I will start this blog with a caveat. Racial and ethnic violence exists all over the world. It always has but the past does not have to predict the future.
When I went to Japan, I was turned away one night from a club by a doorman who said, “No Gaijin allowed.” In Hawaii, I was warned that Haoles were not welcome at certain beaches by natives. In parts of Mexico, I will be derided as a Gringo. In Europe for centuries, Jews have been persecuted and discriminated against.
My experiences differ enormously in severity from many people who face racism and ethnic violence in America, but they illustrate how people all over the world often draw boundaries between insiders and outsiders.
Prejudice and discrimination were not invented in America, and neither was racism. Nevertheless, in the Land of the Free and a country that prides itself on liberty, we should show the world what tolerance and inclusiveness mean. Instead, we talk one game while we walk another game. How many remember these words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal?
The New Colossus — By Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Who approved these words? Did the Republicans approve them? Did the Democrats approve them? Or was it some radical group of communists and atheists who approved them?
Do our actions today with ICE and our immigration activities look like we are living these words? If not, would you be in favor of removing them from the statue? Wouldn’t it be more honest?
Do we still want the huddled masses? Do we really want the wretched refuse from other countries?
What are our excuses for the present way we are treating immigrants?
This brings us to racism. There are many who want America to be a White nation. A nation of European Whites.
Approximately 388,000 enslaved Africans arrived directly in mainland North America (the future United States) during the transatlantic slave trade, with an estimated 1.8 to 2 million people dying on the ships during the Middle Passage globally.
Do you think these people wanted to come to the USA?
For those who survived the crossing, the abuse continued after they reached American shores.
It did not stop after the Civil War.
It did not stop after World War 1 or after World War 2.
It did not stop after the Civil Rights marches in the sixties or even after the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.
It has continued with restrictive voting laws.
States like North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, and Florida have enacted various combinations of laws implementing stricter voter ID requirements, reducing early voting days, limiting ballot drop boxes, and restricting assistance with mail-in ballots.
Critics and civil rights groups argue that these voting measures intentionally target minority voters.
Discrimination continues based on race in this country.
Arizona passed and signed the “stop to see your papers” law (Senate Bill 1070) on April 23, 2010. This law targeted many Latino citizens who were living legally in the USA.
The law was never rescinded but under the terms of a 2016 settlement with immigrant rights groups, officers are strictly prohibited from prolonging any traffic stop or detention solely to investigate a person’s immigration status.
In an effort to overcome the impact of nearly 250 years of legal slavery in the colonies and the United States, the US Government and many private organizations developed what were called Affirmative Action and Diversity Programs.
Many people saw these programs as a hand up to Blacks and other historically excluded groups, including Native Americans, Women, Asian Americans, Latinos and disabled people.
Other Americans saw these programs as unfair and a handout rather than a hand up.
I asked my AI assistant, whom I call Metis, to examine the research. AI can make mistakes and reflect biases, so its conclusions deserve the same scrutiny as anyone else’s. Judge this assessment by the studies behind it.
“Affirmative action and diversity programs have helped address the economic consequences of racism and exclusion. Research documents employment and educational benefits for historically excluded groups in several important settings. However, programs varied, and some diversity initiatives achieved little measurable improvement.
Research tracking more than 100,000 private firms found that affirmative action increased Black and Native American employment shares among federal contractors. These gains persisted even after firms stopped holding federal contracts. Recruitment, mentoring, and fairer advancement practices also helped women enter management and careers previously difficult to access.
In education, research on California’s affirmative action ban found that ending the policy reduced underrepresented applicants’ degree attainment and subsequent average earnings, with earnings losses driven by Hispanic applicants. In that setting, estimated benefits to underrepresented applicants exceeded the costs to white and Asian applicants at the admissions margin.
People with disabilities benefited from a related but distinct approach: workplace accessibility and accommodations. Employer surveys suggest that many accommodations cost little or nothing and can improve retention and productivity.
The broader economic argument is straightforward: excluding capable people wastes talent. America benefits when more people can develop their abilities and contribute. However, we cannot attribute all progress by women and minorities to affirmative action; education, antidiscrimination protections, and other social changes also mattered.
There were drawbacks. Preferences could disadvantage individual white or Asian applicants competing for limited opportunities. Programs could benefit relatively affluent minority applicants while overlooking economically disadvantaged people from other groups. Beneficiaries sometimes faced unfair doubts about their qualifications, and poorly designed initiatives could generate resentment.
Furthermore, diversity training did not necessarily change workplace behavior. Research suggests that mentoring, broader recruitment, and managerial involvement often accomplished more than brief training courses. Attendance at a seminar tells us little about whether hiring, pay, or promotion became fairer.
