Civic Myths
People do not understand just how extreme the demographic changes to America have been since the 1960s and what this will mean for the future of American politics, policy, and culture. Although we are told constantly that the shift in population groups was inevitable, this is just not the case.
The majority Anglo-Saxon culture had a massive influence on the expected behaviors and standards in America from the beginning. It's what shaped our politics, laws, and entire society. Many cannot imagine how much impact this had on the nation in the areas of social, political, and cultural mores.
In 1960, the US population was roughly 180 million, with the breakdown being 158.8M White, 18.9M Black, and 1.6M all other groups. For perspective, the entire population in the US of neither White or Black would only fill up the city of Phoenix, Arizona today. *
(*A simplification for illustrative purposes notwithstanding the multitude of different ethnic and religious factions.)
The US population is now at 330 million (with estimates even higher when including illegal immigration.), and shows no sign of decreasing or leveling off anytime soon.
Would a lack of the massive global immigration ushered in by the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act have given us a utopian society? Of course not. There still would be challenges and obstacles to face, but I tend to believe it would have had a less stratified result we see in society today if a firm majority were still in place.
I used to believe in civic nationalism and the idea of the global populace buying a ticket to the (American) story and ideals. Funnily enough, around the time I held these beliefs was 30+ years ago in an America that had a firmly entrenched demographic majority of Heritage Americans. (Roughly 75% IIRC) See, that’s kind of the paradox of the idea of a successful nation operating under civic nationalism in that you still need a majority ethnic population who puts their full faith in the mythos of said nation’s founding, institutions, and ideals. Once it hits a certain fracturing of population and becomes majority-minority, with no one group asserting dominance – this gives rise to overt tribal tendencies.
Diversity is not a strength. If it were, nations like India, Japan and China would be importing as many diverse groups as possible to get an edge on the global economic competition. Still, if we lived in a reality based sane and serious nation that spoke the truth on differences a la Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore, it could have worked. This would require media, academia, and gov’t to cease the relentless attack on the historical figures whose actions and events created the USA. To cease the beratement of tradition and outright hostility. Understand that each apology, every condescending remark and erasure of history merely removes another brick of the foundation of American mythos and of her very survival itself.
I don't mean to nitpick but India is extremely diverse. If anything as it stands India is an example that diversity doesn't make you strong. China has quite a lot of diversity as well it is just similar to Russia where one ethnic group overwhelmingly dominates.
One specific minority got enormous academic and cultural power, and persuaded the majority that ethnicity and race don't matter (while it continues to matter enormously to that minority).
That minority had developed a centuries-old tradition of hiding their real beliefs because they were so dehumanizing to outsiders. https://ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html