> Perhaps that's what you're getting at, the American identity is risk-taking, ie those that would willingly leave everything behind for the chance at a better

> Perhaps that's what you're getting at, the American identity is risk-taking, ie those that would willingly leave everything behind for the chance at a better life. My point is that Hispanics or blacks in the 1960s-1980s weren’t any worse off than say, the Chinese during railroad construction or the Japanese during internment in material terms — whatever the historic record. So it’s worth examining why some disadvantaged social groups integrated while others did not — or perhaps a better phrasing is “better integrated”. Unless you’re racist, surely you must agree that the answer is cultural. > Identitarian politics, such as the civil rights movement? Women's lib? All a Soviet plot to destroy America, obviously. You’re being facetious. Those movements had roots in genuine domestic issues, however, radical segments of each movement were supported by Soviets or their sympathizers — offering things like funding and advice on effective propaganda in order to sow civil dissent. These radical arms of the movements eventuall took over, and transformed genuine civil rights movements into regressive and harmful ones. It’s similar to their actions in 2016, when they funded advertisements for radical positions on the issue of race, gender, immigration, etc. That kind of psyop to destabilize a country by funding radicals within is older than the US, and has been practiced by the CIA as well. None of that detracts from the fact that radical feminism, identitarian politics, and intersectionalism all emerged from Marxist philosophy partially sponsored by Soviets. Researching the Soviet idea of “useful idiots” is interesting.