THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TRIBALIZED SOCIETY
The word tribe derives from the Latin word tribus, meaning a division of people. Contrary to common perception, tribes are not necessarily, and are rarely, uniquely comprised of only descendants of particular or common ancestry. In the first century, and in the period before and after that era, tribes were commonly social groups made up of numerous and disparate families, clans or generations, including slaves, dependents, and immigrants (adopted strangers). Later in history, perhaps, even in contemporary times, a tribe would be a social group made up of people that have a common character, interest or culture.
Therefore, tribes are not necessarily societies, organized only on the basis of kinship, but, perhaps, more so, on common interests, such as economic, security, other social and political exigencies, or any combination of those. Nowadays, the term tribe has been practically and functionally replaced by the term "ethnic group", even though ethnic group often encompass tribes and much more. Hence, for the purposes of this book the term tribe reflects the broader context of ethnicity. Tribalism, similar to ethnicity and even sectarianism, is a social concept rooted in the idea of societal groups marked by shared tradition or cultural characteristics.
Following the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 that, perhaps, ushered in the notion of the nation-state and sovereignty, tribes, even ethnic groups became part of a larger social and political entity—the state or country through a combination of voluntary and forced amalgamations. Members of a tribe possess strong in-group consciousness or loyalty that often precede or surpass their loyalty to the nation-state that they are part of. Such groups have strong exclusive traits, including a separate language, separate cultural identity, ethnic consciousness, divided loyalty, increased group rights, and diminished individual rights.
For the purposes of this book, the term or concept "tribalizing" would have the same essential dynamics, in its implication, as "sectarianizing"• hence both concepts are implied in the thesis of this essay. "Tribalization" is a social process more than it is a phenomenon. It is a social evolution, which takes many years, decades, and even centuries to materialize or become evident as the basic social structure in a larger society. There is evidence to indicate that the tribal social concept and structure developed as groups of people established strong ties on the basis of common ancestry, beliefs, ideals, commerce, practices and other interests (e.g. customs, religion, needs, threats, etc.). These beliefs, ideals, and practices are often different from those held in general by the nation-state in general, that the tribe is part of. This is evident in older societies such as countries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and perhaps some parts of Europe. Even the native inhabitants of much of North America had tribal social structures, albeit, arguably, not as part of a nation-state, but as disparate competing social entities.
Compared to the older societies in those other regions mentioned above, America is still a very young society. The process of tribalization may not have reached a critical stage to be evident in America yet. But in the absence of conscious efforts to address and counter such social evolution, which is rapidly taking root in America, perhaps a hundred to two hundred years from now, America could become more like any one of those other societies. What I am at least suggesting is that the United States of America is now faced with the same conditions or comparable conditions, and is, perhaps, going through the same or similar phases (social processes) that led to the fractional composition of many older societies, such as can be found in Africa, Middle East, Asia and Even Europe. These conditions are evident in the fact that America is now home to people from at least 200 countries. Many of these people represent distinct tribal or ethnic groups and cultures that exist in their ancestral homelands. These cultures are now being established in America as parallel cultures, thanks to multiculturalism and political correctness.
The problem does not lie in the fact that people come to this country from other societies with different cultures, that has always been the case. Rather, the problem is that many of them are more inclined not to integrate than to do so. Such people are more predisposed to transform America or parts of America to become more like the societies from which they came. They are more committed to replicating the cultures of those societies in America, than they are, to modifying or transforming them to become part of the greater American culture, as true composite cultures.
This tends to create an environment of cultural polarization. Such a tendency undermines unity and is prone to fragmenting a nation, as is evident in other societies. People with such inclinations are opposed to integration. Rather than strive to become more American, they strive to make America become more like them or more like where they came from. This tends to lead to self-exclusion or isolation, tribal or ethnic mentality and culture clash, which tend to weaken the cohesion of the whole nation.
