Homogeneity allows for more progressive policy. T/F?

[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.

The difference is obvious.

Actual hardship vs. BS about hardship.

PP here that teaches nepalis. I want to add this anecdote. I have a poor vietnamese kid in my class. From a very rough neighborhood. Last week, he pulls out a book from his bag and is quietly reading while other URM's are goofing off. I go over and ask what he's reading, and he closes the book to show me the cover. It is Benjamin Graham's legendary book 'the intelligent investor". If you know anything about finance, you know how epic of a book it is. I was shocked.

The kid asks me "hey, have you heard of this book. I saw a video clip on youtube about warren buffet and he talks about how good this book is". I almost was going to cry, I was so proud of him.

We ended up talking about his goals and I recommended Jack Bogle's books and Ray Dalio's book Principles.

I used to teach at a much higher SES school and none of the kids showed the foresight or interest of this poor viet kid.

[Anonymous]

No. Look at areas that are WASPy in this country. They don't have progressive policies. Quite the opposite.

[Anonymous]

I think so. People are more likely to share resources with their own "tribe".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think so. People are more likely to share resources with their own "tribe".

once again.. no, it's not true. There are plenty of homogeneous countries that don't have prossive policies.

Canada has fairly progressive policies and though the majority of their population are white, they still have a decent size nonwhite population.

Many Asian countries are homogeneous, yet they don't have progressive policies.

It's cultural, rather than racial.

Americans are way too into individualism rather than the collective good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Look at areas that are WASPy in this country. They don't have progressive policies. Quite the opposite.

Exactly. Also, look at white states such as West Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, ect. They Lack progressive policies. It has everything to do with Americans rugged individualism.

[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.

The difference is obvious.

Actual hardship vs. BS about hardship.

PP here that teaches nepalis. I want to add this anecdote. I have a poor vietnamese kid in my class. From a very rough neighborhood. Last week, he pulls out a book from his bag and is quietly reading while other URM's are goofing off. I go over and ask what he's reading, and he closes the book to show me the cover. It is Benjamin Graham's legendary book 'the intelligent investor". If you know anything about finance, you know how epic of a book it is. I was shocked.

The kid asks me "hey, have you heard of this book. I saw a video clip on youtube about warren buffet and he talks about how good this book is". I almost was going to cry, I was so proud of him.

We ended up talking about his goals and I recommended Jack Bogle's books and Ray Dalio's book Principles.

I used to teach at a much higher SES school and none of the kids showed the foresight or interest of this poor viet kid.

The difference is this: ask the Vietnamese kid what their parent's education level was in Vietnam, and if their family was educated and middle class there. Most of the non-hispanics immigrants in the US, even the refugees, come from the upper class of their country. So, yes, they are poor. But their parents have the training and education to bring themselves up. We deny that training and education to American Blacks, so they are (mostly) trapped.

[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.

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.

PP here that teaches nepalis. I want to add this anecdote. I have a poor vietnamese kid in my class. From a very rough neighborhood. Last week, he pulls out a book from his bag and is quietly reading while other URM's are goofing off. I go over and ask what he's reading, and he closes the book to show me the cover. It is Benjamin Graham's legendary book 'the intelligent investor". If you know anything about finance, you know how epic of a book it is. I was shocked.

The kid asks me "hey, have you heard of this book. I saw a video clip on youtube about warren buffet and he talks about how good this book is". I almost was going to cry, I was so proud of him.

We ended up talking about his goals and I recommended Jack Bogle's books and Ray Dalio's book Principles.

I used to teach at a much higher SES school and none of the kids showed the foresight or interest of this poor viet kid.

The difference is this: ask the Vietnamese kid what their parent's education level was in Vietnam, and if their family was educated and middle class there. Most of the non-hispanics immigrants in the US, even the refugees, come from the upper class of their country. So, yes, they are poor. But their parents have the training and education to bring themselves up. We deny that training and education to American Blacks, so they are (mostly) trapped.

Agreed. Many Hispanic immigrants come from extreme poverty and often their parents are illiterate. Very different than a Vietnamese or Nepali immigrant who can afford plane tickets worth thousands of dollars to travel to the US.

[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.

