British Racism and the royal family
This is a CBS report on the break up of the royal family. Not news-worthy on it's own, I realize, but what I noted was the marked difference between American racism and British racism, and perhaps a window into how racism takes different shapes according to culture and history. Per this speaker, British racism is related to a longing to return to Britain's illustrious past. The US doesn't have an illustrious past, and instead has a history of struggling to survive. American white supremacism is directly related to fears about the survival of "white culture" and America itself amidst the stresses of becoming multi-racial.
What I think both kinds of racism have in common is this: people engage in it to make themselves feel better about who they are. True?
What I think both kinds of racism have in common is this: people engage in it to make themselves feel better about who they are. True?
Comments (87)
I think the race card is just desperately raised here to get some importance to a non-issue.
Quoting frank
The US hasn't a past. The past it has is illustrious.
The US started it's Monroe Doctrine in 1823, only 47 years after the Declaration of Independence. Hence we can say that only for a few decades was the US just minding it's own business (or just quarreling with it's former masters).
Racism is the issue being discussed in the OP. Are you saying the woman CBS interviewed is a liar? Or just mistaken?
My God is this all too complicated for people to see?
It's toxic femininity. Not racism.
I don't watch videos. Text is faster. Can you summarize it please? It says it's about racism. I don't think there's a racial angle to this. The Royal family welcomed the hell out of her. People are trying to make this bitch into a victim.
All I know about it is the CBS interview.
We'll let this thread meet the bit bucket.
I did not knowingly hijack. A lot of people are saying two things right now:
1) That Meghan was treated badly by the Royals due to her race. On the contrary, she was welcomed with open arms, given a boatload of money to renovate her free new house, welcomed at all family events, etc.
2) That people who criticize Meghen are racist. That is also not true. She's following a classic toxic female script.
If you post a video without actually making your point in the accompanying text, you can't be surprised that not every response will meet your expectations. I asked you if you'd summarize the video for me and I reiterate the request.
Quoting fishfry
What is that and why is this perspective not sexist?
Labeling my remark sexist is not an argument against my point. I do apologize if you feel that I hijacked your thread. This isn't the time for me to explain toxic femininity to you; nor the concept of psychological scripts and unconscious motivations, and the male and female archetypes. I'd suggest you start with some Freud, some Eric Berne, some Jung perhaps.
I'll step off right here, thanks.
What if racist behaviour is a consequence of human genetics? There is overwhelming evidence in favour of kin selection, a form of selection where individuals act to the benefit of their relatives not of themselves (a very interesting topic); racism might be the consequence of a similar phenomenon but at a population level. Racism could be considered as a strategy carried by a genetically-related population to preserve its genetic material. It could be seen as an instinct of a genetically-related population.
A challenge to that would be Native Americans who were reported to lack racism altogether, and in fact it was reported that a tribe might choose to wage war specifically to obtain new men. By the 19th Century, all the eastern tribes-people were mixtures of white and native blood because of their lack of discrimination in adopting men (and women).
So if rejection of difference is genetic, it would have to be a feature of more populated areas where there's competition for gene expression instead of need for diversity because of the threat of in-breeding.
I know @fishfryalready left but I would like to second this question. A quick Google of the phrase doesn't turn up anything that seems unambiguously reliable a source for it.
I also know next to nothing about the particulars of the royals so I'm not sure what it is Meghan is supposed to have done that fits that label.
(Sorry for continuing this tangent in a thread that's supposed to be about racism, not sexism, though now a part of me wonders if sexism isn't a confounding factor here too).
Or a feature not shared by all gene pools, taking into account that populations next to each other tend to share more genetic markers between them than with populations located farther away (I think). Think of a population as an animal with a number of traits; if certain traits promote its survival, those traits may be favoured by some kind of population selection phenomena. Maybe in the evolution of the native American tribes there was not a selective factor for racism but there was one for other populations. A selective factor could be population size or in-breeding (against?), as you said. Others could be terrain, reproductive availability (if you know what i mean), resource availability, or a mix of all these, making it a very very complex trait, as any other behaviour, right?
