Listen now (81 min) | My guest this week is my friend Rajiv Sethi. Rajiv is Professor of Economics at Barnard College, Columbia University and External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, and he writes an occasional newsletter at Imperfect Information. He’s published widely on problems of crime and segregation, among many other topics, and as you’ll hear in this conversation, he’s done some deep thinking about an area that is sadly pertinent to our society today: gun violence.
Regardless of what opinions you have on these issues, hearing these two intellectuals engage in critical discussion was like watching fireworks against a night sky. Just amazing to hear careful reasoning and dialogue from two people who genuinely want to understand how the world works and discover the best ways of improving it
First, thanks for the deeper discussion on topics that need it. How about a dose of common sense? Despite the risk of sounding trite, we run our legal system like a lottery and lots of criminality that could and should be stopped, is dealt a slap on the wrist. Aren't we glossing over some relevant history? Take for example the man who crushed an innocent man's skull with a cinder block.
This is from Wikipedia:
What happened to the men who attacked Reginald Denny?
Williams' lawyers successfully argued that he had not intended to kill Denny; he was found not guilty of attempted murder, assault, and aggravated mayhem, and convicted of four misdemeanors and simple mayhem, while Watson was convicted of a single misdemeanor assault charge.
Instead being caught on video, and then serving every day of what he deserved, 25 to life, Williams was paroled in four years, only to then commit murder.
How about, to set an example for criminals about how society deals with gun violence, enforcing the laws we already have on the books, rather than passing more laws that only the law abiding will ever be affected by? How about, to put a dent in the carnage of drug dealing thugs, and their territorial mayhem, we punish the guilty with the same zeal as we seek workarounds to the legal rights of responsible owners and users of guns? Would Mr. Denny's attackers have avoided him if he had been able to wave them off with a firearm? In California, the only carry permits issued go to celebrities and the politically connected. Regretfully, Mr. Denny was neither.
This was an interesting conversation, but there were a number of inaccuracies related to firearms.
A minor technical point is that the shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were not committed with “automatic heavy weapons”; the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle firing what is considered to be an intermediate caliber. The manufacture of new fully-automatic firearms for civilians was outlawed in 1986.
The core problem with “red flag laws” has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; rather, they probably violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Given the very low base rate of mass shootings, Bayes’ theorem with a highly sensitive and specific test suggests a virtually nonexistent evidentiary standard would be needed to reliably stop mass shooters. A similar argument would also work for suicide prevention.
Mandatory reporting laws, and Rajiv’s gun insurance idea, are only enforceable with a registration system, which will be opposed by gun rights supporters. You need only look to the other Anglosphere countries with firearms registration to see that promises to not confiscate firearms are never binding. Furthermore, registration does not seem to ever independently solve crimes and controlling SCOTUS precedent is that prohibited possessors do not have to register firearms – this would lead to self-incrimination. Many guns couldn’t be traced anyways since criminals will often scratch off the serial number, regardless of how they acquired the gun; there is nothing magical about tracing serial numbers on a firearm.
While it is true that smart guns exist, they are such a minuscule part of the firearms market that about the only people who care about them are gun control advocates. There are already a number of failure modes in a mechanical device, such as a firearm; so why would anyone interested in self-defense carry a gun that adds an extra layer of failure when they need to guarantee operation immediately after choosing to deploy the firearm? I don’t know where Rajiv is getting this idea that smart guns can’t be used by non-owners – it has been known for some time that current technology can be defeated by the use of a simple magnets.
Most studies on gun control measures, in the case they find a positive impact, suggest very small effect sizes – if we assume that there is enough statistical power to even detect an effect. That is if the effective measures are even enforced. For example, prosecutions for straw purchasing and lying on a 4473 (the federal background check form) are severely lacking, despite both offenses carrying substantial prison time. From a simple Law of Demand analysis, if the cost of some action is low the prevalence will be greater than if a higher cost is imposed.
