The elephant in the room

I just finished reading a book called How Race Is Lived In America, a complication of an article series in the NYT. It was very interesting and well-written, and of course prompted thinking on my part. However, I realized something tangential as well: for me, the elephant in the room isn't race as much as it's nationality, cultural imperialism, and other related attempts of perceived outsiders to change culture. That also creates slurs, prejudice, distrust, and even outright hatred. It complicates friendships, business, all human relations. Those in positions of power don't see it and think everything's peachy and simple. Those are often the people who historically have used force to have things their way, who have oppressed and manipulated other countries, or those who are part of the hegemony.

I would feel more comfortable talking about race candidly than about cultural imperialism candidly, maybe because the basic facts of my race are clear, whereas the basic facts about what culture I am part of is not as clear. Therefore, I expect to be dismissed as inauthentic or 'tainted' or something, and therefore not worth listening to. Somehow, in those discussions, I get defensive about opposing ideas equally, and they get emotional and I get emotional and everyone demands that since I don't like what the other 'side' is saying, I ought to stop being wishy-washy and clearly agree with everything they're saying, the whole thing breaks down. Or arguments surface along the lines of the recent ideas on what is 'un-American.'

At least if I'm a racist bigot, I will only be accused of being an ass, not of both being an ass, stupid, disloyal, hysterical, unrealistic, and inauthentic at the same time. In reality, I most probably understand and have self-reflected on national power relations better than race power relations. That doesn't mean I feel more comfortable talking about it really honestly. I'd rather be accused of being mean than having my very method of identity construction - betweening - derided. I can stop being mean, but I can't stop others from mishandling my social identity. In terms of worst-case scenarios, I'd rather look deep into myself and see a mean, evil racist hidden under blankets of bullshit and denial than have my identity erased and denied and dissolved by others and being told that no one will claim me. Both would be very unpleasant, but only one would destroy me.

I noticed that I could identify on a personal level the most not with the white people in the story, but with the article on a biracial man. And that identification has nothing to do with race, it has to do with labels and identities and betweening. His just happen to be racial, mine are national and cultural. And like him, I find myself in a position where histories of other people collide head-on, and I am being asked to make an artificial choice on which 'side' I want to be on. Maybe there is a more general pattern here, of which racial tensions and power politics as well as identity politics are only examples instead of unrelated issues.