I was thinking of starting a thread on this myself. I think the video spells out the issue well. I would only reiterate the mention of the way the media operates in the UK. It has become normalised for the entire media to examine the lives of certain, chosen, Royals in minute detail and to turn any slightly interesting, or controversial developments, or circumstances into a media storm. This level of scrutiny is unprecedented anywhere else or against any other group of celebrities.
The press pack is lead by a group of competing newspapers known as the gutter press. The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Daily Express, The Sun, The Daily Mirror. These rags blow up any tittle tattle, selacious gossip, juicy stories into media storms daily and once they latch on to a Royal story they just don't stop. Yesterday, as I walked past the newstand in my local Supermarket, every front page( including the serious papers) had large photos of the Queen, or Meghan, or Harry, pulling faces, or looking angry. This has been going on continuously since the story broke and won't stop for months.
This is followed by the mainstream TV repeating sanitised versions of the story's ad hominem, until everyone is sick of it.
More broadly and what is the base perspective of these rags is a toxic cocktail of sexism, misogyny and racism, which pervades a rump of the population who read these newspapers. Perhaps half a million to 2 million people. This then pervades a larger group, who will imbibe the vitriol almost subliminally, while not questioning it, or giving it much thought. This same rump were very vocally in favour of Brexit by the way.
A new word has been coined to describe the prejudice against Meghan, misogenior. A combination of misogyny and racism against black, or people of a West Indian heritage.
The majority of the population in the UK are broadly supportive of the Harry and Meghan, and are either appalled by what has happened, or simply don't see it as an important story at all.
Come on, Frank. Anyone with 3,980 posts (--you, at the time of this post) should know that your topic was doomed from the get go. The least you could have done was say something devastatingly clever, sarcastic, and insulting about the royal parasites.
Megan kissed the right frog and is now ungrateful. Send her back.
And who is this person pontificating on the video? Why should we spare her the time of day?
Quoting frank
As national states go, the US has a sufficiently illustrious past. We successfully seized our country from other people, which is the usual way nations get big and powerful. Powerful nations have never been established through a sensitive respect for native cultures or peaceful coexistence. Never mind this e pluribus unum crap. Our predatory symbol should have in its talons the legend, "Accipere facilis est et accipe illud!" -- Take it easy, and take it all!
We ought to enjoy the remaining years of our supremacy before someone else decides it's their turn for a go at world domination.
Then the question ought to discussed seriously than from the viewpoint of "Megxit".
Quoting frank
Did you ever watch yourself the media frenzy when the Meghan - Harry relationship was revealed and when their wedding was announced? Ever noticed it?
Sorry, but I don't read some obscure alt-right news and the media coverage what I remember, the so-called "MSM", was full of rejoice and overt happiness that the Royal family was so progressive and was open to Meghan to join. Ever heard the line that Meghan and Harry were the new face of the crown? No????
Megxit-drama is one of the worthless issues that the British tabloid press comes up with. We (and the Royal family) would be better off without it, but the press has to make money somehow. Linking it up racism to it is a cynical way to try to capture the public discussion for some to push their own agendas.
Yes, the MSM mood was, from the start, predominantly celebratory re the relationship. In a stupid patronising way, but, whatever, they were making money. Which seems to be the primary motivation for this piece too. The second that M and H announced the step back, there was an editor somewhere saying to himself "Can we get a race angle on this?" and another "Can we do a Meghan-the-man-eater thing here?" and another "How about the spoiled-ungrateful-brat take?" Whatever sells. There are enough factoids out there to piece together a narrative convincing enough for some media target market to swallow it. Which is not to say there's not an element of truth in any of the stories, just that they're consumer products parasitising a hapless couple who are themselves parasitising the British taxpayer and sensibly (in my view) want a break from the whole sick shitshow.