These tendencies are sometimes marked by several indices, including (but not limited to) preference for languages other than English as the primary and main choice of language, distinct or exclusive cultures that have not become part of the broader American culture (infused with the core American ideals), and ethnic consciousness. These tendencies can also be identified by traits such as subscription or deference to group rights more than individual rights, for the benefits of a subculture, inherent and perceived mistrust of other ethnic groups, ideals diametrically opposed to the core American principles, and active dual or multiple nationality status. America ought to remain true to Theodore Roosevelt admonition. Roosevelt said in 1907, "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... we have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is the loyalty to the American people."
Surveys of the so-called British Muslims, all of them British citizens by birth or by naturalization, show that they do not regard themselves as "British", but as Muslims who are British citizens and living in Britain. So far, a similar sentiment has not yet manifested in America. But two recent articles published in the New York Times, perhaps, underscore an emerging situation that could be a harbinger to something similar. Oscar Casares, in his article "Crossing the Border Without Losing Your Past," wrote, "Like many Americans whose families came to this country from somewhere else, many children of Mexican immigrants struggle with their identity, as our push to fully assimilate is met with an even greater pull to remain anchored to our family's country of origin."
In another article in the New York Times, published on September 7, 2003, Muqtedar Khan, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, conceded that Muslims in America strive to make America more Islamic, rather than becoming more American. He expressed the difficulty Muslims in America have with integration, even a mere semantic modification of the label by which they distinguish themselves from other Americans. He wrote, "Muslims in America. American Muslims. The difference between these two labels may seem a matter of semantics, but making the transition from the first to the second represents a profound, if somewhat silent, revolution that many of us in the Muslim community have been undergoing in the two years since Sept. 11." He said further, "On its face, this shift would seem to threaten the very core of Muslim identity and empowerment. After all, in the decade before the events of Sept. Il, Islam was one of the fastest-growing religions in North America. Mosques and Islamic schools were going up in every major city. Groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations and the American Muslim Alliance established chapters in nearly every area with a Muslim population."
The ambivalence, and in many cases, the unwillingness of some immigrants to integrate into the American society is evident in the desire to establish alternative cultures. It is also the reason why some have established alternative official languages to the English language, which has since the founding of America, has been the official language of the nation, albeit tacitly.
Language is perhaps the primary element of a society and the primary method of communication among people in a society. It is a very powerful tool; that can unite or divide to the same degree. In fact, it is said in the Bible that God caused confusion and disunity among the people who sought to build the tower of Babel by making them speak different languages, thereby thwarting their efforts and foiling their conceited ambitions.
The starting point or foundation for social integration is perhaps a common language. Without it, the process would be as making bread, bricks, or concrete with little or no water. In a sense, language is equivalent to the arteries and veins, perhaps, in another sense, like the blood, in the human body, through which the essential elements are distributed, the essence (life) sustained, and the body maintained. Building a society on multiple languages, indeed any form of social engineering that does not emphasize a single common language in a particular society, is imprudent. The former is a recipe for disaster and the latter is an exercise in futility.
Language is the most basic and common way to exclude and alienate people (or to be excluded and alienated). It is also the most basic and common way to include and integrate people. A common language establishes the initial element of trust between people. It is the initial sign of acceptance amongst people. Language is indeed the true passport to any country or society. When people cannot communicate in the language of the society in which they dwell, they are excluded by default, seriously hampered and marginalized. Studies show that, often such people remain poor and heavily dependent on government assistance, and frequently resort to self-imposed isolation. In the final analysis, they are more likely to be unable to help themselves in a meaningful way and attain their full potentials; they become resentful, prone to exploitation and can only contribute marginally to the society. Ultimately, these lead to the conflict in communality resulting from identity crisis.
Studies show that poverty and lack of opportunity, particularly among the immigrant population in many Western societies, is largely due to their inability to communicate in the common and official language of the society. This is second only to their failure to fully integrate culturally into those societies, which in some regards is still due to language problems. The English language has become the official language of global commerce, science, technology, and art; it has indeed become more or less the global language of transaction. All over the world, people are recognizing this fact and seeking education in the English language.
Studies also show that the demand for American-style education (universities, etc.) and television programming is increasing rapidly around the world. This is in part due to the realization that the English language is fast becoming the world's language of choice by necessity. Hence, it is puzzling that America, which is largely responsible for this emerging global consciousness, by virtue of her economic dominance, seems to fail to see what the rest of the world, ironically, sees in her. This is borne by the fact that America has continued to actively promote multiple official languages by teaching students and conducting official businesses in languages other than the English language.
