Herman suggests that Ethnic succession could be seen as the opposite phenomenon to the case of integration and assimilation, and for the sake of our metaphorical theme -that the two ingredients simply don’t mix in our melting pot. Something like water and oil.
Whereas water is considered the universal solvent, in certain conditions, combined with certain substances, it wouldn’t dissolve the other substances or at least not perfectly.
In the case of the competitive scenario where establishment of two distinct communities occurs at the same place, Harman claims that factors such as pace and the identities of the groups involved in the process -may determine whether the substances would dissolve or repel each other.
As factors that play a key role in the often inevitable competitiveness and hostility among the different groups, Harmen indicates several issues; People’s primordial inclination to establish a secure territory of their own or to expand it, “pioneers” from a certain ethnic group who decide to settle in the midst of a different group’s area (usually serves as trigger for both side to fight/ to follow their steps), differences due to culture, race, religion and ethnicity and a sense of competition (economic, for political positions and for jobs).
I find the indicated factors rather convincing and logical reasonings for the tension and conflict.
Additionally, I believe one of the indicated factors is especially compelling: The concept that emphasizes the differences between the two groups. It directly relates to the notion of people’s natural will to stay surrounded by familiarity, especially in a place that is not their home, or that is genrally foreign to them.
As human beings, (and you may get a more comprehensive explanation if you ask the Psychology Professor Jason Young about it) , we seek familiarity as it seems more predictable to us. In order to achieve a sense of security and comfortableness we are often attracted, sometimes unconsciously, to what we feel like we know best and can trust won’t harm us. This by itself serves, in my opinion, as a good enough explanation for why would the two distinct groups first feel threatened or vulnerable when encountering each other.
On the other hand, past events, occurrences and specifically conflicts between the two groups could also be, sometimes, the explanation/factor that leads to more tension and conflict between different ethic groups (even if the previous conflicts are not directly related to the groups). Unfortunately, prejudice and generalization led (and still fuels certain haters in our world) in many different cases to hostility and wars.
With relations to Anbinder’s historical review of the riots in the area of Five Points, I could easily identify the racist and the violent aspect that Herman raised when referring to cultural, racial and ethnic differences. These distinctions seem to be in many of the incidents the fuel and the cause. I was also able to recognize in Anbinder’s piece the connection between the historical factor (how previous events/encounters affected the adversary groups) and unfamiliarity. It was very upsetting to read how powerful, destructive and dangerous this combination can be.
Liron