Yep.
Meghan seems like a decent person to me...Harry seems like an up-right guy. He, understandably, is remembering how the British press hounded his mother...and is deploring the bullshit coming his and Meghan's way right now.
Yeah...they both knew it would happen...but that does not make it any more tolerable...not for him or for her.
Good for them for standing up to the crap.
1. SSU is innundated by information about the royal family and can't get away from it. He's possibly in some Finnish basement somewhere being forced to read a tabloid with his eyes pried open like that guy in A Clockwork Orange. He may even be that guy.
2. Bittercrank wants to know why anybody would take the black lady on the video seriously. Well, Vlad was interviewing her and I might be slightly in love with Vlad. Why else?
3. Baden is saying the black lady's testimony is unreliable. It didn't sound unreliable, but ok.
4. Punshh says some British people throw a lot of energy into being really nasty, which I already knew.
5. Iolo talked about how people justify their cultural shadow and then he gave valuable information about events on the ground. Pakis don't assimilate. A lot of American Latinos don't assimilate, but they mostly look white and they're Christian. Their wives don't follow behind. By and large, Latinos are short and cute and whites and blacks just want to squeeze them and give them a big kiss, and talk really loudly to them like that will make the English translate better. Not really.
The takeaway is that if you only watch one CBS segment on racism in the UK, you might walk away with a wrong impression of what's going on?
Not in all respects. There was some solid stuff in there. The Daily Mail is for example a horribly nasty right-wing rag, Boris Johnson is racist, black people aren't well-integrated into the British establishment, and the stuff about class she briefly touched on is also cogent. But she's creating a narrative about the reasons for M and H's recent decision based on speculation along a certain angle for consumption by a certain market. And the hosts take this, exaggerate it, and run with it in a somewhat sensationalised way, which she's happy to accommodate. Similarly @fishfry has his own speculative narrative built up from his interpretation of the facts (and for some reason is even more inordinately sure of himself). So, genuine concern over a genuine issue or poking the market for profit? Mixed bag at best.
As for British v American racism, the history differs, but I don't see any clear division there. The majority of the myriad forms of expression of this ugliness span both sides of the Atlantic imo. Though if someone has a bit more meat to put on the opposing argument, I'll bite.
For fuck's sake. :brow:
[How you like my drive-by quasi-Jonathan Pie rant?]
There's principle-based racism, which is institutional, and then unique flares of racism that are responses to stress. If the US and the UK share principles that give rise to institutional racism, there won't be a difference there. Stress-response racism (or more broadly, intolerance of any kind) would be expected to vary in character even in the same culture from episode to episode.
What interested me about the woman's testimony in the interview was the comment that when more established news outlets allow racist expressions, it gives permission to the wider population to indulge in it. I don't really care why M+H are doing whatever they're doing. It was that idea of permission being given that caught my attention.
What I hear you saying is that a distorted version of events was presented by this CBS segment. The issue of racism wasn't there originally. It was fabricated and retrojected for the purpose of sensational news. The reason I'm pretty open to accepting that is that I witness on this forum distorted narratives about life in America, and there doesn't appear to be any way to correct it. Any attempt to give a counter view is brushed off as denial or delusion. IOW, news outlets don't help us understand one another, and our natural tendencies don't help either, which is interesting.
Tell me...do you think Danny Baker was telling the truth when he said he did not realize his picture of a couple with a chimp in a tweet about Meghan and Harry leaving the hospital with their child...would be offensive?
"Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up," Baker wrote. "Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.
I would do that, although, I wouldn't have married him in the first place.
Regarding the permission point, yes, I am concerned about this. Because the BBC, which is a nationalised institution is regarded widely as only purveying the true reality, which can be trusted above all else. Indeed whatever and however any story is covered on radio 4 is gospel. Most of the population will take this as granting permission. Although to the BBC's credit, they did not indulge in the overt racism and were quite balanced on institutionalised racism and sexism. The issue I have with their coverage is their elevation of details of the family life of H and M to the level of important national news, on a par with politics. Indeed it easily pushes Johnson etc of the headline slot.
