Diversity's Negative Correlaries

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that… but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans”
Kevin Phillips

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say ‘n*****’–that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.

But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me�??because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”
Lee Atwater

If the shoe fits, kick yourself. Most Republicans would sooner cut off their own hand, than vote for a black candidate.[/quote]

You’ve obviously never met a logical fallacy you couldn’t embrace wholeheartedly… Which actually explains quite a lot about your belief system.

22

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

If the shoe fits, kick yourself. Most Republicans would sooner cut off their own hand, than vote for a black candidate.[/quote]

By the way, Brad, what do you think of Clarence Thomas’ jurisprudence?

23

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Brad61 wrote:

If the shoe fits, kick yourself. Most Republicans would sooner cut off their own hand, than vote for a black candidate.

By the way, Brad, what do you think of Clarence Thomas’ jurisprudence?[/quote]

Thomas is wrong on many issues, but as far as Affirmative Action goes…he is dead on.

24

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Your statement about Republicans was just ignorant.

If the shoe fits, kick yourself with it. The GOP is the party of white guys who hate immigrants, brown people, uppity women and queers.

Everybody knows it. Even you.

[/quote]

Wow, while I’m not a Republican, I usually vote that way. After reading your post its clear that I’m WAY behind on my hating. I’ll have to get right on that, but considering that I’m half “brown”, my parents are immigrants, and my wife might qualify as ‘uppity’ I have a lot of self hate to get to (wait, I thought the Democrats specialized in that self hate crap, see now I’m all confused)

idiot.

25

OK I’m just gonna have to be honest and non- PC here. I’ve lived in alot of different places in US and I think that if I were in a prodominently black neighborhood I would be LESS likely to trust other black people because that would probably mean that I was in the hood. As a matter of fact my ex’s car got broken into in Philadelphia. Has anyone ever heard of black on black crime???

I also agree with the earlier statement that someone made about people in less populated areas trust each other more. I lived in a small town in Idaho and liked it alot because the people were nicer and freindlier. Probably because it just seemed like everyone kinda KNEW each other in some way…

26

It is always interesting when people know they cannot win an argument, or have an ability to have an intelligent discussion on a subject, they move attacking a person, people, or group.

And the whole idea of attacking another group that has different views then you, and at the same time acting like they support diversity is quite hypocritical.

Why not support diversity of conservatives and liberals?

The reason diversity does not seem to work is because the whole idea of diversity means not integrating. A good example of this is high school cliques. You have jocks, preppies, druggies, the nerds, and the complete outsiders like me. These groups generally do not hang out together, no integration. But plenty of diversity.

The more differences you have between people, the less likely they are to initiate interaction. It is simply the the path of least resistance that too many people follow. It’s why many spend hours driving in circles to save 2 minutes of walking. And when they are avoiding interacting with large groups in their community, of course that is going to spill over into non diverse groups.

Diversity would work better if people focused more on avoiding pure diversity. When people are trying to keep Spanish speaking children from learning English, you know the idea of diversity is going too far.

27

I think it is very important to define diversity in a study such as this.

Part of the ability to build a community involves the acceptance of people in the area.

Now, for example, if many people being included in “diversity” are illegal immigrants, there won’t be all that much acceptance. Camps will be divided and hunkering down will occur.

In general, acceptance and a willingness of new community participants to integrate into the community will have a lot to do with the outcome.

Blanket statements that “diversity” causes problems are politically loaded and one has to wonder what the motives are for making them. It seems that the underlying dynamics are being overlooked in order to come up with a nice blanket statement supporting a certain point of view.

What a surprise.

28

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Your statement about Republicans was just ignorant.

If the shoe fits, kick yourself with it. The GOP is the party of white guys who hate immigrants, brown people, uppity women and queers.

Everybody knows it. Even you.

[/quote]

Hmmmmm, I never knew all that stuff about me. What an asshole I am!

Facts;

  1. We dislike ILLEGAL immigration all the while understanding LEGAL immigration made this country what it is (or was).

  2. What is a “brown” person again? Oh, it must be like my best friend Richie in my profile with me deadlifting my old Suzuki.

  3. What is an “uppity” woman?

“Rebelliously self-assertive; not inclined to be tractable or deferential.”

What YOU call “uppity” I call HOT!

Perhaps YOU are the intollerant one. Afterall, it was you that called them uppity in the first place.

  1. Queers? What’s the big deal? I have had four (and still have 3) gay clients and one lesbian client. My wife and I and our two children frequently go out to dinner with two of them (a gay couple). Actually they’ve been the most genuine, thoughful people I’ve ever befriended.

Wow! What a racist, bigotted homophope I am!

Damned Republicans!

29

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think it is very important to define diversity in a study such as this.

Part of the ability to build a community involves the acceptance of people in the area.

Now, for example, if many people being included in “diversity” are illegal immigrants, there won’t be all that much acceptance. Camps will be divided and hunkering down will occur.

In general, acceptance and a willingness of new community participants to integrate into the community will have a lot to do with the outcome.

