One might start with the Pledge of Singapore which was “written against the backdrop of racial riots” (Government of Singapore, n.d.). It commits Singaporeans to be one people “regardless of race, language or religion”. Both in a historical and, to a lesser extent, contemporary context, these three factors are correlated. Yet by singling out and privileging these categories, other aspects of difference on which a more inclusive concept of multiculturalism might be founded, like gender, sexual orientation and economic class are ignored. Ironically, by drawing attention to these very identifiers, the Pledge makes Singaporeans more acutely conscious of them.
Too bad there's neither space nor propriety to qualify the 5% of this I disagree with.
Internalization is a common refrain of social scientists. It's true perhaps 90% of the time, but they exaggerate the impact, partly because it can't be quantified (apart from subjective 'interviews' and 'life histories').