Homogeneity allows for more progressive policy. T/F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The places in the U.S. with the fewest immigrants and the most homogeneity are the places that fear immigrants the most and are doing the worst economically.

I doubt this is true once you break down the statistics.

I said upthread that concentration of poverty in highly dense living situations is an urban (and now suburban) issue. We're talking mainly minorities - black and Hispanic.

But guess what? The "hip and edgy" professionals living OUTSIDE of the highly-impacted areas keep the urban and suburban areas afloat. It's not as though they're doing anything to directly HELP the poor. In fact, I'm confident in saying that many exit the metro and ignore a few homeless folks on the streets on their way to work.

Look at LA! It's a thriving and wealthy city, no? Yet it's filled with homeless camps.

Urban/suburban doesn't translate into better. I'd actually say the people are worse. In rural environments, there are few jobs and people have to travel miles to see a doctor. There is no big biz or no gov't. to keep those areas afloat.

But in the urban/suburban settings, biz and gov't. overshadow the poor.

not the case in Middle America

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The places in the U.S. with the fewest immigrants and the most homogeneity are the places that fear immigrants the most and are doing the worst economically.


I doubt this is true once you break down the statistics.

I said upthread that concentration of poverty in highly dense living situations is an urban (and now suburban) issue. We're talking mainly minorities - black and Hispanic.

But guess what? The "hip and edgy" professionals living OUTSIDE of the highly-impacted areas keep the urban and suburban areas afloat. It's not as though they're doing anything to directly HELP the poor. In fact, I'm confident in saying that many exit the metro and ignore a few homeless folks on the streets on their way to work.

Look at LA! It's a thriving and wealthy city, no? Yet it's filled with homeless camps.

Urban/suburban doesn't translate into better. I'd actually say the people are worse. In rural environments, there are few jobs and people have to travel miles to see a doctor. There is no big biz or no gov't. to keep those areas afloat.

But in the urban/suburban settings, biz and gov't. overshadow the poor.

not the case in Middle America

Yes. I would argue that citing only homogeneity as allowing for progressive policy is too simplistic. The rural/urban divide is much stronger. Urban areas are more diverse, yet in general, elect more progressive (D) candidates. Practically all cities are diverse and vote leaning Democratic. There are also homogenous states with much less progressive agendas (Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc.). So homogeneity does not necessarily allow for progressivity. In states with Scandinavian roots (I'm looking at you Minnesota), yes, you get progressive agendas. They have a history/ancestry steeped in communal culture. You might expect the same in Kansas, but why didn't that happen?

[Anonymous]

Colder climates seem to increase likelihood of progressive politics. Maybe because people have to help each other during the hard winters?

[Anonymous]

^



This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

Seems like it's a lot easier to be more democratic in a homogenous society.

Those are all white countries. Now do homgenous non-white countries.

bottom five from the site:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Chad
Central African Republic
Dem Republic of Congo
Syria
N. Korea

So homogeneity doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

Seems like it's a lot easier to be more democratic in a homogenous society.

Those are all white countries. Now do homgenous non-white countries.

bottom five from the site:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Chad
Central African Republic
Dem Republic of Congo
Syria
N. Korea

So homogeneity doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with democracy.

homogeneity and wealth perhaps?

What's the percentage of poor in the top five on the list?

People who share culture (norms, beliefs, practices, yada yada) and who are comfortable in their lifestyles (good jobs, healthcare, strong educational backgrounds) can move forward.

I think we can all agree on that, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

Seems like it's a lot easier to be more democratic in a homogenous society.

Those are all white countries. Now do homgenous non-white countries.

bottom five from the site:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Chad
Central African Republic
Dem Republic of Congo
Syria
N. Korea

So homogeneity doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with democracy.

DP: iirc, the research on this has homogeneity swinging both ways.

But just wanted to point out that DROC, CAR, and Syria are most definitely not homogeneous countries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

Seems like it's a lot easier to be more democratic in a homogenous society.

Those are all white countries. Now do homgenous non-white countries.

bottom five from the site:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Chad
Central African Republic
Dem Republic of Congo
Syria
N. Korea

So homogeneity doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with democracy.

DP: iirc, the research on this has homogeneity swinging both ways.

But just wanted to point out that DROC, CAR, and Syria are most definitely not homogeneous countries

in bold - What's the biggest factor? religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

Seems like it's a lot easier to be more democratic in a homogenous society.



Those are all white countries. Now do homgenous non-white countries.


bottom five from the site:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Chad
Central African Republic
Dem Republic of Congo
Syria
N. Korea


So homogeneity doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with democracy.


homogeneity and wealth perhaps?

