Homogeneity allows for more progressive policy. T/F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

"We want universal healthcare and a strong social safety net."

"Can't. That's socialism, we don't want to turn into Venezuela."

"Well Denmark, Sweden, and Norway look like they're doing pretty well."

"They're not really socialist; they're capitalist."

"Ok, then let's adopt Scandinavian style healthcare and social programs."

"Can't. That's socialism, we don't want to turn into Venezuela."

[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.

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

Historical colonization experiences as well.

Most European countries were once colonies too (Roman Empire, Saxons, visigoths, even Arabs in Portugal and Spain for 700 years).

So, no, that is not the main variable.

[Anonymous]

19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

Oh my Lord. Poe's Law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

Oh my Lord. Poe's Law?

2 million killed, 5 million injured, and 10 million displaced, suggest you should drop the BS.

But your privilege makes you blind to facts and to people. You only care about some stupid talking points learned who knows where.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

Oh my Lord. Poe's Law?

2 million killed, 5 million injured, and 10 million displaced, suggest you should drop the BS.

But your privilege makes you blind to facts and to people. You only care about some stupid talking points learned who knows where.

Honestly, I have no idea if this last comment is referring to Vietnam or Rwanda.

I also have no idea why either the accusation of privilege or talking points was invoked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

Oh my Lord. Poe's Law?

2 million killed, 5 million injured, and 10 million displaced, suggest you should drop the BS.

But your privilege makes you blind to facts and to people. You only care about some stupid talking points learned who knows where.

Honestly, I have no idea if this last comment is referring to Vietnam or Rwanda.

I also have no idea why either the accusation of privilege or talking points was invoked.

There is a separate thread on how ignorant Americans are.

You may need to catch up quite a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

Oh my Lord. Poe's Law?

2 million killed, 5 million injured, and 10 million displaced, suggest you should drop the BS.

But your privilege makes you blind to facts and to people. You only care about some stupid talking points learned who knows where.

Honestly, I have no idea if this last comment is referring to Vietnam or Rwanda.

I also have no idea why either the accusation of privilege or talking points was invoked.

There is a separate thread on how ignorant Americans are.

You may need to catch up quite a bit.

Things do seem quite random and absurd in this post-modern. America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

I teach in a school that has an influx of nepali immigrants (and some refugees) but also a lot of inner city blacks and hispanics.

The nepali kids - who are quite poor - are total joys to teach. So attentive, respectful, focused, and try so hard.

They've seen much worse poverty and suffered extreme natural disaster that the black and hispanic kids in my school have not.

I wonder what the difference is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

I teach in a school that has an influx of nepali immigrants (and some refugees) but also a lot of inner city blacks and hispanics.

The nepali kids - who are quite poor - are total joys to teach. So attentive, respectful, focused, and try so hard.

They've seen much worse poverty and suffered extreme natural disaster that the black and hispanic kids in my school have not.

I wonder what the difference is.

They're Americans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

I teach in a school that has an influx of nepali immigrants (and some refugees) but also a lot of inner city blacks and hispanics.

The nepali kids - who are quite poor - are total joys to teach. So attentive, respectful, focused, and try so hard.

They've seen much worse poverty and suffered extreme natural disaster that the black and hispanic kids in my school have not.

I wonder what the difference is.

They're Americans?

Last time I checked, black Americans are Americans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

I teach in a school that has an influx of nepali immigrants (and some refugees) but also a lot of inner city blacks and hispanics.

The nepali kids - who are quite poor - are total joys to teach. So attentive, respectful, focused, and try so hard.

They've seen much worse poverty and suffered extreme natural disaster that the black and hispanic kids in my school have not.

I wonder what the difference is.

The difference is obvious.

Actual hardship vs. BS about hardship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

I teach in a school that has an influx of nepali immigrants (and some refugees) but also a lot of inner city blacks and hispanics.

The nepali kids - who are quite poor - are total joys to teach. So attentive, respectful, focused, and try so hard.

They've seen much worse poverty and suffered extreme natural disaster that the black and hispanic kids in my school have not.

I wonder what the difference is.

They're Americans?

Last time I checked, black Americans are Americans?

Yup. White, black, hispanic, asian, etc second gen+ american kids are all just as bratty as each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19th century colonization practices were very different than those of the Roman era. They also, to be clear, varied amongst themselves. To disregard the impact such recent practices had is foolish in my opinion. For instance, the Belgians basically created the Tutsi/Hutu mess in Rwanda and the sheer barely comprehensible brutality of what they did in DROC goes a long way to explaining what is happening today. Those are just two small examples. Modern colonization destroyed local institutions, erased history, promoted a culture of wealth extraction (that is mirrored to this day), and incentivized underlying distinctions that increased the internal othering dynamic.

Whatever Belgians did to Rwandans two hundred years ago was essentially pleasant tourism compared to what Americans did to Vietnam just 50 years ago.

Yet Vietnam thrives today.

I teach in a school that has an influx of nepali immigrants (and some refugees) but also a lot of inner city blacks and hispanics.

The nepali kids - who are quite poor - are total joys to teach. So attentive, respectful, focused, and try so hard.

They've seen much worse poverty and suffered extreme natural disaster that the black and hispanic kids in my school have not.

I wonder what the difference is.

They're Americans?

And therefore they're entitled? Because Libs keep telling them they're "disenfranchised"? They have no clue about actual poverty.