It is true that the U.S. is an outlier compared to many European countries on the homicide rate, but as Glenn mentions there are significant differences in homicide by racial and ethnic groups – no matter the ultimate causes of the disparities. For example, among non-Hispanic whites the homicide rate has been hovering around 2 per 100k in recent years – this is the same homicide rate as Canada, with 4-5 times as many firearms per capita. And while this homicide rate is almost double that of the UK, it’s with 30 times as many firearms per capita. There’s certainly reason to think that higher rates of gun ownership could increase the baseline homicide rate, but the magnitude of the effect size is probably much lower than is conventionally believed.
"With respect to Ferguson, it was very clear, wasn't it, that that second justice department report was a bone thrown to the progressive activists given that the first report could not confirm the popular narrative that Michael Brown had been murdered by Darren Wilson."
Dr. Loury matter-of-factly tells it like it is.
For seven months all the public heard was "Hands up, don't shoot." The rhetoric came hot and heavy: execution, using our children for target practice, murderous cops, The Talk. St. Louis Rams players taking the field with their hands up in a nationally-televised football game. The University of Missouri president forced out for not strongly enough condemning Darren Wilson (who acted appropriately, a fact the DOJ would later cement). And let's not forget the riots all across the nation.
So then the report comes out exonerating Wilson and the media reacts with breathless headline coverage of... Black people in Ferguson seemed to get, statistically speaking, slightly more speeding and parking tickets. (And, as Dr. Loury pointed out, the location of a Sam's store is very likely the entire explanation for that.)
From "hands up, don't shoot" to parking tickets -- and neither the media nor the Democrats have ever apologized for the angst and violence they caused. And, despairingly, it is a media/political formula that has been repeated over and over again since Ferguson.
Again, sorry for my apology. I could not endure Rajiv's replies and comments to the end of the session. I become too incensed with this use of the slag, "you know." My reply is, "No I do not know. I can't think along wid ya. I do not share your values or your assumptions."
Rajiv, you correctly identify that one's base culture affects cognition, but you don't realize your use of slang and imprecise language muddles your reply and your comments. I appreciate that for you, as a foreign-speaking person, English is difficult and that dat "crutches" like "you know" are helpful. However, in a critical reply, such transgressions are too great a burden. In most cases, to me, your case and your claims are NOT clear to me.
The 1619 Project is an exercise in propaganda. No need to validate it yet againl here.
Your discussion on the degree to which culture is shaped by the incentives and pressures of the community at large was powerful and really helped me identify a discomfort I have with conservative ideas on subjects like black on black crime. It was always easy for me to identify what was wrong with the left’s response to the problem. They seemed to want the credit for saying the right things and showing sympathy, without having to do any of the hard work necessary to help solve the problem. And often times their sympathetic words were hard to distinguish from bigotry. Treating young black men like helpless pawns, who should not be subject to expectations or responsible for their actions doesn’t feel right. On the flip side, conservatives will often go for the best of both worlds also. They will wash their hands of the problem entirely and then claim moral superiority because, unlike the left, they are “respecting the agency” of these young black men. That always felt like a copout to me. Recognizing that someone was born behind the 8 ball is not akin to stealing their agency. What this discussion helped me realize is that identifying culture as a driver of disfunction doesn’t make you racist, but it also doesn’t relieve you of all responsibility just because you weren’t born into that particular culture. If you can admit that historical oppression has largely created the conditions for generational poverty, hopelessness and violence, even if you believe culture is the most significant current driver, then it is your duty as a citizen to be a part of the solution.
I looked up the reference to Cecilia Lewis who was pressured to leave her positions at two districts because of the first district hiring for an explicit DEI position. From the article, the people upset at her hiring come across as bigots. Whether they are or not will not be discovered because Cecilia Lewis does not seem to have actually made any public statements about what her intended plan for DEI was. Or at least I cannot find any. While I find the behavior of some of those parents to be repulsive due to the aggression they expressed based solely on the fact she was hired for DEI without actually learning the details of what it entailed, I find Lewis’ response to be disappointing.
If “CRT” had nothing to do with what she intended to implement, she could have adamantly expressed that and even condemned those ideas that people are rightfully upset with in relationship to CRT. She could have actually been a leader in the path toward an ideology superior to that of DEI. But that isn’t what she did. She seemingly wrote it off as too scary or too bigoted for her to confront.
