I agree with your criticism and should have called out Malaysia's multiculturalism instead of going with the (wrong) implication expressed by where I asked that

I agree with your criticism and should have called out Malaysia's multiculturalism instead of going with the (wrong) implication expressed by where I asked that question; that in Malaysia ethnicity = nationality. FWIW, my experience of Malaysia, admittedly as very much an outsider, is that it is multiple ethnicities living together, rather than a society bound by a set of shared values so I would assume the primary lens of politics is still ethnicity. Are various ethnicities vying for dominance, or are people vying for specific ideals? When "Indian, Chinese and Bumi" look at each other do they first experience "us" or do they first experience "them?" America is dealing with these problems and it would be charitable to say that America is a values first country, although I think America is doing better than most. My experience is that Malaysia is probably doing the best in Asia. > There isn't typically "founding father" hero worship and the same ideological cohesion as in the United States That touches on the fundamental idea I am trying to convey (the one I am conveying much much much more poorly than the article I linked). Are people deifying a "founding father" or are they deifying the ideals for which they stood? Do they engage with their history (of having founding fathers and what they did) or their values (influenced by and reasoned about by their founding fathers). > I've met many minorities in China that would be confused and maybe offended if you suggested they weren't Chinese Are they experiencing being Chinese through sharing the Chinese history, or are they being Chinese through sharing Chinese values? Could black people go to China and share those values and experiencing being Chinese or does the fact that black people do not share Chinese history make them ineligible to be Chinese?