Blanket statements that “diversity” causes problems are politically loaded and one has to wonder what the motives are for making them. It seems that the underlying dynamics are being overlooked in order to come up with a nice blanket statement supporting a certain point of view.

What a surprise.[/quote]

For “blanket statements,” are you referring to the title of the post? If so, sorry that they won’t let you get too nuanced there.

Otherwise, you have a summary article discussing various findings related to the measured variable of “diversity” – and it talks about both immigration and ethnic diversity in the lead in, before the general discussion of findings. And the summary article is of a study that I’m certain will be more highly nuanced. If anything, I’d glean from the summary article that the study is more focused on immigration diversity than on simple ethnic diversity, and thus would expect it to get into causation.

Which will be a good thing. Particularly regarding a discussion on immigration and its effects, and on whether we should focus on assimilation of immigrants (i.e. ensure they learn English and buy in to the American identity – in other words, make an effort to become part of the community into which they move).

30

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Which will be a good thing. Particularly regarding a discussion on immigration and its effects, and on whether we should focus on assimilation of immigrants (i.e. ensure they learn English and buy in to the American identity – in other words, make an effort to become part of the community into which they move). [/quote]

Dude, assimilation generally happens when children of immigrants grow up in the new country.

What you are really talking about is illegal immigration, which is a completely different ball of wax. Too many “outsiders” too “quickly” and an inevitable hostile reaction ends up with poor assimilation.

It’s pretty much a no-brainer. Secure the damned border already!

31

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Which will be a good thing. Particularly regarding a discussion on immigration and its effects, and on whether we should focus on assimilation of immigrants (i.e. ensure they learn English and buy in to the American identity – in other words, make an effort to become part of the community into which they move).

vroom wrote:

Dude, assimilation generally happens when children of immigrants grow up in the new country.

What you are really talking about is illegal immigration, which is a completely different ball of wax. Too many “outsiders” too “quickly” and an inevitable hostile reaction ends up with poor assimilation.

It’s pretty much a no-brainer. Secure the damned border already![/quote]

It’s not just illegal immigration. It’s immigration, period – as you point out, in large numbers over a short period of time. And it’s different now than it has been historically.

Historically assimilation has happened after waves of immigration ebb. You had periods of high immigration, caused by some external factor such as the Irish Potato Famine or by a combination of something like the Gold Rush and poor conditions in the home country. Then a combination of improved home-country conditions or political climate in the U.S. turned off the immigration flow and allowed the communities to assimilate into the larger population.

Additionally, these previous immigration waves were in context of a system that tried to assimilate them into an “American” cultural identity combined with a technological environment that left them largely cut off from their homeland – from news about their local sports teams, from home-country politics, etc.

Now you have the self-styled diversity promoters actively working against assimilation by simultaneously trying to deny the existence of an American identity to which a new arrival would assimilate and promoting separate cultural identities and things such as bi-lingual government services and education.

And of course, technology means a new arrival can sit in his living room with the internet and satellite TV and maintain himself in a cultural womb of home-country information and language.

This retards or prevents assimilation. It will likely still occur for the 3rd or 4th generation, but assimilation is retarded for the immigrants themselves and the first-generation of their progeny.

This isn’t an argument against other cultures by any means – but to society to benefit from diversity, there needs to be integration and assimilation around a shared identity, not just enclaves of “others” set up next to one another.

And by no means do I disagree on the border issue. But illegal immigration is just a piece of the puzzle. We need to actively support assimilation of immigrants into the society – and we need to reform our immigration criteria for legal immigration, but that’s another post.

32

The only wave happening is the massive influx of illegal immigrants… except it’s not a wave but a fast flowing river.

Seriously, the numbers are staggering and they are not exactly welcome immigrants like the previous actual waves that you would point out.

33

OMG! A bunch of white guys debating the negative effects of diversity…imagine that! Let me add my two cents.

I don’t think it is as cut and dry as diversity being the cause of trust issues. Someone already mentioned population density…I think this is likely the key factor. I would also have to question the “closeness” of the the community. I live in a moderately sized city (St. Paul) but the neighborhood I live in is small and people seem to get along very well. This is a diverse neighborhood.

When I go out to the suburbs to visit my in-laws I cannot say the same thing…but then again I am the stranger in those areas. The neighborhoods are predominately white yet the residents seem less trusting than my neighbors back in the city.

It seems to me the suburban residents will be the first people to call the cops in matters of conflict whereas the city dwellers are a little more laid back as if it’s just another day. I also like to observe the behavior of the suburban residents when they come into the city.

Some of these people are the loudest most intrusive people you can imagine and usually the most bigoted. Of course I can understand some of their behavior if they aren’t used to being approached by vagrants of an ethnic persuasion, for example, but it is still comical to me.

These are the same people who will usually tell me I should stay out of certain neighborhoods because of so-and-so.

I think trust is more an issue of how experienced someone is in certain situations and not directly correlated to diversity. But then again maybe I am too trusting.