While communicating with angry parents doesn’t sound particularly appealing, and I can sympathize with a person not wanting to do it, I feel like the *right* person for such a position as fraught with political controversy as one related to DEI would need to have the courage to both confront the parents who are clearly bigots and comfort the parents who are just afraid of the legitimate garbage that “CRT” is trying to promote. Someone who is going to be the “diversity” czar at a school cannot just write off a school as racist and leave before even making an honest attempt at breaching the prejudices they are confronted with.
My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. A simple Google search would have informed her of the minefield she was entering. Someone that disconnected from the politics of DEI has no business having the position anyway. Without her adamant rejection of the reasonable association of DEI and Kendian philosophy and clearly rejecting those tenants of Kendian philosophy people are afraid of being taught or applied in the school, the coverage of her situation is missing crucial information to make a better and more accurate judgement.
Personally if I was hired for that position I’d not left like she did. I’d have stood my ground and attempted to persuade the parents the merits of my philosophy.
But what’s the chance of *me* being hired for such a position without the bullshit credentials that “DEI” positions demand? If *I* was hired and the parents didn’t let off and Tucker Carlson wouldn’t shut up -- even after I YouTubed my philosophical perspective on “diversity”, “equity”, and “inclusion” and clearly laid out my goals and plans, okay they are probably bigots.
"Rajiv is critical of many of these policies, not because he doesn’t want to reduce gun violence but because he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough. Much gun violence takes place amongst African Americans, but Rajiv wants to separate, to de-essentialize, race and violence. He draws on some of my own work on these issues to ask how we can look at the conditions that render acts of violence in high-crime areas, in some sense, rational. Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem. Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
After reading the above from the synopsis given by Glenn (above), I went to the Youtube to watch and listen. I did want to hear what Rajiv had to say about a couple of issues stated above. And now I must confess that I cannot understand much of what was said because of his accent. I did slow down the playback speed and that helped but not enough to get a grasp of his thinking. I wish CC was available.
On to a couple of questions: What was meant by "he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough". What does he think would be acceptable "consequences".
I am not an "intellectual" coming from our university system so what does "to de-essentialize, race and violence." mean? Does it mean to separate race and violence?
"Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem." When people cannot accept their own responsibility for their own life, I guess this is what happens. The only scenario that would apply to the above is when one is defending one-self or a loved one from a perpetrator. There is NO justification to instigate violence.
"Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
If Rajiv actually said that, I disagree. I, as a private citizen, have only one way to try to right wrongs - and that is at the ballot box. And what does that get us. What I say is that the problems of high-crime black communities are the problems created over the past 60 years by those in Washington DC. All of the vast amount of policy passed through the years have absolutely nothing to do with those in Washington, they are unaffected by those policies. They do not care to actually look at the devastating results caused by the hundreds/thousands of policies passed to "help" the intended recipients. The percentage of incredibly high single mother households is the results of just one policy.
I listened to the Comedy Cellar podcast. Summary - Glenn or John ask a question and of the comedians responds with “what about white people?”. What aboutism is common but man...
Great conversation as always. I have to respectfully disagree with Rajiv regarding the 1619 project. It seems to me that with India, there was an established culture that was Indian. There was an Indian people. The British came along and controlled that culture for some time, and maybe influenced it, but after India became independent, it was still India and the Indian people.
What happened, I believe, with America was the British and Dutch creating colonies in the so called new world. They disrupted and displaced Native American people, although they certainly lived alongside them for some time before that.
The war for independence was that of British people living on land as British people, but who no longer wanted to be British people and instead created America people. That point in time happened in 1776 not 1619. In 1619 it was still British and Dutch colonists living in new land but as British and Dutch people.
America was born because they no longer wanted to be part of the British rule. American people aren’t a people like Japanese etc, it’s not a homogeneous society. To paraphrase the great Victor Davis Hason: you can move to Japan but you’ll never be Japanese. You can move to France but you’ll never be French. But you can move to America and become American, because to be American is to subscribe to a set of ideas and principals that unite us. The more tribal we become, the less like citizens of a nation we become, and more like different people that just happen to share a land.