All over the world, students who are unable to come to the United States of America for their education are increasingly attending American schools in many regions of the world, such as Sophia (Bulgaria), Beirut (Lebanon), Cairo (Egypt), Tokyo (Japan), Beijing (China), etc. This trend was highlighted in a program that was aired recently on the National Public Radio (NPR). In the NPR radio program, a lady from Hungary talked about her early recognition of the efficacy of American-style education, her desire for it and her experiences, which included going to Bulgaria to attend an American university and how the education she received practically transformed her life.
Poverty and lack of opportunity among immigrants are exacerbated by the inability or unwillingness of many immigrant groups to integrate into their new societies. The Rockefeller Foundation, a respected philanthropic institute, in a study conducted recently, noted that "Poverty weighs more heavily on minorities and non-English speakers—a quarter of all African Americans and a fifth of Latinos are poor; half of the foreign-born are poor." The study also noted that "an estimated third of public schools that are failing to teach effectively, are in central cities, and teachers continue to report that they are unprepared to teach growing numbers of minority and new English-language learning."
This observation underscores the urgent need for a bold and comprehensive plan to prepare and adequately equip American schools to meet this challenge, instead of the current approach, which inhibits the potentials of those children by taking the easy way out—teaching them ineffectively in their native languages, or not teaching them at all.
A few years ago, in California and Florida, and more recently in Germany, many public schools were faced with serious difficulties because languages other than the common national language were directly or indirectly encouraged. In the Netherlands, the situation is no different.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch MP, said about the problem, "To prevent alienation, the government should also insist on teaching all children in Dutch, not in their own languages."
The importance of a common language cannot be over emphasized. This importance has been underscored in many timeless phrases, aphorisms, and figures of speech; common ones being "we speak a common language," or "we speak the same language" to indicate that people understand one another. Another example; is when people say, "to communicate effectively, you have to speak a language that people understand." In short, a common language is key to unity.
Language can as easily arouse suspicion, misconception or misperception, when it is not spoken or understood by all, just as it arouses comradeship when spoken or understood by all. Having or promoting multiple common or official languages in a society is counterproductive. Not only is it very limiting and wasteful, it is redundant and divisive. It is like running in different directions at the same time. It encourages or creates unnecessary division among people and undermines social integration and unity in diversity. The United States spends $300 million every year in bilingual education, in spite of clear evidence that children learn better when thought in English.
I am not by any means advocating or even suggesting that people, of whom I am one, who happen to speak other languages, should be prevented from doing so. However, I am saying that they should not be encouraged to do so to the degree of instituting those languages in competition with the Language of the nation—the English language. Doing so entails an enormous waste of resources and creates barriers between people within the American society. Instead, they should be encouraged, and perhaps, required to also learn and use the English language as first language. Of course, there is a place for second languages in America, but it should not be in rivalry with the English language. The same should apply in any other country, for example, France, Poland, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Germany, China, and Spain, where the English language is not the traditional and official language of the society; the English language should not be established in rivalry to the traditional and official language of those societies.
I strongly believe that a major factor, perhaps next to their belief in the American ideals and their commitment to those ideals, for the successful integration of the earlier immigrants from non-English-speaking countries, was the fact that they were not aided by the government of the United States to establish their native languages in parallel to the English language. Immigrants from Sweden, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Denmark, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Russia, and Spain, in spite of the languages of their cultures, have all fully integrated into the American society and culture.
Of course, it would have been convenient to speak their native languages rather than learn English. Many of them, in fact did so, but not with any involvement or aiding by the United States government. They later realized their extreme limitations and disadvantages because they could not speak English. This realization led them to make the necessary adjustments to overcome those limitations. Many of those who could not change lanes in the middle of the race, so to speak, were left behind and forced to return to the places from which they came. And very often, they did so with fewer possessions than they had prior to coming to America, being that many of them sold whatever they had to make the trip to the New World.
