Simple Truths: De Facto Segregation

Author's note: I just discovered this post from many years ago. It's a draft, but I can't capture my original train of thought, so I am publishing it below "as is." I'm very surprised at #3, because I now firmly believe segregation, assisted by poor public transportation, is the cause of almost all major issues in modern countries. I don't mean only race-based segregation--I mean segregation of all kinds. In nature, birds of a feather may flock together, but if the human race's survival depends on "getting used to each other," segregation must be actively fought with the same planning and precision militaries fight wars.

Truth #3: Segregation may help minorities, at least in modern-day America.

Look at the history of assimilation in America. Which groups have been successful? How have they been successful? And why have we had so much "white flight"? Is "white flight" just a term for rich people trying to avoid an influx of poor people of a different color? Or is it a practical response to unwanted cultural change?

I don't know the answers to the aforementioned questions, but I do know there is safety in numbers. In America, as much as we advance the "melting pot" theory, the real power is in concentration, not integration. Democratic societies function based on elected representatives. Who chooses the representatives? The majority. If your group--whether professional, religious, or racial--is in the majority, chances are, your group will maximize its political potential. In contrast, if your group is in the minority, you will be dependent on the kindness of the majority to ensure your prosperity.

In good times, everyone is usually on the same page--it's the bad times that cause miscommunication and violence. History shows that when things get bad enough, majorities have no problem gassing millions of Jews, locking up Japanese-Americans, detaining and torturing Arabs and Muslims without due process, and so on.

In short, when the economy is doing well, Americans love assimilation; however, problems tend to arise during each recession.

Truth #4: Most people don't even know our two biggest problems.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a massive problem--so is trying to compete in a globalized economy. Sure, other major problems exist, such as cybersecurity, a crumbling infrastructure, and a declining K-12 education system, but nuclear weapons and globalization stand out because we don't necessarily have the answers yet. 

Simple Truths: Iran

Truth #1. Why are American troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because if they leave, Iran will fill the vacuum.

The greatest beneficiary of America's war against Iraq has been Iran. We made a mistake attacking Iraq after 9/11, and in doing so, we did Iran a favor by removing Saddam Hussein. Sadly, the invasion did nothing to increase our own safety, because there has never been a substantial connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Thus, the short-term results of Bush II's Iraq war are that thousands of American soldiers have died while Iran's influence has increased; and we have spent trillions of dollars invading a country that did nothing against us. However, we can never admit such profound folly, so the U.S. is determined to ensure that our initial mistake--invading and occupying Iraq--does not compound itself. Allowing Iran to install its own power base in Iraq (or Afghanistan) would compound our initial mistake, and the U.S. is doing whatever it can to stunt Iran's influence. 

Why would Iran care about Iraq, and why would Iraqis care about Iran? Muslims are typically either Sunni or Shiite/Shia. Within Iran, almost all Muslims are Shiite--just like the majority of Iraq's Muslims. Outside of Iran, however, almost all Muslims are Sunni. In fact, Iran is surrounded by Sunni Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. If Iran is able to extend its influence into Iraq and make Iraq an ally, it would finally have a Shiite neighbor. From an American perspective, the more Iran's neighbors are friendly with Iran, the more difficult it will be to stunt Iran's influence. (Now might be a good time to remind everyone that Iran contains the world's second largest natural gas reserves and third largest petroleum reserves.) 

To minimize Iran's influence, the United States has been helping paint Iran as a rogue nation. Basically, the United States government has been releasing information to create support for an attack against Iran if Iran continues to extend its influence over Iraq. For example, at one point, Yahoo's homepage showed a picture of a new Iranian bomber drone almost the entire weekend. Despite the fact that Iranians are model citizens in the United States (look up who founded eBay), you will almost never see the word "Iranian" in a story without some negative connotation. The media's quest to dehumanize Iranians is in full effect. (One can't have a war without first making the enemy into "the Other.")  

