white slaves (more of the latter), and a number of top generals and consuls (kinda like president) were Black. Emperor Septimius Severus was from North Africa.
BTW, virtually all of the worst ethnic conflicts of the last 100 years have been between groups who are not readily discernible by appearance. The genocide of the Herrero perhaps the most notable exception.
In any case, intermarriage rates of ~45% (Asians), 39% (Latinos), and 20% (Blacks), racial distinctions are making racial discernment increasingly irrelevant. The rash of Rachel Dolezals is an indication of this.
My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on
Amazon and at other online and
local booksellers