Quote (Black XistenZ @ May 18 2020 11:22am)
This might change when ethnicity is understood in a cultural instead of a biological sense. In the 19th and early 20th century, the divide between catholics and protestants was very deep and salient. One could argue that Catholics were only increasingly included in the definition of "whiteness" once this confessional divide fizzled out, and once the catholic immigrants had assimilated into American culture. Without assimilation, or in case of continued high immigration levels from southern europe, I'm not so sure that they would have been "accepted" as part of the white majority and mainstream. I think the same logic applies to hispanics. If latino immigration abates for at least a decade and those already in the country assimilate, they imho will be eventually accepted as "white". Otherwise, they will continue to be considered a separate ethnic group from the rest of "white america".
So your assertion would be that it was culture, not ethnicity, that caused and closed the divide, correct?
Based on this assumption, wouldn't "White" America be a misnomer? The culture of a nation is based around it's laws, language(s), and tolerances. Wouldn't your observation of assimilation into the existing culture apply to everyone? Perhaps what you mistakenly call "white" America isn't white at all. Perhaps the insistence on referring to it as "white" accomplishes nothing more than to encourage people never to "assimilate" as you put it.
Do a blind poll of 10,000 Americans completely at random, I suspect what you'll find that if all questions are asked about them personally, they'd all answer "That's wrong". Questions like, is it okay to murder you. Is it okay to judge you based on your color or gender. Is it okay to force you to learn or practice my religion. Is it okay to harm or kill you if you refuse to practice my religion. Is it okay to rape you. Is it okay to prevent you from participating in activities based on your race or gender. Is it okay to burn your house down. Is it okay to rob you or your business.
This smacks of cultural similarities that if divisiveness is not fostered, easily allows us all to get along. But something strange happens. Call a random white man "honkey" or "cracker" and if he beats you half to death for it, and you're not white, he's committed a hate crime. Call a random black guy a "nigger" and he beats you half to death for it, and you're not a black guy, it's fair game, that was hate speech.
Some interesting studies regarding risk analysis and equilibriums have been done that found that if a person is wearing their seatbelt and has insurance, they're likely to drive faster and less safely. Indeed, some will drive far more dangerously, hoping for the collision, if they need fast cash. If a person has homeowner's insurance they're less likely to trim trees that may fall and damage their house or their neighbor's house. If the consequence for a fist fight is as severe as the consequence of murder, a person is more likely to commit murder.
See, the thing is, when separate standards are set for some people as opposed to others, lowering their risk factors, then they're much more likely to behave in manners that are "riskier", and far more likely to violate some of the questions above. On the flipside, when consequences of incredibly vague and mild offenses are increased to be equivalent to the questions above, they're more likely to engage in the far more severe activity than the mild activity. "This guy just called me a fucking cracker, and I want to punch him to teach the filthy racist a lesson, but since he's not white, I'll end up getting thrown in jail for 10 years for a hate crime. Fuck it, time to burn his house down. Not gonna put up with that shit." When you continue to escalate in favor of one group, to the detriment of the other, you encourage worse behavior by the group that suffers fewer consequences, and FAR worse behavior by those who receive consequences worthy extreme crimes for minor things. An example of this would be a woman who was raped in Qatar. She was convicted of sex outside of marriage and sentenced to 5 years in prison. She wasn't native to Qatar, so they commuted the sentence and deported her to preserve foreign relations. The man who raped her was intoxicated at the time. So they sentenced him to 40 lashes for the consumption of alcohol, and 100 lashes for sex outside of marriage. Now, I'm no math whiz. But If two and a half vodka sessions is as bad as rape, doesn't that kind of encourage rape? And if they person that's being raped is going to end up in a prison they probably won't survive, will they ever report it? It almost seems like the consequence, given the likelihood of getting away with it, makes rape a more attractive crime than... Getting drunk.
At any rate, mind's wandering. But I think extreme expectations, or low expectations, divided by "protected status" is all inherently some ist or ism or another. Equality doesn't mean you protect some and punish others. Merely that you treat all with a blind eye. That was the problem with the Brown case, and the Martin case. That's been the problem with all too many cases. It's also why the police brutality issue is so seldom championed by half the population these days. Back in the 90's and early 2000's, it was a huge cause, and most everyone was incredibly on board. Every case of it, regardless of race, religion, or gender was making the news. Now there are groups being left out. That's not a good thing.