The real issue is the extent to which Iran has the capacity or willingness to attack American soldiers or Americans. A country that has been around for 3000+ years probably doesn't have a death wish. Even if it did, and even if Iran managed to get nuclear weapons, it still needs to transport them effectively. As North Korea's failed missile tests demonstrate, it is much easier to make a weapon than it is to deliver it accurately. Overall, it is hard to believe that the Iranian government would be capable or stupid enough to directly attack any American soldier or civilian. Even when the Iranian government has captured American civilians or possible CIA assets, it tends to return them unharmed. (This pattern holds true in the capture of the American embassy in 1979 as well as the more recent American hikers, who were arrested when they entered Iran without proper authorization.) However, if the current Iranian government extends its influence over Iraq and Afghanistan, it may use sections of these countries as proxies or buffer zones. In other words, doing nothing would allow an extension of a government hostile to American interests, and therein lies the problem. 

Ironically, without Saddam Hussein to keep the Iranian government in check, the Middle East has managed to become more complicated. Under Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Ba'ath Party dominated politics. The Ba'ath Party was secular, not Muslim. By killing a secular leader, we allowed more religiously-committed factions to spread their influence over Iraq. Any American who thought invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would show "those Muslim terrorists" is misguided. Maybe next time, we'll do more research and question our government when it tells us war is good. 

Bonus: most Americans don't remember the Iran-Iraq War, but back in the 1980's, Saddam Hussein waged a bloody war against Iran and used chemical weapons against Iranians. I bring this up to remind Americans that Saddam Hussein was once our friend--and Iran's worst enemy. By removing Saddam Hussein and not achieving broad consensus on a rebuilding plan (such as the Marshall Plan), we've managed to create more problems, and this time, war won't be quite as simple. Unlike Iran, Iraq was never a tightly-knit, sovereign state. In fact, modern-day Iraq is basically a post-WWI British creation. In contrast, Iran has been together for 3,000 years and has never been occupied by a foreign power. I doubt Bush II's White House properly considered the downsides of invading Iraq. The American people were stunned by 9/11 and needed a show of force. They got one, and we're still dealing with the consequences years later. 

Conclusion: the only way America can claim a victory against terrorists is if it eradicates the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and parts of Afghanistan. The Iranian spectacle is just a side-show of our own making.

Simple Truths: Immigration, Arizona, and Racism

Truth #2. Racism will probably exist forever.

Why did Arizona decide to target Mexican illegal immigrants while Californians set up sanctuary cities for them? They're just 750 miles apart, but they have two completely different attitudes. Why?

Human beings will always look for patterns to create a set of assumptions. We rely on this set of assumptions to get through our daily lives. In California, most residents see illegal immigrants working in restaurants and in other blue-collar positions. While some illegal immigrants in California commit crimes, the majority of them have come to California to work and make money. In short, the average California sees illegal immigrants in positions that appear non-threatening, i.e., food prep, hotel staff, gardeners, etc. In my experience here in San Jose, California, I've had positive experiences with most of the illegal immigrants I've come across.

So why do Arizonans have such a different mentality when it comes to illegal immigration? I'm speculating, but most Arizonans have probably had negative experiences with illegal immigrants. Based on various anecdotes, it appears drug dealers and gangs tend to send poor, unconnected illegal immigrants to Arizona, while many illegal immigrants who come to California already have family here and can avoid the drug/gang scene. As a result, Arizonans associate illegal immigration with criminality, while Californians associate illegal immigration with cheaper services. This difference in opinion has little to do with racism, and everything to do with different groups of people digesting different sets of patterns. In Arizona, illegal immigrants equal crime; in California, illegal immigrants equal cheaper services and people striving for the American Dream.

Human beings use patterns to form opinions, and residents of the two states are exposed to different patterns, causing them to form different opinions. We'd all like to think we are independent, but our brains know better. Each piece of information affects us, and over time, if we can create patterns, we will do so. For this reason, racism will always exist, and the way to minimize it is for the media not to display consistently negative images of any particular group, and for us to be careful not to expose ourselves to biased information. Easier said than done, of course.

For example, Europe, mindful of its history of oppressing and massacring minorities--which includes but is not limited to the Holocaust--has laws against hate speech and/or inciting racial/religious language. After years of producing anti-Jewish cartoons and anti-Semitic propaganda, Germany now bans Nazi symbols. The French government has even prosecuted famed starlet Bardot for her anti-Muslim comments. And while it is true that the BBC and other European media outlets are much less baiting than most American media, Europe's enlightened post-WWII policies have not reduced racism--if anything, racism is even more keen. In fact, I would argue that the average minority in America is much safer than the average minority in Europe in 2010. How is that possible when Europeans have done so much more to address problems of racism? The answer may be quite simple.