These limitations justify careful evaluation and improvement. They do not erase the economic gains or the injustice these programs sought to address.
Social justice requires attention to both historical discrimination and present economic disadvantage. Effective programs deserve support; ineffective ones deserve revision or replacement. Our goal should be institutions that recognize and develop talent wherever it exists and give people a fair opportunity to build secure lives.”
The real truth is that racism and ethnic discrimination exist not only because some people are narrow minded, bigoted, xenophobic and fear that other groups will take away what little they may have. Racism exists because some people benefit from the exploitation of other people.
Generosity towards those not in their tribe or clan is not a characteristic of the racist bigots in this country.
There are three attitudes that I believe help sustain racism:
- Xenophobia: the intense fear, dislike, or hatred of people perceived as foreigners, strangers, or outsiders. Xenophobia and racism overlap, but racism can also target people whose families have lived in the same country for generations.
- Resentment: Fear that others will either take something that they perceive as belonging to their group only or fear that others will get something that they do not get.
- Narrow Mindedness:
- Intolerance of difference: Showing strong dislike or judgment toward people who hold different values, religions, or political views.
- Absolute certainty: Believing that one’s own opinions are absolute facts and that no other perspective could possibly be valid.
- Lack of curiosity: Showing no interest in learning why other people think or act differently.
- Quick dismissal: Rejecting new facts or arguments immediately without taking the time to understand them.
Conclusions:
Let’s conclude with the original question. Is America a Land of Hate, Racism and Ethnic Violence?
For 2025, law enforcement agencies reported 10,881 hate crime incidents to the FBI. Among victims of single-bias incidents, 55.6% were targeted because of race, ethnicity, or ancestry.
Although these figures demonstrate a serious problem, they do not, by themselves, establish the character of an entire country.
I do think they suggest that we still have a serious responsibility as citizens of a Democracy to help prevent any group from being targeted by violence regardless of their race, skin color, political or religious beliefs.
America has a history of racial cruelty and a history of people who fought that cruelty.
Which history are you helping to carry forward?
When someone is demeaned because of race, religion, or birthplace, do you challenge it, excuse it, or remain silent?
Our answers matter most in what we all do next.
My thanks to Metis, my ChatGPT AI assistant, for research support, fact-checking, and thoughtful editorial suggestions. The opinions expressed and final editorial decisions are my own.
Here are some of the studies that Metis based the above research on.
- Kurtulus, F. A. (2016). The impact of affirmative action on the employment of minorities and women: A longitudinal analysis using three decades of EEO-1 filings. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), 34–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21881
- Miller, C. (2017). The persistent effect of temporary affirmative action. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(3), 152–190. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160121
- Bleemer, Z. (2022). Affirmative action, mismatch, and economic mobility after California’s Proposition 209. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(1), 115–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab027
- Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404
- Holzer, H. J., & Neumark, D. (2000). What does affirmative action do? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53(2), 240–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390005300204
- Job Accommodation Network. (n.d.). Costs and benefits of accommodations. https://askjan.org/topics/costs.cfm





















What does anxiety and uncertainty have to do with planning? This is an important connection. Uncertainty in my opinion either causes or leads to anxiety. The more uncertain we are, the more anxious we become. Many people will not attempt new endeavors, leave home, eat new food, travel to new places, meet new people, take on adventures or worst of all “listen to new ideas.” The uncertainty of these efforts creates anxiety. The unknown consequences of doing something new brings some anxiety to most of us. Change and newness can impinge on our efforts to maintain equilibrium and homeostasis in our lives. New things can disrupt the natural order that we so carefully craft to protect ourselves, our family, and our identities. “What if” can bring fear and panic to even the most courageous of us.
However, when it comes to anxiety my solution is planning. Karen would say I plan too much. I don’t need to go raging into the night of old age, but I do not want to get in my crypt yet and turn off the lights. Life has a way of closing in on us. The curtains for each of us are indeed coming down and will someday be down for all of us, but we can slow their coming down. As we age, we must push back. Planning can help us to hold the curtains off for a little while longer. But remember, “Plans are nothing, but planning is everything.”
My theory is that I have been driven to reduce anxiety because I grew up with an abusive father. My childhood was a daily diet of fear and uncertainty as to when or how badly my father would fly off the handle and take it out on me. He might have had a bad day at the races, or something went wrong with his car, and it was all my fault. So many things became my fault that I was always looking up expecting the sky to fall on me. I looked under my bed and, in my closet, every night before going to sleep as a kid. Years later I would check under my car and in my back seat before getting in my vehicle. I never let anyone get on the inside track of me when walking down a sidewalk and I always look over my back when going to a public John. I am not paranoid, and I do not think anyone is out to get me. I simply want to be certain that I have an advantage just in case someone might be out to get me. 😊 Karen has learned to cope with my rather bizarre behavior and attributes it to my intrinsic anxiety.





