Today marks another sad yet ironic chapter in the history of American racism. Firstly because I believe Barack Obama was our first presidential ‘affirmative action hire’ and, secondly, and most importantly, because of the black/white dichotomy present in the minds of all Americans of every race. Granted, the United States has come a long way in defeating institutionalized racism (minus affirmative action) although blacks really only achieved equality in the last forty years. Nevertheless, the mindset in the US and indeed most former European colonies is still affected by their twisted, outdated and outright racist ideas. Allow me to elaborate.

“White” and “Black”

The United States, like other settler colonies, is a mix of people from many countries. However, for much of its history, it was not the melting pot people like to call it. It was a destination mostly for Europeans. Thus, initial immigrants came from places like England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Holland, France and so forth. As the last sentence shows you, these people have little in common in terms of religion, culture, language and so forth. Yet, what they do have in common is “white” skin and all coming from the same continent. Yet, to be clear, they were not ‘white.’ The word and ethnic designation ‘white’ was invented and has no real meaning. After all, there are just as many differences between someone from Scotland and say Lithuania than Kenya and Angola. My point is that once these European immigrants became ‘American’ a new in-group was formed that anywhere else in the world is meaningless.

With the mass importation of African slaves, all from very different countries with different cultures, languages, religions and so forth, a new overarching term was created: ‘black.’ Yet, someone from Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Liberia and Nigeria do not have much in common. They were just as different as neighbors like France and Germany. Yet, in the context of America, they were all ‘black’. In short, because the US was a settler colony with no indigenous people (for all intents and purposes), the primary way of differentiating people was skin color. In Africa or Europe, it would have no useful meaning whatsoever.

Lastly, on that point, I will never use the term African-American because it is misused. Only someone who is actually African (say from Nigeria, Malawi etc) and immigrated to the US could MAYBE be called so. But honestly, if you’ve immigrated, you are American now, and nothing else. Blacks are not African in any sense of the word. They’ve never visited Africa, speak no African language, know nothing of their “real” home or its culture and in fact are the product of many mixed African countries. Similarly, there is no such thing European-American for whites. Most everyone who claims to be Scottish, English, German or Italian couldn’t point out that country on a map or name its capital, much less argue they have anything at all in common with those countries culturally, linguistically and so forth.

Black Inferiority

Given the creation of these two new ‘racial’ groups, it is important to remember the sense of superiority Europeans possessed during the centuries of colonization. American Indians, Indians, Africans, Latin American Indians and so forth were all seen as lower, uncivilized cultures full of non-Christian heathens who needed to be converted and civilized. Let us not forget the British slogan “Christianity, Commerce and Civilization.” Other non-European peoples were seen as inferior. In the United States, contact between the two was frowned upon and in fact forbidden by law. Blacks were treated as property, not even human. The Euro-centric idea of white superiority extended to mixed people as well. Even one-drop of so-called “black blood” made you black. Therefore, not only was interracial marriage illegal, the offspring were automatically seen as ‘black’ and therefore inferior. No room was left for mixed because such a concept had not yet come into existence. The mental framework of the time allowed for only A or B, black or white, superior for inferior.

Meaningless Definitions

Thus, we see “white” is short-hand for of general mixed European descent. Yet, it would be hard to argue a Russian and Swede are the same in any way. “Black” means of general mixed African descent, which also means nothing. And most importantly, BOTH terms mean mixed. This blogger could be called “white” although he like most of you, is merely a mish-mash of Europeans mixing for many generations. Yet, mentally, I would not be designated as being from an inferior race. Over time, as the legal and mental pillars of racism were brought down, interaction between the two has increased and we have realized they are equal. Moreover, as immigrants to the United States have come from an increasingly diverse set of countries, we have all possible combination of white, black, Asian, Latin and more.

So “what” is an American whose parents are say Latin and Asian or Asian and White? The answer is mixed. Yet, as a country, we have apparently not moved away from the dichotomy of the past yet. Thus, those who allege that Obama is the first black President classify him with the racist framework they claim to hate. In fact, it not only perpetuates a racist way of thinking, but also does so at the expense of many Americans who are also mixed. “Mixed Race” or “2 or more races” have slowly started appearing on questionnaires, which is a start.

And as long as there remain large cultural, economic and social differences between groups, they will be divided into such. Martin Luther King looked forward to the day when people were judged by their merits not skin color. It seems we aren’t there yet and Obama’s being called black merely proves it once again.

While many people use the words state and nation-state interchangeably, there is an important difference between the two responsible for increasing tension and domestic turbulence all over the globe. Nationalism has been the source of countless conflicts around the world yet the current political makeup of the globe is fairly new, historically speaking. Despite the prejudices some have today, empires were actually the norm through much of history. Only since the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 have certain groups of people believed in their absolute right to a specific piece of land. As time went on, the idea caught on and ultimately led to the splintering of the great empires (English, Dutch, Spanish, Ottoman, German, Russian, French etc) into smaller states whose geographical borders closely represented the ethnic makeup of the territory.

From giant conglomerations of peoples to tiny states with just a few thousand people,today, people the world over find themselves facing another variation of this age old problem. With the ease and increase of international travel, communications and commerce, the peoples of the world have again began to mix while the borders of their states remain static. As many settle down, learn the local language and gain residence or citizenship, the question arises: Who is Swiss? Who is German? Who is Turkish?

Ironically, this is one major problem that both Europe and Turkey share. While Germans debate whether German-speaking Turks born and raised in Germany are really German, Turks debate what it means to be Turkish. According to the Turkish constitution for example, Turkey is a Turkish state whose language is Turkish. Where then, does this leave the Kurds, who’ve lived in the region thousands of years longer than the Turks?

An article in Today’s Zaman on Turkish and Kurdish nationalism notes:

The MHP needs to reevaluate these ideologies and principles and generate new ideas. Bahçeli referred to Oct. 29 1923 when explaining the basic rules of living under the roof of a united Turkish Republic and coexisting in a Turkish national identity. But the date is wrong, most of the sensitive concepts and descriptions we debate today date back to after 1923. Are we going to describe Turkishness according to the more enclosed description in the 1924 Constitution or, the more limiting description in the 1982 Constitution? Also Bahçeli needs to elaborate on what he means by “one state, one nation, one flag, one language,”? which he listed as the principles of “national unity and solidarity.”? How will we place the Kurds, whom it is believed to come from a different ethnic root, within this “one nation”? conception?

Nowadays, the most successful states are arguably those who born from settler colonies, specifically British ones. To be American, Australian or Canadian isn’t to be a certain race or religion. While white Anglo-Saxons are clearly the majority at the moment, everyone else has been and is just as welcome and not seen as less Canadian, American or Australian. Indeed, for countries based on an idea and where no group “owns” the land, the freedom to change, adapt and grow is far greater than in those based on ethnicity and religion with far older cultures and traditions. While some people advance the idea of so-called Market-States, one if the biggest and most overlooked questions of our century is that of identity. Will we see more melting together? More nationalist backlash?

I invite readers to share their views on the increasingly important role of identity on both the individual and state level and the effects thereof on states and their domestic and foreign policy.