Completely different situation than that of India or many other nations, in my opinion
Regardless of what opinions you have on these issues, hearing these two intellectuals engage in critical discussion was like watching fireworks against a night sky. Just amazing to hear careful reasoning and dialogue from two people who genuinely want to understand how the world works and discover the best ways of improving it
First, thanks for the deeper discussion on topics that need it. How about a dose of common sense? Despite the risk of sounding trite, we run our legal system like a lottery and lots of criminality that could and should be stopped, is dealt a slap on the wrist. Aren't we glossing over some relevant history? Take for example the man who crushed an innocent man's skull with a cinder block.
This is from Wikipedia:
What happened to the men who attacked Reginald Denny?
Williams' lawyers successfully argued that he had not intended to kill Denny; he was found not guilty of attempted murder, assault, and aggravated mayhem, and convicted of four misdemeanors and simple mayhem, while Watson was convicted of a single misdemeanor assault charge.
Instead being caught on video, and then serving every day of what he deserved, 25 to life, Williams was paroled in four years, only to then commit murder.
How about, to set an example for criminals about how society deals with gun violence, enforcing the laws we already have on the books, rather than passing more laws that only the law abiding will ever be affected by? How about, to put a dent in the carnage of drug dealing thugs, and their territorial mayhem, we punish the guilty with the same zeal as we seek workarounds to the legal rights of responsible owners and users of guns? Would Mr. Denny's attackers have avoided him if he had been able to wave them off with a firearm? In California, the only carry permits issued go to celebrities and the politically connected. Regretfully, Mr. Denny was neither.
This was an interesting conversation, but there were a number of inaccuracies related to firearms.
A minor technical point is that the shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were not committed with “automatic heavy weapons”; the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle firing what is considered to be an intermediate caliber. The manufacture of new fully-automatic firearms for civilians was outlawed in 1986.
The core problem with “red flag laws” has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; rather, they probably violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Given the very low base rate of mass shootings, Bayes’ theorem with a highly sensitive and specific test suggests a virtually nonexistent evidentiary standard would be needed to reliably stop mass shooters. A similar argument would also work for suicide prevention.
Mandatory reporting laws, and Rajiv’s gun insurance idea, are only enforceable with a registration system, which will be opposed by gun rights supporters. You need only look to the other Anglosphere countries with firearms registration to see that promises to not confiscate firearms are never binding. Furthermore, registration does not seem to ever independently solve crimes and controlling SCOTUS precedent is that prohibited possessors do not have to register firearms – this would lead to self-incrimination. Many guns couldn’t be traced anyways since criminals will often scratch off the serial number, regardless of how they acquired the gun; there is nothing magical about tracing serial numbers on a firearm.
While it is true that smart guns exist, they are such a minuscule part of the firearms market that about the only people who care about them are gun control advocates. There are already a number of failure modes in a mechanical device, such as a firearm; so why would anyone interested in self-defense carry a gun that adds an extra layer of failure when they need to guarantee operation immediately after choosing to deploy the firearm? I don’t know where Rajiv is getting this idea that smart guns can’t be used by non-owners – it has been known for some time that current technology can be defeated by the use of a simple magnets.
Most studies on gun control measures, in the case they find a positive impact, suggest very small effect sizes – if we assume that there is enough statistical power to even detect an effect. That is if the effective measures are even enforced. For example, prosecutions for straw purchasing and lying on a 4473 (the federal background check form) are severely lacking, despite both offenses carrying substantial prison time. From a simple Law of Demand analysis, if the cost of some action is low the prevalence will be greater than if a higher cost is imposed.
It is true that the U.S. is an outlier compared to many European countries on the homicide rate, but as Glenn mentions there are significant differences in homicide by racial and ethnic groups – no matter the ultimate causes of the disparities. For example, among non-Hispanic whites the homicide rate has been hovering around 2 per 100k in recent years – this is the same homicide rate as Canada, with 4-5 times as many firearms per capita. And while this homicide rate is almost double that of the UK, it’s with 30 times as many firearms per capita. There’s certainly reason to think that higher rates of gun ownership could increase the baseline homicide rate, but the magnitude of the effect size is probably much lower than is conventionally believed.
