Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

People have a really basic need to bond over shared characteristics. Throughout the world, countries are glued together based on ethnicity, religion, or language. E.g. Pakistan separated from India over religion, and Bangladesh separated from Pakistan over language.

Americans' proclivity for displaying the flag is a way of expressing unity in a country that doesn't have a common ethnicity, religion, or language.

Nationalism also facilitates integration in a country that has tons of immigration. My family is from Bangladesh, where group membership is determined by ethnicity. A white American could move to Bangladesh at a young age, speak the language fluently, marry into a Bangladeshi family, but he'd never be Bangladeshi. Here, you step off the plane, put that flag up in front of your house, and boom you're American.

View on HN

That is the one thing I really love about American culture; once you become a naturalized citizen, you are on Team America. Does not matter where you are from or what you look like, once you take that oath to the Constitution, you're in.

Unless you're brown. Or gay. Or Muslim. Or don't speak English.

As a brown person who immigrated to America, I disagree. I have found Americans incredibly accommodating, even in rural Virginia and Georgia.

Americans ask precious little of immigrants: learning the language, waving the flag, etc. In contrast, in almost every country where there is a majority of "brown people," there is nothing a foreigner can do to integrate. Had the situation been reversed, and I was an American immigrant to Bangladesh, people would always stare at me and call me "bideshi."

> Unless you're brown.

Yup, that's why we've never had a brown president.

Umm... how is then India not separated? Too many languages (I know only 3 Indian languages, useless in 80% of the country), too many religions and sects (including 170M Muslims + Parsis, Buddhists, etc.), too many cultures (a north Indian might have culturally more in common with Pakistanis than with Indians from other parts).

Also I would request to pause the "you step off the plane, put that flag up in front of your house, and boom you're American" for some time. The meaning of "American" is currently under active and violent change.

Put up a flag, and boom, you're an American? Will that persuade 2017 Americans as they discuss who's an American? Membership into the American group is not obvious, and most certainly not defined by mere citizenship, least of a decorative flag.

In the U.S. right now, we are exploring the limits to the American accommodation of immigrants, but it's important to keep in mind that those accommodations as they exist currently are more generous than pretty much anywhere else in the developed world. The trend in the rest of the world (New Zealand, India) right now is to get rid of birthright citizenship. But here, only the right-wing nuts are even talking about that. In Germany, the U.K., France, etc., learning the local language is a pre-requisite for citizenship. Here, saying English should be a pre-requisite for citizenship will get you labeled a racist.

That said (nitpick) English IS a prerequesite for gaining naturalized citizenship, in most cases. IIRC it's required except for old age, disability, probably some other such exceptions, but most people who get naturalized _are_ required to show they know a certain amount of English

> E.g. Pakistan separated from India over religion, and Bangladesh separated from Pakistan over language.

Minor nit, it was more "culture" or "ethnicity" than language, although language was perhaps the most defining feature. It seems that the Punjabi Pakistani's looked down upon their (then) countrymen of Bengali heritage.

Come on! Isn't the defining separating feature that huge chunk of land called India? :p

I can't tell if you're insinuating that India split the country...yes, once the War started, India did help Bangladesh gain independence. Prior to that however, it was the West Pakistani's who were responsible for incredible atrocities against the Bengali people living in (now) Bangladesh[0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegra...

Well, it was an admittedly lame joke about how the biggest division between Pakistan and Bangladesh is literally India.

Had India not been separating the two, it would have been much easier for West Pakistan to use repression or other means to hold down Bangladesh as long as they'd like.

There's no seems about it. If you speak Urdu the following link will be instructive

https://youtu.be/J-7j6O_whYA?t=1m8s

I transcribe the key part here (1:08-1:48):

Nisar: We had a great bureaucrat, a senior intellectual, Qudratullah Shahab who has a book called Shahabnama (an autobiography). (he relates from the book) In the 1950s, the Americans had given, as was their custom, sanitary goods as charitable donations in bulk. In a few cabinet meetings, Bengali ministers said "Let us have a share from this." The potbellied, large mustachioed (this is a Punjabi stereotype) West Pakistani ministers made fun of them and said "What do you lot need a commode for, you can go behind a banana plant" This was the manner of dealing with them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com