In addition, even though the predominantly Swedish communities in Chicago and Minnesota, and the Polish community in Chicago, as well as other non-English-speaking immigrants in other parts of America, spoke their own languages and engaged in strong ethnocentric activities, their vision and commitment to the ideals remained undiminished. According to Ulf Beijbom of the House of Emigrants in Växjö, Sweden, "Although ethnocentric activities absorbed quite a lot of energy, the main field of the Swedish activities was America."
Many immigrants who contributed significantly to the greatness of this country all had to first overcome either language barriers or the cultural barriers of their ancestors —people like Carl Sandburg, Charles Lindbergh, Eric Wickman, Wendell Anderson, Glenn Seaborg, John Ericsson, and Casimir Pulaski, to mention a few.
One major factor and problem that has hampered democracy in almost every country in Africa, many countries in the Middle East, and perhaps some parts of Europe and Asia, is multiplicity of language and its inherent barriers. The people literally do not speak a common language. This has fostered mistrust, disunity, and politics of ethnicity, which are indeed exploited by corrupt and dubious politicians, who deceive and take advantage of their people, and shirk their responsibility to be accountable to their people. In most countries in Africa, as well as some parts of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, it is common for corrupt politicians to dubiously arouse ethnic sentiments among their people in order to hold on to power and to undermine efforts to hold them accountable for their actions.
It is true that these cultural inhibitors are preexisting conditions that existed prior to the advent of democracy in these societies; hence, there is a fundamental difference between these societies and the United States. This is evident in the fact that, while democracy was introduced into Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and even Europe, long after those societies had been established and had existed for centuries, America was virtually born in democracy. In fact, the foundational and fundamental principle upon which America was established is democracy, as the Declaration of Independence clearly shows.
It must be recognized that the preexisting condition of having many tribes (with different cultures) and not having a common language undermines democracy in many countries of the world (particularly African countries). Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the effort to build a united Europe (in the likeness of the United States of America) is lack of a common language. It must also be recognized that the preexisting condition of a common language in America at her birth (at least among the founders) was critical in successfully establishing the nation and the principles upon which she was founded. It could be said that the founders were able to build a "tower of unity" because they spoke one language, while the builders of the Tower of Babel failed because they lacked a common language. Of course, this analogy does not suggest that the idea called America is in any sense akin to the Tower of Babel. Nevertheless, the point to be made is that, perhaps America would never have been possible without a common language.
Yet, there is nothing to suggest that anything—not a nation of many years of democratic existence such as America, not even an idea or principle such as democracy—is beyond erosion and destruction. To that end, no one should be under any illusion as to take for granted the threats posed by the issues of many competing common national languages. After all, just a few years ago, Canada was faced with a crisis that threatened her existence (and almost split her in two). The primary cause of that crisis was perhaps her dual national languages (and the attendant problems thereof), which inevitably created similar barriers as we have seen in less developed and less democratic countries.
In fact, to many Canadians and people outside Canada, there is a tacit assumption that there are two distinct national entities within Canada: the "English Canada" and the "French Canada." Perhaps, someday, America will have a similar situation, where there will be a tacit assumption that two national entities, for example, the "English America" and the "Spanish America", exist within the United States of America.
Many other countries faced with similar situations have not been as successful as Canada in dealing with and resolving the situation, at least so far. Countries such as Afghanistan, Indonesia, Burma, Bosnia, Turkey, Macedonia, Kosovo, Iraq, and most countries in Africa are all dogged by the problems engendered by multiple and competing languages, among other problems. In fact, the absence of a common language is the most prevalent way to create and preserve division, thereby perpetuating cultural polarization, which in turn leads to fragmentation and disunity in a nation.
Ethnic consciousness is the social expression of preferring one's ethnic group to others or exalting one's ethnic group above others. It gives first and greatest allegiance to one's ethnic group, without regard for one's country or national interest (and even at the expense of one's country). It advocates and projects a mindset that implies, "if you are not of us, then you are not for us, and if you are not for us, then you are against us and you are our enemy and we are against you." Ethnic consciousness fosters corruption, nepotism, and disunity, and undermines authentic democracy. This is the biggest obstacle to democracy in most countries in Africa, parts of Asia, the Middle East, and perhaps parts of Europe. America faces the danger of a compromised democratic system, very different from what the founders envisioned or intended, and far from what is held as self-evident by the spirit of the Constitution.