A good discussion, the segment on gun control was too short!
Just wanted to say this was an excellent conversation, very stimulating.
"With respect to Ferguson, it was very clear, wasn't it, that that second justice department report was a bone thrown to the progressive activists given that the first report could not confirm the popular narrative that Michael Brown had been murdered by Darren Wilson."
Dr. Loury matter-of-factly tells it like it is.
For seven months all the public heard was "Hands up, don't shoot." The rhetoric came hot and heavy: execution, using our children for target practice, murderous cops, The Talk. St. Louis Rams players taking the field with their hands up in a nationally-televised football game. The University of Missouri president forced out for not strongly enough condemning Darren Wilson (who acted appropriately, a fact the DOJ would later cement). And let's not forget the riots all across the nation.
So then the report comes out exonerating Wilson and the media reacts with breathless headline coverage of... Black people in Ferguson seemed to get, statistically speaking, slightly more speeding and parking tickets. (And, as Dr. Loury pointed out, the location of a Sam's store is very likely the entire explanation for that.)
From "hands up, don't shoot" to parking tickets -- and neither the media nor the Democrats have ever apologized for the angst and violence they caused. And, despairingly, it is a media/political formula that has been repeated over and over again since Ferguson.
Again, sorry for my apology. I could not endure Rajiv's replies and comments to the end of the session. I become too incensed with this use of the slag, "you know." My reply is, "No I do not know. I can't think along wid ya. I do not share your values or your assumptions."
Rajiv, you correctly identify that one's base culture affects cognition, but you don't realize your use of slang and imprecise language muddles your reply and your comments. I appreciate that for you, as a foreign-speaking person, English is difficult and that dat "crutches" like "you know" are helpful. However, in a critical reply, such transgressions are too great a burden. In most cases, to me, your case and your claims are NOT clear to me.
The 1619 Project is an exercise in propaganda. No need to validate it yet againl here.
Your discussion on the degree to which culture is shaped by the incentives and pressures of the community at large was powerful and really helped me identify a discomfort I have with conservative ideas on subjects like black on black crime. It was always easy for me to identify what was wrong with the left’s response to the problem. They seemed to want the credit for saying the right things and showing sympathy, without having to do any of the hard work necessary to help solve the problem. And often times their sympathetic words were hard to distinguish from bigotry. Treating young black men like helpless pawns, who should not be subject to expectations or responsible for their actions doesn’t feel right. On the flip side, conservatives will often go for the best of both worlds also. They will wash their hands of the problem entirely and then claim moral superiority because, unlike the left, they are “respecting the agency” of these young black men. That always felt like a copout to me. Recognizing that someone was born behind the 8 ball is not akin to stealing their agency. What this discussion helped me realize is that identifying culture as a driver of disfunction doesn’t make you racist, but it also doesn’t relieve you of all responsibility just because you weren’t born into that particular culture. If you can admit that historical oppression has largely created the conditions for generational poverty, hopelessness and violence, even if you believe culture is the most significant current driver, then it is your duty as a citizen to be a part of the solution.
I looked up the reference to Cecilia Lewis who was pressured to leave her positions at two districts because of the first district hiring for an explicit DEI position. From the article, the people upset at her hiring come across as bigots. Whether they are or not will not be discovered because Cecilia Lewis does not seem to have actually made any public statements about what her intended plan for DEI was. Or at least I cannot find any. While I find the behavior of some of those parents to be repulsive due to the aggression they expressed based solely on the fact she was hired for DEI without actually learning the details of what it entailed, I find Lewis’ response to be disappointing.
If “CRT” had nothing to do with what she intended to implement, she could have adamantly expressed that and even condemned those ideas that people are rightfully upset with in relationship to CRT. She could have actually been a leader in the path toward an ideology superior to that of DEI. But that isn’t what she did. She seemingly wrote it off as too scary or too bigoted for her to confront.