Going back to the salacious vilification purveyed by the papers, it acts as a dog whistle for the bigoted racist rump I mentioned before. Which over time seeps into general discourse.
I can't say for sure what was and wasn't there, but my speculative narrative, if I could be bothered with one, would be as valid as the one in the segment or fishfry's. So, I'd put it that there's a mix of something important (racism) and something trivial (M and H splitting off) and the way the media deals with this type of thing trivializes the important and elevates the trivial.
We need to get you your own YouTube channel, mate. :naughty: :party:
I guess it's possible. No?
Quoting frank
It definitely is possible, Frank.
It also is possible that I will hit our states lottery tomorrow night...and win $6 to $8 million.
So it was racist? Ok.
The racism angle is a gimmick, but yes, there was racism, and it's an important issue, but it's trivialized by association with the British royal family, and therefore we can't be seen caring about it.
That was a bit too easy. According to my research, there's a good chance it wasn't deliberately racist. You'd have to believe in intentional career suicide over it being a stupid mistake. But it's a Roseanne-type issue, we'll probably never know.
I'd have gladly stuck around for intelligent dialog; but once I was told to "step off" it was either tell that individual to FUCK off, or depart the conversation. It's not that I don't know how to be a rude asshole; I just prefer not to interact with people who choose that mode of communication. And if they flip out every time someone goes slightly off-topic in an online discussion thread, they must flip out alot. But in this case I don't think that was the problem. I think I triggered that individual's delicate political sensibilities and they didn't have the wit to engage on the topic of the psychodynamics of male-female relationships. As I say you could study Jungian archetypes or Berne's "Games People Play" or the collected works of Sigmund Freud to find this Royal couple described as the ancient archetypes and scripts they are acting out.
I actually noted that by calling my remarks "sexist" and reaching for the smelling salts, that poster demonstrated how people these days are brainwashed by political ideology to the point that they have no interest at all in human nature. But I gave some classic authors on the subject, you could go read their books and look them up and thereby gain much insight into your own behavior. People don't look inward anymore, they like to make everything political.
Quoting Baden
I stated my opinion and I stand by it. But I have no concern, I'm not actually a follower of the Royals. I only pay attention when the latest scandal is so ubiquitous in the news that I can't avoid it. I'm interested in the psychodynamics of the relationship, but I don't care one way or another about them as people.
You know why Americans love the Royals? We get to enjoy the pomp, the circumstance, and the salacious scandals, and we don't have to pay for it. That honor belongs to the British people.
But if you are asking if I sometimes like to poke the politically correct, well of course, it's great sport.
Not sure of what your "research" entailed, Baden, but of course it may have been just a silly mistake. I do not know Danny Baker...and he may be a total ass. But I think anyone looking at the picture should have realized there was a racial implication in it. To put it in one's Twitter feed...is, if not racial, incredibly stupid.
I think the public reaction "it was racial" is a lot more understandable than "it was an innocent mistake." In any case, it would not surprise me to find that Harry, not Meghan, was the one who took the bull by the horns, so to speak. I think it quite possible he relived the death of his mother at the hands of out-of-control press...and decided to see if he could get his family away from the nonsense.
We may never know. But in my opinion, Baker got what he deserved whether because he was being evil or because he was being stupid.
Tbh I think that this is a general narrative among all white supremacists. Europe sure has an illustrious past, yet white supremacists there echo the same narrative with a sprinkle of "white genocide".
Manslaughter, not murder, then? I'm sure the corpse would be relieved. Accidental, thoughtless, deniable racism is the rule; only complete fuckwits deliberately talk about piccaninnies and letterboxes or institute hostile environments these days.
On the racist narrative, there is an undertow of endemic racism in the vilification, but a large slice of sexism, because Meghan is a successful celebrity and another slice of wanting to speak out for good causes. It's a heady cocktail of misogenoir and the press can't help themselves in their wallowing in the gutter.
Either he was stupid enough to not realise she was mixed race and was just poking fun at royals in general or he was stupid enough to deliberately commit career suicide. Both seem incredible to me, but it's one or the other.
No, if his excuse is true, there's no crime at all. That's a possibility. Don't paint me as defending racist fucks like Johnson because I raised it.
And yeah your arse and mine and 180's can discuss this further on a gold plated toilet seat when hell freezes.
Time to forget about Baker I think and get back to the story about the press treatment of Meghan and Harry.
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/ideology-racism-misusing-science-justify-racial-discrimination
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(02)01344-1.pdf
Read it and let me know if such theory could not be used to explain some of the phenomena observed in racist behaviour. Also, I am not an expert in evolutionary forces, and thus everything I say is just (educated) conjectures.
BTW when you mentioned me, that paragraph was not my writing.
Quoting 180 Proof
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/meghan-and-prince-harry-oprah-winfrey-interview-special-12-things-we-learned
Somewhat. Racism is based on the idea that I am what I'm told I am. I'm told "my name is x" "I am x" "I come from x family" "I am x race" "I come from x country" "I am x species" "I am x gender"
Rather, none of these are actually what anyone is. These are just things we've obtained from the external world. Similar to how the empiricists claimed everyone is a blank slate, and the only thing that makes someone what they are is the impressions upon them from external stimuli. However, I don't claim that.
Rather than identifying with what is fictional, one ought to identify with what is genuine. The true Self undergirding the impressions of sense data and the logical functions (or lack thereof) or the various pieces of food that you've accumulated in your mass of meat that's called the body.
The real question is, who are you? Who are you, really? Actually? Peel away all of those phony layers, what is at the core? There's only two answers to this:
This is the perennial debate in Indian philosophy. The Buddh-ist tradition has said there is nothing undergirding one's identity or being. It's just emptiness, sunyata. However, the Vedic (or Hindu) tradition has said that there is a thing undergirding it, what we called the Atman, the Self. The Buddh-ist tradition says the opposite, Anatman, there is no Self.
This is the very heart of the issue. Instead of identifying with the phony things that we've accumulated from our experience in the world, we should ask that fundamental question.
Max Stirner, as well, disliked this "essentialism" of identifying one's self with the external things that define you, religion, family, ethnicity, culture, history, race, etc. etc. etc. Rather than defining for yourself what you are. He's a sort of proto-existentialist. I agree with him on this, though disagree with his anti-essentialism/nominalism.
It is quite Pie-esque
Get real, like being āworriedā about skin colour is just an innocent pondering. Please.
You got the non-story right though. Who cares.
It's news because it shows that the effects/affects of institutional and/or systemic racism are very much still in play.
Get real. Without hearing the other side of the story you have nothing but the claims of a disgruntled family member who has openly admitted to mental health issues.
How do you know I havenāt listened to the other side?
Also, you are making your own assumption about it not being racism based on equally weak foundations.
Have you?
I am just unable to call an entire institution racist without knowing what was said and who said it. I presume innocence, sure, but only because I feel impartiality is more just than quickly believing any accusation. If Iām wrong I will say so.
Ya. There is a spectrum of takes on it, but seems like racism to me. The colour of her skin was an issue for some who didnāt think it was appropriate for royalty. Maybe Iām wrong but Iām drawing that conclusion based on more information than youāre drawing yours on at least.
I get where your coming from, the charge of racism has lost most of itās meaning. Also, i didnāt mean to claim it was the institution. The source of the comments were individuals.
Anyway, a complete waste of my time but I got sucked in.
:rofl: You made my day!
