[daenz]

Out of curiosity, has there ever been another point in time where a dominating culture has made efforts to represent non-dominant races/cultures proportionally in the upper levels of society? Were there lessons learned from that? This phenomenon seems relatively new so I'd like to learn more about how it works in practice.

[tropdrop]

I am not sure about "dominant races," but there has been something akin to this move in another aspect of society: gender. Here's an article that outlines the effects of finally having enough men in congress convinced to ratify the 19th amendment (enabling universal suffrage) [1]. In this case, the "dominating" culture is the more correct term than "dominant," since the proportion of males to females in society is usually close to 50/50 - but I think it does give us some idea about the kind of policy ramifications that might happen with more representative representation:

> Some of the legislation championed by women lawmakers, such as the enactment in the early 1990s of the Violence Against Women Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, are remembered as signature achievements more than a generation later. But other victories were shockingly prosaic, correcting gender inequities that few would now believe lasted as long as they did, from giving women access to credit to ensuring that medical research included women as subjects.

A good example of the kind of prosaic mentioned: most people do not know that the NIH was not required to include female subjects for drug trials until 1993, though it is shockingly obvious that a drug could affect female bodies (e.g. reproductive system) differently [2].

[1] - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/how-wom... [2] - https://grants.nih.gov/policy/inclusion/women-and-minorities...

[thewarrior]

I wouldn’t look at it that way. As someone who is middle class and better off than most of the planet I see a more equitable world as the only way to prevent further instability and conflict.

The nature of the dominant classes has changed over time. In the early days of civilization like in ancient Egypt you had the pharaohs who ruled because they guarded the knowledge of when and where the river Nile would flood. The farmers were mere meat robots who were forced to farm in order to pay taxes. It didn’t really matter how educated the farmers were or how free the discourse was.

Today’s dominant classes rely on an extremely complex society to keep things going. You need a highly educated work force equipped with all the latest communication tools and critical thinking skills. It’s not so easy anymore to get away with unfair social structures.

Increasing automation means that a lot of this oppression is simply unnecessary.

As far as I’m concerned we either figure out how to build a more equitable society where every kid has a fair chance at self actualization or we risk actual revolution in the long term.

I prefer to be on what I see as the right side of history same as the people who fought to abolish slavery, give women the vote and establish a welfare state.

[runawaybottle]

It doesn’t seem rational, the only way to make sense of it is if the dominating class accessorizes the pursuit of the goal (regardless of its merits) as a form of aggrandizement in their own meta social stratosphere.

Questionable motives, but hey if it moves the agenda, take whatever help you can get. It’s already an up-hill battle.

[marcosdumay]

It's a result of non zero-sum economics, so you won't see it from any time before the 18th century.

[chillacy]

There might be something in the history of Empires like Rome, where over generations minority groups are assimilated into the dominant culture. Give it a few generations and nobody remembers relations 100 years ago.

In the US people today tend to forget the surge of nativist sentiment in 1920 towards... Italians. Or before that... Germans.