While communicating with angry parents doesn’t sound particularly appealing, and I can sympathize with a person not wanting to do it, I feel like the *right* person for such a position as fraught with political controversy as one related to DEI would need to have the courage to both confront the parents who are clearly bigots and comfort the parents who are just afraid of the legitimate garbage that “CRT” is trying to promote. Someone who is going to be the “diversity” czar at a school cannot just write off a school as racist and leave before even making an honest attempt at breaching the prejudices they are confronted with.
My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. A simple Google search would have informed her of the minefield she was entering. Someone that disconnected from the politics of DEI has no business having the position anyway. Without her adamant rejection of the reasonable association of DEI and Kendian philosophy and clearly rejecting those tenants of Kendian philosophy people are afraid of being taught or applied in the school, the coverage of her situation is missing crucial information to make a better and more accurate judgement.
Personally if I was hired for that position I’d not left like she did. I’d have stood my ground and attempted to persuade the parents the merits of my philosophy.
But what’s the chance of *me* being hired for such a position without the bullshit credentials that “DEI” positions demand? If *I* was hired and the parents didn’t let off and Tucker Carlson wouldn’t shut up -- even after I YouTubed my philosophical perspective on “diversity”, “equity”, and “inclusion” and clearly laid out my goals and plans, okay they are probably bigots.
"Rajiv is critical of many of these policies, not because he doesn’t want to reduce gun violence but because he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough. Much gun violence takes place amongst African Americans, but Rajiv wants to separate, to de-essentialize, race and violence. He draws on some of my own work on these issues to ask how we can look at the conditions that render acts of violence in high-crime areas, in some sense, rational. Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem. Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
After reading the above from the synopsis given by Glenn (above), I went to the Youtube to watch and listen. I did want to hear what Rajiv had to say about a couple of issues stated above. And now I must confess that I cannot understand much of what was said because of his accent. I did slow down the playback speed and that helped but not enough to get a grasp of his thinking. I wish CC was available.
On to a couple of questions: What was meant by "he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough". What does he think would be acceptable "consequences".
I am not an "intellectual" coming from our university system so what does "to de-essentialize, race and violence." mean? Does it mean to separate race and violence?
"Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem." When people cannot accept their own responsibility for their own life, I guess this is what happens. The only scenario that would apply to the above is when one is defending one-self or a loved one from a perpetrator. There is NO justification to instigate violence.
"Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
If Rajiv actually said that, I disagree. I, as a private citizen, have only one way to try to right wrongs - and that is at the ballot box. And what does that get us. What I say is that the problems of high-crime black communities are the problems created over the past 60 years by those in Washington DC. All of the vast amount of policy passed through the years have absolutely nothing to do with those in Washington, they are unaffected by those policies. They do not care to actually look at the devastating results caused by the hundreds/thousands of policies passed to "help" the intended recipients. The percentage of incredibly high single mother households is the results of just one policy.
I listened to the Comedy Cellar podcast. Summary - Glenn or John ask a question and of the comedians responds with “what about white people?”. What aboutism is common but man...
Great conversation as always. I have to respectfully disagree with Rajiv regarding the 1619 project. It seems to me that with India, there was an established culture that was Indian. There was an Indian people. The British came along and controlled that culture for some time, and maybe influenced it, but after India became independent, it was still India and the Indian people.
What happened, I believe, with America was the British and Dutch creating colonies in the so called new world. They disrupted and displaced Native American people, although they certainly lived alongside them for some time before that.
The war for independence was that of British people living on land as British people, but who no longer wanted to be British people and instead created America people. That point in time happened in 1776 not 1619. In 1619 it was still British and Dutch colonists living in new land but as British and Dutch people.
America was born because they no longer wanted to be part of the British rule. American people aren’t a people like Japanese etc, it’s not a homogeneous society. To paraphrase the great Victor Davis Hason: you can move to Japan but you’ll never be Japanese. You can move to France but you’ll never be French. But you can move to America and become American, because to be American is to subscribe to a set of ideas and principals that unite us. The more tribal we become, the less like citizens of a nation we become, and more like different people that just happen to share a land.
Completely different situation than that of India or many other nations, in my opinion