The royals are racist because royalty is racist. They are brought up to look down on everyone and simultaneously claim to be living a life of service to the whole population. This is the very source of the doctrine of white superiority that justified the slave trade and the rape of the world known as the British Empire.
The most interesting aspect to me was the confession of how the Royal family has lost its real power, and is now a pawn of the media, allowed to continue on condition that they allow intrusive reporting, nd punished with negative reporting if they resist. My take is that the media need reform, and the royals need abolition. The royals do not serve and the media do not inform.
Quoting frank
Here in the Netherlands racism has been a global debate ever since our national children's festival suddenly was branded racist. It's like saying that Santa Claus promotes obesity. Which I'm doing right now. Because tradition sometimes needs to change.
What I don't understand about British culture is the fact that they have words such as francophile. Does that mean they themselves are anglocentric? And if that's true, does that mean that the world is anglocentric since English is the lingua franca?
Not trying to create hostility here, just trying to understand something.
This is the main key how royals stay in the power. The secret pact of hide all conflicts between the royal family and press. They know it is a very important instrument of power. It can help you to clear your image or let you tumbling down.
I guess what Meghan and Harris did is strategic. Of course she lived racist issues inside Backingham Palace but how can she criticise it? It is not an easy step go and point the British royal family as racists.
If they spoke with Oprah is due to a clever move. Now it is a debate inside the UK about what the hell is going on with the royals. Which is more credible? Meghan or the royals?
If she did this during her time in UK nobody would believe it. But this interview in the US leaving from the royal family says it all. The British press would probably hide it because is a shame but they wouldn't share it with the world.
So here is more guilty the press/media stuff despite all the racist issues we will looking forward in the next months.
Because it doesn't imply that all women are like this, but that some women are like this.
:100:
Quoting TaySan
You probably know that French was the language of world diplomacy and the official language of England for three hundred years. English was the language of the plebian classes.
Royalty are generally a distraction from substantive issues and in general are extremely useful to media oligarchs in generating massive ratings, sales and clicks.
I have tried really really hard to find an ounce of sympathy in my heart for poor Megan, and you know what? There just isn't any. When it comes to Megan Markle, I have a heart of stone, No empathy either.
I do have sympathy for people who are born into the royal family of GB without granting permission first (See Schopenhauer1's antenatal fixation). They didn't ask to be born as relatives of QEII. But Markle? She went way out of her way to get there. Poor little disappointed rich girl.
So marrying into royalty makes you fair game? I don't agree.
It also comes with assumptions like Meghan hasn't married out of love and it was a rational decision. If she married out of love and underestimated it all or let her feelings guide her then when things cool down "this isn't working for me" is entirely valid. And being rich is totally irrelevant but somehow when people are rich and famous we expect all sorts of things from them. Maybe stop thinking rich people are accomplished, OK? They're just as fucked up as you and me.
I don't care because I don't have an opinion one way or the other and wish the story would piss off from the front page.
No, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me
Don't people say, "I had to struggle, so I have no pity for you." ?
Probably have to develop some pity eventually, huh?
You said about Meghan Markle that she was complaining about stuff that happens every day for people of color in America. I'm not saying that's wrong, or that she shouldn't have grown a thicker skin by now, I was just thinking that having no pity (which I do a lot unfortunately) could stand in the way of change.
We take our own experiences for granted. Do you know what I mean?
Typically, success is seen/projected as a team effort and failure as an individual slip-up. In this case, accusing the entire royal family is rather unusual don't you think?
It's odd that even though the accusation is particularised as a single conversation with one individual, and other relationships with the family are specifically mentioned as being close, still the accusation is taken to be of "the entire royal family".
Thing about institutional racism is that it is not personal. The policy is that the reputation of the Royal family is more important than the needs or comfort of the individual. This means in this case, that family is more important than race. That makes it institutionally racist, whatever the beliefs and other practices of any or all members are. Megan becomes "selfish" for finding that her race impinges on her life even in a life of privilege.
