Comment: I think Washington was talking about nations.

(See in situ)

I think Washington was talking about nations.

But given that you seem to be talking about people here, not nations, I don't understand what you mean, saying that when you form or assert "exclusivity," you remove some amount of freedom. Sounds scary to me. People can associate with whomever they please. If they don't care to include everyone, and others might feel left out - not being "free" to join in, so be it. We aren't guaranteed happiness, just the ability to pursue it. (These days the politically-correct stance on the subject - where "equal" means "same" - is already in some elementary schools, with a rule that you can't just invite your friends to your birthday party, i.e., the classmates you like, get along with, and regularly play with: if you don't invite the *whole* class, you can't invite anyone in the class.)

I don't understand why you had a problem with an employee asking to handle a particular customer who was having some difficulty with something, saying, "... She's one of my people." I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the FACT that people with a similar background in some way (geographic, religious, in terms of nationality, cultural, political, education-related, age-related, racial, or otherwise, including simply sharing interests) might have a bond that could have a bearing on their ability to relate to one another in some unique way. It doesn't mean they only get along with each other. It doesn't mean they don't like people outside their "group." Indeed, they might consider themselves part of many groups. Again, speaking not of nations, but people (your examples above) how one comes to view others, or not, is personal, an individual's own business, not yours or the government's.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir