These sort of class distinctions are much less pronounced in America, which is why so many oppressed or impoverished people from elsewhere yearn to travel here and make a new life. It's nice to hear about someone who was able to realize the American Dream and escape the class prejudice of their home country.
That might be the case, but the constant reminder of race is very weird to me. As in, it's very common to denote someone to be "black" or "white" or "hispanic" and so on. I can understand this to some extent when it comes to describing how someone looks (eg police warrant) but in most other contexts... it's just feels very strange with the obsession of what color/origin someone has/is.
Most countries don't have a history of race based slavery. Rome, Inca, etc viewed conquest as the path to slavery. Even most American slaves where at the root captured by a different group in Africa rather than based on skin color.
The race to slavery connection was more an accident of history than any design. Early America had some black slave owners and they imported from Africa because Native Americans tended to die from disease or escape.
Yet, they also lack the deep institutionalized racial slavery connection. Despite what people think slavery is actually more expensive than providing subsistence level pay. Due to the constant immigration influx and institutions like indentured servitude slavery was never important to New York's economy and by avoiding the slavery trap they actually had much stronger economic growth.
NYC did see slavery from 1655 (fist auction) to 1827 but issued a gradual emancipation act in 1799. Hardly hundreds of years of institutionalized slavery. Even before that there was various waves of freed slaves associated with the Revolutionary war. When black men made up one-quarter of the rebel militia in White Plains and where then freed after the war etc.
There was slavery in New York in 1626 before the first auction. 1626-1827 is two centuries. You are also ignoring the "and discrimination" part of the statement that I made. New York had segregated neighborhoods until much later such as Stuyvesant Town which opened in 1947. NYC is also famous for its racially biased stop-and-frisk policy which lasted into the 21st century. Overall, it's pretty clear that my statement that there was "centuries of race based slavery and discrimination" is accurate even for New York.
Ahh, but they did not have institutionalized racial slavery before the auctions. Simply having slaves is not enough, as US slavery was based on the European peasantry model which has no racial component and it was only after massive influx of African slaves that the connection became so strong.
Also, segregation spread from the South after the Civil War so there was a significant gap from the end of NY slavery to the start of Radical segregation which means it was not a continuous period.
Remember the Civil War ended in 1865 slavery absolutely ended in NY in 1827, but was almost non existent at that time long having been phased out.
From 1821 until adoption of the 14th amendment in 1868 New York required black men to own property to vote but did not require white men to own property to vote. There are many other examples of discrimination that could be found, but your entire position is frankly too absurd to bother arguing against any further. The idea that there were not at least two centuries of time in which there was some form of race based slavery or discrimination in New York is preposterous.
I am not arguing that there was zero racial discrimination, we still have forms of racial discrimination built into the law today.
However, at the time women where not allowed to vote at all. Thus it was not pure racial discrimination.
Just for perspective North Carolina and New York did allow freed blacks to vote in 1790. And in 1860 two states still had property ownership requirements to vote I am saying deep cultural views are a more complex topic than you think.
PS: As one historian put it, economics pushed poor white farmers to abolitionism before the civil war. However, economics pushed those same farmers to discrimination after the civil war.
Yep, every time I read about a racial issue in the US, it turns out it's always a social/economic issue, but talking about the "working class" is implicitly prohibited in the media (thanks to the red scare) so they make it about race. Divide and conquer works fine. Hell, even the poorest americans will bash on unions and any idea of a class identity. Are the poor misrepresented in higher education? Just shove in some blacks to even out the color, that'll fix it.
When societies/individuals achieve high status and realize self-worth, they usually develop a generous and liberal disposition (not a bad thing). Unfortunately, when the position is threatened, they may go back to the survival mode and become intolerant.
That is very true. Also when societies/individuals don't have a long history they haven't had a chance to accumulate modes of thinking from the past that are no longer deemed appropriate but are difficult to shake off once acquired.