Been to Norway lately? They first brought in the desirable Poles, Lithuanians, Swedes, and Germans to help with labor shortages. Mire recently it has been Syrians and Iraqis and their attendant issues. No so homogeneous any longer.
N

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

PP here that teaches nepalis. I want to add this anecdote. I have a poor vietnamese kid in my class. From a very rough neighborhood. Last week, he pulls out a book from his bag and is quietly reading while other URM's are goofing off. I go over and ask what he's reading, and he closes the book to show me the cover. It is Benjamin Graham's legendary book 'the intelligent investor". If you know anything about finance, you know how epic of a book it is. I was shocked.

The kid asks me "hey, have you heard of this book. I saw a video clip on youtube about warren buffet and he talks about how good this book is". I almost was going to cry, I was so proud of him.

We ended up talking about his goals and I recommended Jack Bogle's books and Ray Dalio's book Principles.

I used to teach at a much higher SES school and none of the kids showed the foresight or interest of this poor viet kid.

The difference is this: ask the Vietnamese kid what their parent's education level was in Vietnam, and if their family was educated and middle class there. Most of the non-hispanics immigrants in the US, even the refugees, come from the upper class of their country. So, yes, they are poor. But their parents have the training and education to bring themselves up. We deny that training and education to American Blacks, so they are (mostly) trapped.

Agreed. Many Hispanic immigrants come from extreme poverty and often their parents are illiterate. Very different than a Vietnamese or Nepali immigrant who can afford plane tickets worth thousands of dollars to travel to the US.

While this is true to some degree, don't make assumptions.

I grew up with many Vietnamese children who were refugees. They came here in the mid/early 80s. Their parents were not educated. You have to be kidding. That country was still recovering from colonization and war in the 80s.

I came here from a different Asian country. My parents are uneducated (finished ES), and can't speak English. I have a degree and make six figures. While not all of my siblings are as "successful" as I am, none of them acted out in class.

IMO, it's cultural. Their is a deep respect for adults and teachers in many of the Asian cultures. Even if you don't like school, that cultural belief is so ingrained in your psyche that you wouldn't act out in class because it's "shameful".

The school I went to also had many African and Hispanic Americans, and real gang bangers. Some of the Vietnamese kids were also in " gangs", but they kept a low profile in school. They may have ditched classes but they didn't act out in class. The kids who acted out in class were mostly black kids. IMO, they mimic their parents attitudes. I saw these students get into fist fights with the teachers.

That's not to say that all Black students are like this, of course not. The school had a largish black population, and the majority of the students didn't act out in class. But the handful who did were always the black kids. That's probably in part due to statistics, too. But, this is just what I observed growing up surrounded by all different races.

[Anonymous]

Research shows that first generation immigrants do much better than those that follow. The longer your family has been here, the more structural racism impacts you.

[Anonymous]

And it's much worse if you are Black. African immigrants do pretty well but racial disparities get much worse with each generation. What does that say about our country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think so. People are more likely to share resources with their own "tribe".

That's true for racists.

Don't be fooled people. "Homogeneity" is a more palatable way of pushing racial separatism. The point of this thread is to assume racism is a given and then convince you that it's the fastest way for you to achieve progressive goals. It's not. Conquering racism is the best way to unleash economic growth and social change.

Canada is more diverse than the US AND more progressive.

[Anonymous]

Shouldn’t OP’s query be:

Racism prevents people from accepting more progressive policy: T/F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think so. People are more likely to share resources with their own "tribe".

That's true for racists.

Don't be fooled people. "Homogeneity" is a more palatable way of pushing racial separatism. The point of this thread is to assume racism is a given and then convince you that it's the fastest way for you to achieve progressive goals. It's not. Conquering racism is the best way to unleash economic growth and social change.

Canada is more diverse than the US AND more progressive.

This has nothing to do with racism. Race is a complete non-factor if there is cultural cohesion.

Canada is obsessive about cultural cohesion. It’s immigration system is designed to ensure they bring in educated people, who speak English and have demonstrated a propensity for Canadian values. Also, they monitor the mix of immigrants they bring in to ensure no one country or culture starts becoming a majority-minority. The “socialist” countries are ruthlessly pragmatic.

[Anonymous]

*Its