When Europeans decided to censor themselves, they gave instant authenticity to a small but vocal group of racists. By failing to address the causes of racism head-on--and relying on anti-hate laws--European policies succeeded in bringing formerly marginalized groups into the mainstream. Some Europeans recently elected Nazis to government positions. (I am not exaggerating--Nazi political parties still exist, and Europeans elected some of their members to office. See HERE for more, or just look up the British National Party.) In contrast, anti-minority Americans have no qualms about expressing their hatred, and plenty of places to do it. On a recent story featuring a Muslim female employee seeking a religious accommodation at Disney for her head-scarf, check out the following comments (August 23, 2010 Yahoo article titled "Hostess won't wear Disney's head scarf alternative"):

"I'm so tired of these people. Its a takeover one incident at a time. Make no mistake, that's the plan. For now its tolerate, later America will lose control over these people. Look at Europe. Shoot, look at the Middle East. Islam was relegated to a tiny portion of Saudi Arabia before their conquests. Why are we letting these people in the country? Do we need this crap?" [Note: American Muslims probably constitute just 3 to 4% of America's total population and just 3 to 4% of the European Union's total population.]

"No one is required to kow-tow to the mooslimes in any shape, form or degree! If they want to be a part of the REST of the world, then, they need to learn to play by OUR rules, not vice versa! We should NOT be making accomodations to ANY religion!" [Note: American law requires businesses of a certain size to accommodate religious beliefs when doing so does not constitute an undue hardship on the business.]

"islam IS NOT a religion. It is a Theocracy, and hence does not fall under the Freedom of Religion. PERIOD." [Note: the most populous Muslim country in the world, Indonesia, is not a theocracy.]

"This is yet another attempt from muslim extremests to attack our freedoms and divide our culture. They have done it very effectively in Europe, and now the want to take over our country with muslim laws." [Note: once again, the duty of religious accommodation is based on American laws.]

"Disney nor New York should bow down to these idiots, this is America not an Islam Country, its a christian based country.. if she does not want to comply then fire her and end of story. Im not Racist either im just saying rules are rules." [Note: see letter from George Washington disavowing the idea that the United States is exclusively a Christian country.]

"send her home and give her a pork clop [sic] to munch on on her way."

There are over 4,500 comments, almost all of them expressing similar sentiments, but you get the picture. You won't see similar comments on BBC, etc. So why do I think minorities in America are safer, on average, than in Europe? Because at least here, racist movements usually lack broad legitimacy. No one is censoring racists, so they cannot complain about being marginalized, and our willingness to give them a microphone prevents them from gaining European-style martyr status. Also, to the extent some Americans are spending their time writing hateful comments online, that's less time they can spend creating an American Nazi Party.

So where does that leave us? Nowhere good, unfortunately. In both continents, we see thousands, if not millions of people unable to articulate the laws of their own country. I blame our failing education system for our current cultural stratification. Kids, teenagers, and college students go through years of schooling and manage to learn almost nothing about the Constitution or basic economics. What do we expect? And education alone won't be a panacea--as an attorney practicing law in Santa Clara County, my experience has shown me that legal knowledge won't necessarily help mitigate racism, Islamophobia, incorrect assumptions, or hatred. (Even so, I continue to believe most problems are caused by failures in communication and transparency.)

At the end of the day, the only real solution to racism is kids and teenagers hanging out together. (Youth sports leagues are a fantastic place to start.) Unfortunately, true diversity doesn't exist in most places, making it impossible for diverse groups of children and teenagers to spend time together in friendly, collaborative environments. And don't count on true diversity happening anytime soon. Americans and Europeans are getting more and more segregated. In short, racism will probably always exist, and all we can do is be mindful of our brain's habit of forming patterns and recognize when we've formed patterns based on a small or biased selection of data.

Repeat after me: "There are almost 7 billion people on this planet. In someone's entire lifetime, his or her general opinions about any group of people will be based on perhaps 0.5 to 6% of the total population of any particular group. No reasonable person would believe that having personal knowledge about 0.5 to 6% of something qualifies him/her to form a reliable opinion, because the size of the data relative to the group is too small." Logically, the previous statement is absolutely true. It's too bad our brains aren't designed to run on logic, which is why racism will probably always exist.