The word "homogeneous"

[Anonymous]

Why do neolibs use this term as a dog whistle to describe Northern European or East Asian countries? Someone in another thread mentioned Finland and Japan as not having the violent crime problems of the USA because they're "homogeneous" but there are a lot of other countries that DO have violent crime problems which are ALSO homogeneous. Honestly sounds pretty racist to me and the folks who I've heard use this term both online and irl when talking about demographics almost universally describe themselves as progressive/liberal, but it's obvious what they're saying is that countries like Finland/Japan are peaceful not because everyone looks the same, but because they are all of a certain race/ethnicity. I have heard the term homogeneous thrown around so many times the past 10-20 years by so called progressives and it drives me nuts.

[Anonymous]

Can you please link to the post where someone said that Japan and Finland don’t have violent crime because they are homogeneous?

[Anonymous]

It would be inaccurate to call those countries ethnically diverse.

[Anonymous]

You have misidentified the people blowing into that whistle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have misidentified the people blowing into that whistle.

+1

[Anonymous]

Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

NP. This is why Americans smile so much, culturally. Because there's very little social trust from a common heritage, our culture uses lots of social smiles to build social trust with strangers, acquaintances, and friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have misidentified the people blowing into that whistle.

+1

+2

Why do Republicans not dwell in reality on any issue, ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

Recent? Identity politics is nothing new and has been happening since the country was founded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

Identity politics is not recent. It started with the republican southern strategy that focused on white voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

Much of the violence in Africa has been tied to countries that are not homogeneous. Instead of organically developing, these nations were created by colonizers who either didn’t understand fully the ethnic, cultural, and tribal histories or didn’t care.
Homogenous nations though don’t have to be unified. The Korean nation although taking great pride in its incredible homogeny, fought a bloody civil war and remains as divided as ever even though both sides accept the Koreaness of the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

The biggest slice in the identity politics pie is White Identity politics and its grievances and fear of losing ground to non-whites. And the person who has created the most "Balkanization" in this country related to identity politics is the carnival barker known as Donald Trump.

White identity politics drives Trump, and the Republican Party under him

Ashley Jardina, a professor at Duke University who recently wrote a book called “White Identity Politics,” said a majority of white Americans express some racial resentment in election-year surveys. Between 30 percent and 40 percent embrace a white racial identity. It is the latter group, with concerns about growing immigration threatening their racial status, who gravitated strongly toward the president.

The feeling of white identity is much stronger among non-college-educated whites than those who went to college, she said. “We do know that it is politically mobilizing,” Jardina added. “Those who feel racial solidarity have more likelihood to participate in politics.”

A December 2018 Pew Research Center poll found that 46 percent of white Americans said having a majority nonwhite nation in 2050 would “weaken American customs and values,” compared with 18 percent of black Americans and 25 percent of Hispanics. Asked whether having a majority nonwhite population would strengthen American customs and values, 42 percent of Democrats said it would, while only 13 percent of Republicans agreed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-identity-politics-drives-trump-and-the-republican-party-under-him/2019/07/16/a5ff5710-a733-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html

[Anonymous]

I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have misidentified the people blowing into that whistle.

+1

+2

Why do Republicans not dwell in reality on any issue, ever?

Oh my, the hypocrisy here is blinding.