It is unrealistic and unwise to think that the problems cited above cannot obtain in America. People are sentimental beings by nature and by conditioning, and those sentiments do not necessary change simply because people's locations have changed. Before September 11, 2001, it was far from many people's thoughts, perhaps inconceivable, that such incidents as took place in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, could happen in this country. I would like to emphasize the word inconceivable and wish to note that it does not imply impossibility.
If Americans had really thought about the prospects of terrorist attacks on American soil, they would have known that it was possible, perhaps, even imminent, and in all likelihood, they would have been better prepared for it, at least mentally. Before September I l, 2001, most Americans perceived terrorism as something that happened in other countries and in Hollywood movies. This perception persisted, in spite of harbingers such as a series of bombings that destroyed a couple of American embassies in Africa, American military barracks located in Europe and the Middle East, a U.S. Navy warship, and a previous attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993.
On that day of infamy, it became clear that the intelligence profile of Middle Eastern terrorists was a misperception, an imaginary and essentially feel-good notion that ultimately proved perilous. The idea that life in America is too strong a temptation and too good an alternative, and that it will inevitably dissuade and alter the mindset of any terrorist, weaken his or her resolve to do America harm, and thus keep America safe is preposterous; indeed, a perilous premise. In fact, contrary to the expectations of the West, surveys continue to show that many western educated Muslims and Muslims dwelling in Western societies, including naturalized citizens and their descendants, are more resentful of the West than even Muslims in Islamic countries. Their diatribes and incendiary comments are clear signs of danger that have gone unheeded, but now bearing fruits by way of home-grown Islamic terrorists, whose teeth are now, so to speak, set on edge because they have been fed the sour grapes of hatred that bears from an ideology that have come to be known as Islamo-fascism. In the name of Islam, many of them have indeed taken up arms against their Western countries and actively seek their destruction. Worldwide surveys consistently show that Muslims, many of them citizens by birth, in Western countries, particularly Britain say that terrorism is justified, even against their own countries, in matters where they feel Islam or Muslims has been offended by the West, whether it is a result of foreign policy or "cultural insensitivity.
The incredulity that was at display over the fact that the London suicide bombers were home grown terrorist, is at best, naïveté and at worst, acute denial. The idea that assimilation is politically incorrect has led to the self-isolation of Muslims in European society and has encouraged the hostility towards the West that has emerged. Moreover, the added notion that life in the West is too good an alternative, and that it will inevitably dissuade and disable the intent of fundamental Islamists and terrorists, weaken their resolve to carry out the biddings of "Islamic holy edicts" ("fatwas") issued by clerics and regarded as the very word of Allah, is a perilous feel good notion
There is no evidence to suggest that people with strong ethnic or religious sentiments from the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe or any other part of the world for that matter, would automatically transform and jettison their deeply held beliefs and the attendant emotions upon coming to America. Along with the change of environment, a change of perception, prospective public policy, public sentiment, and education are crucial in re-orientating and redirecting such people to fully integrate into the American society. This task is even more difficult, with respect to Muslims in the west, because Islam inhibits and prohibits the exercise of individual freedom through the consummation of free play of the intellect (ijtihad). This accounts for failed expectations in Western society, of Muslims, who have lived in Western societies for so long, especially from their second generation onwards, yet disdain the West so deeply. Islam only allows imitation (taqlid); that is why many Muslims born in Western societies are no different from their parents, who are no different from their parents and grandparents, in their views and attitudes towards the Western societies and cultures. They are completely denied innovative thought or independent thinking outside what is prescribed by Islam through the so called "revelation and religious authority".