What's the percentage of poor in the top five on the list?

People who share culture (norms, beliefs, practices, yada yada) and who are comfortable in their lifestyles (good jobs, healthcare, strong educational backgrounds) can move forward.

I think we can all agree on that, right?

I tend to think it's even more complex than even those two variables. The Scandinavian countries were largely populated by Vikings long ago. The Vikings had a strong culture of adultery (and raiding and raping) and they now have a strong culture of adoption (even in Minnesota which leads all states in adoptions, many cross racial). If you think or know you have kids in other families, maybe you want them cared for (Viking heritage)? Who knows. I do think culture plays a part in this. Also Scandinavia has little arable land and so fishing was huge (still is) and this is another harsh activity that requires cooperation. I don't know enough about other cultures to talk about this, but maybe it's the cultural norms and not the sharing of them that matters? You can share norms and still get a Kansas (it's a largely "white" state) . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

Seems like it's a lot easier to be more democratic in a homogenous society.



Those are all white countries. Now do homgenous non-white countries.


bottom five from the site:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Chad
Central African Republic
Dem Republic of Congo
Syria
N. Korea


So homogeneity doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with democracy.


homogeneity and wealth perhaps?

What's the percentage of poor in the top five on the list?

People who share culture (norms, beliefs, practices, yada yada) and who are comfortable in their lifestyles (good jobs, healthcare, strong educational backgrounds) can move forward.

I think we can all agree on that, right?

I tend to think it's even more complex than even those two variables. The Scandinavian countries were largely populated by Vikings long ago. The Vikings had a strong culture of adultery (and raiding and raping) and they now have a strong culture of adoption (even in Minnesota which leads all states in adoptions, many cross racial). If you think or know you have kids in other families, maybe you want them cared for (Viking heritage)? Who knows. I do think culture plays a part in this. Also Scandinavia has little arable land and so fishing was huge (still is) and this is another harsh activity that requires cooperation. I don't know enough about other cultures to talk about this, but maybe it's the cultural norms and not the sharing of them that matters? You can share norms and still get a Kansas (it's a largely "white" state) . . .

That's an excellent point. Not everything that's valued is healthy or a move toward success.

[Anonymous]

^ The Vikings also had a very democratic way of dealing with community problems that arose . . . people came together and represented themselves. That was pretty amazing really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

Seems like it's a lot easier to be more democratic in a homogenous society.

Those are all white countries. Now do homgenous non-white countries.

bottom five from the site:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Chad
Central African Republic
Dem Republic of Congo
Syria
N. Korea

So homogeneity doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with democracy.

Majority race and religion seems to be a much bigger factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

Seems like it's a lot easier to be more democratic in a homogenous society.

Those are all white countries. Now do homgenous non-white countries.

bottom five from the site:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Chad
Central African Republic
Dem Republic of Congo
Syria
N. Korea

So homogeneity doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with democracy.

DP: iirc, the research on this has homogeneity swinging both ways.

But just wanted to point out that DROC, CAR, and Syria are most definitely not homogeneous countries

in bold - What's the biggest factor? religion?

Religion, ethnicity and language. But I'd stress that the American conception of race is not universal. Moreover, the neat delineations of religion we have are much more complex at the local level (are Alawites muslim?). Humanity has a nasty habit of choosing to define themselves as different than each other. We also have a bad habit of projecting our own internal distinctions (ie: race) onto other places and extrapolating from there.

I would agree that shared core values do impact things like democracy and common goods, but, things like the Rwandan genocide show how that can fall apart when artificial constructs of the "other" come into play. For me, I just think we need to bring civics classes back to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the EIU's democracy index. I was struck when looking at the 2018 list by the top few countries:

1.Norway 9.87
2. Iceland 9.58
3. Sweden 9.39
4. New Zealand 9.26
5. Denmark 9.22
6. Ireland 9.15
6. Canada 9.15
8. Finland 9.14
9. Australia 9.09
10. Switzerland 9.03
...25. United States 7.96

Seems like it's a lot easier to be more democratic in a homogenous society.

Those are all white countries. Now do homgenous non-white countries.

bottom five from the site:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Chad
Central African Republic
Dem Republic of Congo
Syria
N. Korea

So homogeneity doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with democracy.

Majority race and religion seems to be a much bigger factor.

Historical colonization experiences as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Your article could be summed up "socialism works in Norway because they are ethnically pure and people help their own kind". What a crock.

Norway was poor for a long time until North Sea oil & gas and free trade. Denmark and Sweden also are dependent on free trade.