As Harry explained, the members of the Royal family are ALL trapped by the trappings of privilege. The cage is well gilded, and it takes another conflicting loyalty to even expose this, and thus open the possibility of escape.
She had to know what she was getting into and if she really didn't it was willful ignorance on her part. Kiss a prince and his family turns into bigoted frogs. Really? I'm not gullible enough to believe that during their courtship the prince didn't tell the actress about his traumatic experiences of losing a mother who was once the victim of his family's cold cruelties. And she married into belated Royalty squatting atop the ruins of a reeking empire so expansive that it'd finally collapses only 75 years ago under the weight of imperial overreach of its boot on the necks of most black brown & yellow peoples around the globe for centuries ā white supremacy Ć¼ber alles! An American citizen who will capitulate her Independence from the imperial yoke by accepting a royal title of "princess" or "duchess" or whatever and wear the damn tiara (along with all the imperial pomp & trappings of colonial masters) ā WTF? Had this actress ever read "The White Man's Burden" or even understood her own country's own white supremacist "Manifest Destiny" which was extended by Kipling's imperialist verse?! For fuck's sake ... :shade:
No damn pity.
First, the royals make a great show of welcoming Megan Markle into the family and in just a couple of years wants to expel her from the same. Why on earth would they do this, given the fallout would be worse? Something doesn't add up.
Another point to note: why is Harry's conduct in all this not being given due consideration? He's royal family too and seems willing to stand by Megan Markle come hell or high water. Commendable, no?
Just saying...
Well, where I come from, weĀ“ve had frog eaters and black haired guys ruling us blondies for centuries...
You bring up Lady Di and all that, I think youĀ“re on the right track there, Royalty, as well as noblesse and clans from Rockefellers, Hells Angels, or clans wherever never was about "supremacy", really. Not anything in the line of Meritocracy. Rather, a way for rather mediocre guys enjoying the fruit of the labor of others. And some kind of artificial imagery to cater for that. Meghan having a baby too dark might fck that up. She should, as you say, have been aware of that.
Give us some true Meritocracy and we'll see who is the surpreme...
It doesn't look much like a barrel of laughs for anyone. I suspect that people did what they did on all sides for reasons other than to arrive where things stand. Of course no one wanted to expel her and get all this grief; but it is the nature of the institution - its whole identity and raison D'etre - to separate itself from the riff-raff. The individuals do what the institution is set up to do, not what they want to do. That's why I call it a gilded cage. Harry married who he wanted, whereas his father, Charles, did his duty, and had what he wanted on the side. A pair of disasters.
One means of proactively preventing this social/societal problem may be by allowing young children to become accustomed to other races in a harmoniously positive manner. The early years are typically the best time to instill and even solidify positive social-interaction life skills/traits, like interracial harmonization, into a very young brain. Human infancy is the prime (if not the only) time to instill and even solidify positive social-interaction characteristics into a very young mind.
Irrational racist sentiment can be handed down generation to generation. If itās deliberate, itās something I strongly feel amounts to a form of child abuse: to rear oneās impressionably very young children in an environment of overt bigotry ā especially against other races and/or sub-racial groups (i.e. ethnicities). Not only does it fail to prepare children for the practical reality of an increasingly racially/ethnically diverse and populous society and workplace, it also makes it so much less likely those children will be emotionally content or (preferably) harmonious with their multicultural/-racial surroundings.
Children reared into their adolescence and, eventually, young adulthood this way can often be angry yet not fully realize at precisely what. Then they may feel left with little choice but to move to another part of the land, where their race or ethnicity predominates, preferably overwhelmingly so. If not for themselves, parents then should do their young children a big favor and NOT pass down onto their very impressionable offspring racially/ethnically bigoted feelings and perceptions, nor implicit stereotypes and āhumorā, for that matter. Ironically, such rearing can make life much harder for oneās own children.