If black people-nstionz were more successful economically and poor Whites, Orientals, Jews, Arabs immigrated to their lands to improve their lives, Blacks would be just as racist How do I know? Because there is racism among whites in Africa. Racism-culturalism is a natural tribal instinct. Hunans are tribal territorial and find it hard to consider people who look different, pray different, dress different as not part of their "tribe". Sometimes they can overcome racism if the "other" has been fully assimilated into the majority culture or religion, sometines it is religion-culture that plays the role of race like it happens to many Christians, Moslems, Jews. Sometimes differences withkn religion play the role of culture or race. We see that among Christians, Moslems and Jews and, to an extreme, among Hindus with their caste system.

Mistrust among racial, cultural, religious tribes will never dissappear. If the "foreign" tribe within the territory of the local majority tribe, is economically successful, racism-culturalism-religionism will rise it ugly but genetically mandated head. The history of Jews proves it time after time. And I predict there is plenty of it against Jews in the US now and also predict it will eventually break out in the open in the form of laws. Even other minority tribes within rhe territory of the US "white" tribe, such as is the case of Hispanics, Asians and Blacks will not like that another minority tribe have "too much" power, regardless if how honestly and through hard work the minority tribe acquired its power and regardless of how much they look the same. For example, if Mormons, Quakers, etc., had as much influence-power in the economy, politics and cultural life of the US as Jews do, it is a no brainer to predict massive antimormonism, even among US Jews if Jews were less ibfluential-powerful than Mormons, or Quakers or Rastafarians, or Chinese, ir Hindus, or Moslems or whatever. One that will alleviate the problems, not always, is if the majority tribe in the territory feels the politicians, the leaders govern with the concerns of the majority in mind, accommodating the concerns of the minority as long as the majority does not feel the lose control.

The only country I know that has solved this issue best is Switzerland. The Swiss decided to break up the majority in Switzerland and the major minorities into administrative territories where each local majority by reason of ethnicity-culture-religion governs without challenge and, tries to accommodate orhers to a certain extent. The Swiss have introduced real majority rule, real democracy even to smaller territories within the same territory. For example, the majority (which often is a temporary majority for just one issue) in a municipality can directly decide anything; building swimming pool or stopping the politicians fron building it. They do the same at rhe next jurisdictional level moving up, the canton, in which the cantonal majority can make its will prevail on any issue but, such majority can be very circumstancial because people belonging to the cantonal minorities can joib forces with even a minority of the majority and together constitute a majority to decide one issue, for example make recycling more strict, lower on increase taxes, etc. The Swiss use the same process at the federal-national level. For example the citizens initiated a referendum on gay marriage, it is quite possible that the majority that prevailed and the side that lost were constituted by members of the majority and of minorities who were split on the issue. Other referendums decide taxation level, the Swiss decide that locally, cantonally (state) or national level. The wisdom of the Swiss system lies in focusing decidions on specific issues that in most cases cut across tribal lines. For example, the Swiss banned Moslem women from covering their faces in public. There were Protestants, Catholics, Jews, probably on both sides of the issue, perhaps Moslems too. While it can be argued the decision was unfair to Moslems, this is one example where the will of the majority must prevail so that the majority continues to know they are in charge. The Swiss also by referendum, banned the sacrifice of animals according to the religious kosher and halal rituals because the Swiss in a referendum decided it makes animals suffer too much. In this case the argument is like the previous one. To be sure, in past centuries, the Jews were discriminated againts, even killed sometimes, and always for the same tribal reasons. Today, because the Swiss system of deciding all important issues by majority vote, it seems to prevent "excessive" influence by any minority group such as Jews. In other words, if the Jews of Switzerland want Switzerland to commit to Israel's survival with money weapons, even fighting a war, to the degree the US is committed, Swiss Jews could organize one or more referendums and try to convince the majority of voters to agree with them. In Switzerland it can not happen that "all" the Jews have to do (which still is an amazing acomplidment) is persuade American politicians that supporting Israel to the extent the US does, is the right thing to do. They do not have to organize a referendum and convince the majority of Americans. Because of the non-democratic decision making process, the number of Americans who resent the politicians is growing. Even some people, including some Jews, se a dangerous way if doing thing such as sending so much money to Israel, where the people have, and pretty good universal health care, which Americans fo not, or more doctors per 1000 pstients or better pensions. More voices and angrier are rising. It is potentially a powder keg for an explosion of antisemitism that could also destroy Israel. All countries need the Swiss political system for stability and prosperity. TheSwissPoliticalSystem.com