To people in the West, this is a paradox, but to Muslims, it is a cultural legacy. The reality is that ideologically, many Muslims are caught in a catch-22, in the sense that they perpetually exist in a problematic situation for which the only solution (personal freedom and tolerance) is denied by the circumstance inherent in the problem posed by their culture and by the rules that established their culture. The result being that the more extreme ones among them, either perish as a result of the rule, or perish to affect the rule itself; that is the reality of the making of jihad. In fact, resistance to the Western ideals and Western way of life is in itself a jihad—it is indeed, viewed in light of the second and most important jihad, because it is regarded as an inner and personal struggle, in devotion to Islam. This is what the West has failed to understand, as they remain incredulous to the growing crisis of identity amongst Western born and homegrown Islamic terrorists.
I am not suggesting that people should be brainwashed; nevertheless, people who wish to come to America and become citizens thereof or dwellers therein should be expected to truly integrate into the American society. In the least, they should not be encouraged to seek otherwise, and should not be rewarded for not integrating. There is a certain minimum requirement to ensure mutual benefits to the individual and the country (i.e., everyone else) that they seek to become part of.
Consider the following hypothetical illustration of a real condition. Suppose you knew, for certain that people who seek to become part of a good and thriving idea, on which everyone's well-being depended do not have the basic attributes or inclination necessary to support, achieve, and perpetuate that idea. Suppose that not only is the preceding condition true, but in addition, the people in question are not willing to acquire those social necessities, even when they have been offered all the help to enable them to do so.
Suppose that not only are the two preceding conditions true, but in addition, the people would rather seek a contrary idea, which will in effect destroy the good and thriving idea. Would you still entrust them with the good and thriving idea, in spite of the potential and imminent outcome? If you have offered to accommodate someone in your house, would you not expect him or her to respect the rules that govern your house? Would you honestly say that it's perfectly all right for the person to make his or her own rules, even when those rules are in direct conflict with the established rules in your household (by which your household has thrived) and would ultimately violate the sanctity of your home and jeopardize the well-being of your loved ones'?
Some people may be concerned about the possible unintended implication of the preceding analogy, such as its potential to be abused and to encourage discrimination against people perceived to fit the profile of those deemed unlikely or unwilling to integrate. A possible argument might be: How does one know that people will or will not integrate unless they are allowed to actually live in the United States? That is a legitimate concern, which must be addressed sincerely and fairly in the overall process of immigration.
One way to do that is to require applicants for permanent residency and citizenship, who are less than forty years of age, to take real proficiency-compliance tests for English, civics, and other attributes necessary for successful integration into the American society. In some special circumstances, where people already reside in the United States, they should be encouraged or required to acquire the proficiencies necessary for successful integration. Adequate social support systems to enable them to successfully do so should be established to back such a requirement.
Whether we admit it or not, immigrating to America (or any country for that matter) is like seeking or getting a new job—one should either possess the skills necessary to perform the job or be prepared to acquire them on the job. Any immigrant can testify to this. In the latter case (which is indeed of direct applicability to the recommendation), at least a reasonable effort should be required. Continuing with the job analogy, in the absence of the necessary skills or the willingness to acquire them, one eventually becomes a liability rather than an asset to the society, thus undermining the efficiency of the whole system.
Another argument that could be made against this proposition is that other immigrants (for example, from Sweden, Poland, Italy, Russia, Germany, Spain, Portugal, etc.), who came in the early stages of the American history, went through a period of strong ethnocentric activities.
Those activities tended to create enclaves with strong in-group loyalties and tendencies, but the immigrants later became fully integrated into the American society. This is an argument with some validity, but it must be recognized that virtually every one of those people believed in the ideals of America, and, in spite of the obstacles (cultural, lingual, etc.), were willing to fight for those ideals. Examples of such people are Gustav Unonius, the Swedish civil servant who emigrated in 1841 and founded the first Swedish settlement in Wisconsin; and the farmer Peter Cassel and his group, who left Sweden in 1845 and landed in New Sweden, Iowa. Also, in this group are the 1,500 religious dissenters from Central Sweden who arrived in Bishop Hill, Illinois, from 1846 to 1850.
These people, though faced with perilous obstacles, were willing to die for the ideals of America, which they believed and sought. Ulf Beijbom, in his article "A Review of Swedish Emigration to America," spoke of those obstacles as follows, "They sailed 'on top of the cargo' of a bark or a brig from a Swedish harbor, spending months on the sea and finally, more dead than alive, landing in New York."
