John > Take a look at the following (which discusses power sharing in ethnically divided societies) and let me know if you agree with his argument
There are two societies I know of which one could consider --- my own, South Africa, and the US. Clearly, both are experimental although, as far as empowering "ethnics" are concerned, SA is more advanced than the US because it has a democratically elected, black government. Today, it is the whites who are the minority and that is unique. Indeed, if a black-dominated, racially mixed democratic society is to succeed it will largely depend on the whites graciously accepting their much diminished political role. To this end, I can say it is very much a matter of good faith because one just doesn't know how it will all turn out in the end. There are many who, like Schwartz, see no future for such a multi-racial, democratic society. Indeed, South Africa, is at the cutting-edge of the "brave new world" --- if it fails then it's back to ethnic cleansing, apartheid, Naziism --- and what we see in the Middle East, everywhere.
Schwartz considers the only workable solution to an ethnically divided society is "ethnic cleansing", a solution which was tried, both in the US and SA, and found to be unworkable. Nevertheless, by adopting multiracial democracy because of its shortcomings he considers that the US has failed to create an effective society.
>>>For better or worse, the current fragmentation and directionlessness of American society is the result, above all, of a disintegrating elite's increasing inability or unwillingness to impose its hegemony on society as a whole.<<<
I would say that he does not give sufficient credit to the US for its initiative in trying something which has never worked before. For over 40 years I listened to exponents of the art of separate development proclaiming its virtues only to find, in the end, that their brainchild was an abomination and they agreed it was.
Schwartz tries to equate the fragmented strata of English society, which the Americans adopted as the basis of being "American", as his example for showing that an ethnically divided/integrated society cannot work. However, in Africa, the blacks have gone one step further than the blacks in the US --- in Africa, the blacks are also "English"! One needs to look no further than Mugabe and Mbeki, in their immaculate Saville Row suits with their impeccable English accents, to realize how un-African they have become. For some reason, possibly his slavery ancestry, the African-American has become a rebel and has attempted to create a synthetic, "hip" culture all of his own. IMO, that only serves to show how the black Americans have lost out by not being "British" and not how the multiracial society, itself, has failed. I might add that there is very little in common between the SA black and the US black, in fact, I don't think they even like each other.
To me, the outstanding aspect of the article was the recognition >>>...that a single group whose proportion of the population has declined continuously throughout American history could so dominate American cultural and political life for three centuries--could in fact define what it meant to be an American--is a remarkable achievement.<<<
He refers, of course, to those of British descent. He does not, however, give credit to the fact that up to the mid-20th Century Britain was the world's superpower and because of this, like that of the US today, her influence, style and culture were the dominant ones in the world, particularly for English speakers and even more so for elites.
It's fascinating, returning to SA, to consider the Afrikaaners, people descended from the predominately Dutch Boers who fought against Britain in a colonial war to grab their land and the gold mines, much like the US in Iraq now, but who attempted by all means to retain their culture and their language, even to this day. In my opinion, to all intents and purposes, they are Englishmen --- but who speak Afrikaans. Ironically, and possibly without even realizing it, they modelled themselves on the British culture --- although they profess to, and indeed did, hate the British.
Schwartz tacitly makes the point that being "democratic" means being "British", and I agree with him. Therefore the SA whites can participate in a multiracial society because they have learned their British lesson well, just as the US whites did --- but the US blacks did not. Hence there is far more friction between the races in America than in SA.
Just a thought. |