Many of you reading this may remember the time when kids went to school by themselves. Saturday was a day for playing outside with your friends and your parents seldom carried a concealed weapon unless it was a paddle to spank your butt. Today, kids spend most days with helicopter parents, sanctioned after school sports leagues or at home playing video games. The sports field in our town of Frederic has a baseball field, volleyball court and four basketball courts. After twelve years of living in Frederic, I can only remember seeing a few volleyball games and baseball games played each summer. Most days, even when school was out, the baseball field and the volleyball field were deserted. The adjunct basketball courts were idle year-round. I do not ever remember seeing any kids playing a game on the basketball courts. 
I do not blame the victim for this “paranoia” for fear. We have a fear-based society where a paranoia for fear is hammered into us every day. Each day the radio, internet, TV, newspapers, and social media outlets blasts us with mind numbing stories that would scare Superwoman or Batman. It is no wonder that we have a fear-based society. We have a society that is not addicted to fear as much as it is fed fear. We eat a daily toxic brew of fear. A fear stew that is comprised of stories that seem horrible beyond comprehension. I could list a dozen from the past week, but what would be the point. You know them as well as I do. Whether they happened in Bangladesh, Spain, Mexico, or the USA, you will find out all about them in your local newspaper or evening cable news.

Next, let us establish a lethality of weapons. I will put it thus: fists are not as lethal as brass knuckles. Brass knuckles are not as lethal as clubs. Clubs are not as lethal as knives. Knives are not as lethal as guns. Handguns are not as lethal as rifles. The range of lethality that I have noted is “most” often true but there are always exceptions. Thus, I will say again, the lethality of the potential weapons structure I have described is most often the case but not always.

This cycle explains quite well what happens in many cases of gun violence or other types of violent outburst. In phase two, tensions are building up. This could be from a variety of different causes. It might be strains from the work place or strains from home relationships with family and children. The strains are often cumulative particularly with people who may lack the ability or means to discharge their stress. The stress builds up until the individual finally explodes. The explosion could be in words or actions. Actions might involve throwing things, punching things, hitting things or various levels of assault against things or people using a wide range of weapons.
Phase three is the incident itself. A trigger is needed to set the individual off. Perhaps the individual gets fired or their spouse asks for a divorce. Maybe they have a fight with a neighbor, or a car cuts them off at an intersection. When the trigger occurs, the individual explodes. The explosion could involve a violent attack that might go from simple threats or curses all the way to shooting someone. The availability of weapons will play a major role in the level of violence. This is one reason why a “waiting period” for purchasing a firearm makes a lot of sense. In two recent mass shootings, there was no waiting period for the purchase of a high-powered rifle and the individuals engaged in shooting massacres within a week of buying their rifles.
Many anti-gun control people push the solution that more mental health is needed. The problem with this solution is that anger and angry outbursts are as normal in the population as mom, God, and apple pie. There is no way to treat all the people in America who might lose their temper on a given day. There is no way to tell when or where these outbursts will take place. Therapy for “normal” people is not on the radar. Make no mistake, your best friend, your neighbor, your cousin just might “lose” it tomorrow and go on some type of violent jag that results in death for someone else. It happens all the time. The papers are full of reports of people who lose it and end up killing their loved ones and themselves.
The other solution is to reduce the availability or the lethality of guns in society. This solution makes the most sense. We can somewhat reduce the availability of weapons through background checks, waiting periods, age restrictions, gun training, and reducing the ability to carry a gun in public. We must get rid of these ridiculous concealed carry laws. It should be illegal to carry a gun in public concealed or otherwise unless you have a permit with a valid reason for why you need to carry a gun.
We can reduce the lethality of guns by limiting clip capacities and by eliminating rifles that were designed for military purposes and not hunting. Why anyone would need a rifle with more than a three round capacity is beyond me. Rifles should be for hunting or target shooting and nothing else. Any game that you are hunting will be gone long before you can chamber and fire your third round. A .223 caliber was first designed for the military in Vietnam. I had to qualify on an M-16 in 1965 when they were first issued. It was like shooting a bb gun. Easy to shoot with a round that was designed to wound and not kill. They said this would take two or more people out of the war instead of just one dead body. The individual shot by a .223 would be severely wounded and would need someone to take him back to a medic or out of the war zone. Read any of the gun magazines today and it looks like they are selling guns and accessories to someone who is going to war. Helmets, bullet proof vests, high-capacity magazines, laser sights and guns more fit for killing humans than hunting are touted and readily available.
