From my experience here, which is in some respects similar to the US, and from reading and listening to what people post on the net on the subject, I think that truly there may be a problem at the hierarchs level, but there may be another in the laity.
Not every ethnic community feels comfortable to under a bishop not of the same ethnicity, or, if a convert, that has been with them for so long as to be considered "one of us".
In practice, in large cities, people from ethnicities Y and Z would feel "conquered" by the ethnicity of bishop X and that they are lacking something. It is very prestigious to have your own bishop and to be a friend or even acquaitance of the bishop. A bishop that is commited to the Church universal, but just more weakly to the social network of that ethnicity is as good as no bishop to many people.
I believe that only when natives become 1) the vast majority of Orthodox in a certain region, at least more than 80%; 2) If these natives instead of being just "clients" who use the "services" of the Church take up leadership positions of increasing responsibility - including episcopal positions in the mother churches - while at the same time creating infrastructures that are not depedent on the status quo infrastructure; 3) If they do this with all due respect and gratitude to the peoples who brought Orthodoxy to the New World;
then local churches will emerge in the Americas.
I'm speechless on this one. I think I understand your point, but it is expressed in language that is easily misunderstood and in terms that many here would take offense to. Correct me if I am in error, but don't you strongly object to 'multiculturalism'? Since assimilation of immigrant cultures into a 'melting pot' as has been the case historically in North America and perhaps in Brazil (?), are you suggesting that until three or four generations pass from the 'old world' immigrants that a truly new national church is not likely to emerge? How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction? (Again, if my recollections are in error, I apologize.) We are three or four generations into the post European immigration phase in the United States, yet we have hardly begun to reconcile such matters.
That's not what I am suggesting. It can take 20 generations and nothing changes. It's not related to any particular generation or even to a frame of mind of "cradles" or "converts". To put it simple, Orthodox churches in the new world depend politically on their motherlands, even if in some cases the motherlands may rely strongly on economic support from the US.
This political and cultural infrastructure, which goes beyond formal positions and includes networks of influence, is far deeper than both the economic and the ideal aspects.
The only way that political and cultural networks of power change is if the interests and/or the people in whom these networks are materialized change.
Margareth Thatcher has a famous quote: “Being a leader is like being a lady. If you have to remind people you are, you aren’t.” The same goes for any kind of autonomy. If you have to ask for it, to negotiate for it, then you don't have it. Negotiations, talks and meetings will "progress" only whe autonomy and union is an underlying irreversible reality. Then negotiations will be happening full steam on how to acknowledge that without loosing face and in the smoothest way possible.
As the Tomos of OCA is a point in case, documents, agreements and consensus do not make a person or an institution an autonomous, independent entity. Freedom is never acquired by permission, you just make it happen. You grab that sword out of the stone or you don't, nobody will just give it to you. There is no "convincing" anyone.
People are convinced enough by a de facto accomplished irreversible new status quo.You achieve that or achieve nothing.