The Africans, stolen from their homelands and forced into slavery, after nearly 250 years in bondage and over 350 years of combined oppression, in spite of the injustice and cruelty brought to bear upon them by their oppressors, still believed in the ideals of America. They were convinced that their oppressors did not represent the true values and principles upon which America was founded. Led by people likes, Fredrick Douglas, W. E. B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others, they were determined to fight for those ideals. These heroes indeed fought for those ideals because they believed in them, and died because they were committed to those ideals, in spite of the obstacles.
It is preposterous and imprudent to go into a relationship with someone who is not willing to make any adjustments for the sake of the success of the relationship. It is very unwise to go into a relationship just to be in one or just because one is expected to. For any relationship to be successful and beneficial to all in it, it must be defined and clearly understood to be in the interest of all. An onerous relationship weakens the host or partner that bears the brunt of it and a hostile relationship leads to a gradual but certain inviability of the accommodating partner(s) or host. Such relationships are undesirable. What is desirable is an equitably beneficial relationship in which everyone benefits fairly, and not to the detriment (or at the expense) of others.
It is in this regard that I believe the Constitution has been hijacked, almost in the same sense that those airplanes were hijacked on September Il, 2001, for the sole purpose of destroying them, their occupants, and their owner—America. There are people who came (or seek to come) to this country and became citizens, not because they love this nation, but because of what they stand to gain or hope to gain by doing so. They are like a man who lied to and deceived a very beautiful woman for the sole purpose of taking advantage of her, or like a woman who lied and deceived a very wealthy man for the single purpose of taking advantage of him. Some of them are even worse, because they are like one who tricked another into friendship for the sole purpose of entrapping and destroying him or her (the Trojan horse syndrome).
I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that it is naïve to think that everyone who seeks to become part of this great nation of liberty and opportunity does so with the sole and expected intent to truly become a part of her. It is simplistic to think that everyone who seeks to become part of America does so in full embrace of the core ideals of America and with the sole purpose of living in it and helping to preserve, maintain, and perpetuate liberty and opportunity for all. Having said that, I must also say that not everyone who seeks to become part of this great country of freedom and opportunity has the intent to take advantage of her or harm her. It is safe to say that an overwhelming proportion of immigrants do indeed come with good and noble intentions, and do indeed strive to preserve, maintain, and perpetuate the principles upon which America was founded and upon which she thrives. (Read more in chapter two, "The Dilemma of Immigration.")
Politics of ethnicity is another characteristic of a tribalized society. This is not a good type of politics. It is a type of politics devoid of truth, fairness, objectivity, and legitimacy. A common trait of this fraud lies in putting more emphasis on group rights and less emphasis on individual rights. This happens when those rights accorded to a group do not translate to individual rights; it is a fraud and it tends to exploit people's fears and other sentiments. It leads to an aberration of the democratic process. I call it "politics of numbers." (Read more in chapter five, "Excessive Group Allegiance.")
Quite often, people that constitute ethnic-conscious groups are pressured into giving up what is in their own individual interests and the interest of the nation at large. They are pressured into sacrificing those interests for the interests of their particular groups, to the extent that their leaders (in the name and supposed "interests" of their groups) often exploit them by capitalizing on their fears and sentiments. This is the case when people are pressured to vote in a particular way or for a particular politician purely on ethnic sentiments or for any other reason beside merit.
Politics of ethnicity is inimical to the development and advancement of true democracy in which fairness, justice, unity, peace, and prosperity for all abound. It makes nonsense of egalitarianism. It is to be recognized, that there is a strong perception and belief (and perhaps rightly so) that politics by its nature is devoid of truth and fairness. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest or support that notion—with every politician on the left and on the right cashing in on the sentiments, misgivings, and deficiencies of ethnic groups for the sole purpose of securing votes, winning elections, staying in power, and gaining more power. However, politics is the road for the vehicle called democracy by which we can arrive at the destination called peaceful coexistence to which we have all set out to find in the journey called life on earth. (Read more about politics of ethnicity in chapter five).