Homogeneity allows for more progressive policy. T/F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whites are the most tolerant group. No other group comes close.

Whites are the biggest colonizers. No other group comes close.

It's not about "racial tolerance". It's about the fact that whites throughout history were prodigious colonizers all over the world. That lends itself to being exposed to and mixing with non-white people.

But lest you think that colonizing = tolerance... in every country they colonized, they subjugated the "lesser" people, and lets not forget how they tried to destroy the indigenuous cultures out of the "natives". Does that sound like tolerance?

I wouldn't say that whites were particularly good at colonizing. Was Genghis Khan white? Were Romans white? Ara Arabs white? All of these empires were at one point in history, dominant colonizers of other people. In more contemporary history, Japan certainly had strong colonial ambitions towards China, and China's Belt/Road initiative is often described as economic colonialism, especially of its effects in Africa.

[Anonymous]

This sums up the problem with arguments about systemic racism and anti racism and policies based on color.

The kids, all kids, in this school district will suffer because of this vapid, all feelz no facts decision.

Stupidity, thy name is Progressive.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/12/06/anti-racism-lowering-expectations-education-just-form-soft-bigotry-column/6410954002/

[Anonymous]

Everyone knows that countries with culturally homogeneous populations generally have a stronger ability to maintain the social contracts that sustain progressive policies. This is not controversial.

When cultural values are highly divergent within a country, of course people will not be as willing to support the sort of redistributionist policies that are part of progressivism. The reason the US has been able to stick around so long with a lot of immigrants is because it did not have those sort of left-wing policies.

[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.

too bad its fact

something happens in Denmark

Denmark would NOT allow corporations to out source jobs to cheap disposable foreign workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

too bad its fact

something happens in Denmark

Denmark would NOT allow corporations to out source jobs to cheap disposable foreign workers.

Uh, 8.5% of Denmark is guest workers and their descendants, projected to go to 13%. And they import twice as much from China as they export there. So....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

UMC Asian-American (first-generation), and this is entirely BS. If respect etc were such a big deal, why is there so much classism in Asia? Why are there entrenched rich/poor families and castes and classes in Asia? Because everyone always wants/needs someone else to put down. Asian-Americans have been leveraged as the "model minority" who are "better" than Black Americans but never truly equal to white Americans. At some point, Asian-Americans were complicit in this, though who can blame us for choosing not to experience the abuse that Black Americans do?

Most of the Black American people and families I know are among the most respectful and disciplined people I know. That's because I'm UMC...and to become a Black UMC American, you need to be at least 3x as disciplined as any other race or ethnicity. Poor Black kids act out because, like everyone else, if you are deprived of hope and stability, you act out. Not because they are culturally deficient.

I was a poor kid who acted out. I am a felon. Many of my childhood friends became habitual criminals.

I promise that culture is far stronger than you believe. The ones who embraced the gangsta rap version of hip hop culture got trapped in a cycle of bad decisions. Other friends who were abused and neglected still had problems but if they rejected the thug lifestyle things generally worked out better over the long term.

Race doesn’t determine success as much as culture does. Race /= culture.

It's poverty, not culture. If you step out of your own experience, you can tell because most large immigrant groups went through the same gangster phase. The Jews, the Irish, the Italians are the most memorable, but only because of their size. You have your triads, the Jamaicans, the Chinese had tongs. In Chicago the polish immigrants had gangs. You have your slavic gangs, the Eastern European gangs. These groups don't share a common culture. They shared a similar economic position.

UMC blacks did not end up in gangs because of gangsta rap. My black friends listened to gangsta rap as they went on to become doctors, lawyer, and one is CEO of a well known public company. Meanwhile in white rural america you see the same problems as in black communities. Nobody calls it "white culture".

The common denominator is poverty.

I disagree. I have personally known many poor people of my own generation who didn’t turn to gang life. My grandparents lived through the great depression and have some pretty serious stories to tell about it but they always made the best of it. There is a unique code of conduct and expectation of violence and “don’t give a fck” attitude that has been a part of American youth culture for many decades.

I can see how poverty creates an ideal environment for kids to be left to their own devices. Idle hands... But if it was just poverty alone then we wouldn’t see so many individual cases of people being able to avoid criminality. It is simply not the case that the majority of poor people resort to crime. Something else must be driving behavior. What are the factors between poor people that could account for different outcomes?

Of course it's not poverty alone. Some people are going to do the right thing even when they are poor, and others won't. And you can find that in any culture you look at. So it's not culture.

The issue here is that nobody creates a statistical table that looks at crime rates of white people by income, and crime rates of black people by income, and crime rates of Lations by income, etc. And because of that we are prone to assume that the driver is the ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

too bad its fact

something happens in Denmark

Denmark would NOT allow corporations to out source jobs to cheap disposable foreign workers.

Uh, 8.5% of Denmark is guest workers and their descendants, projected to go to 13%. And they import twice as much from China as they export there. So....

Main languages: Danish, Greenlandic, Faroese, German

Main religions: Lutheran (95%), other Protestant and Roman Catholic (3%), Muslim (2%).

Minority groups include 55,600 Turks (1%), 17,400 former Yugoslavs (0.3%), Asians, Africans, Inuit and Faroese (data: Statistics Denmark, 2006).

Denmark is mostly inhabited by ethnic Danes. Very few Faeroese or Greenlanders have settled in mainland Denmark despite their status as Danish citizens. Small numbers of Germans, Jews, Roma, Poles and Hungarians, on the other hand, have been long established and are substantially assimilated.

Denmark (along with the United Kingdom and Ireland) has opted out of the common asylum policy of the European Union.

[Anonymous]

There is a vast oversupply of unskilled workers in the United States and there are many more job seekers than available jobs.

- There are approximately 20 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, and 92 million Americans not in the labor force.

- Many of the unemployed are low skilled. In the fourth quarter of 2013, there were eight million Americans with a high school diploma or less who were unemployed or who could only find part-time work.

- Many high-skilled Americans are also out of work or underemployed. Two-thirds of the more than nine million people with degrees in science, engineering, or mathematics are working in other fields.

- During the current economic "recovery," foreign workers are the total share of new jobs, extending unemployment for millions of American workers.

- Since 2000 all of the gains in the number of people (16 to 65) holding a job has gone to the foreign-born, including legal immigrants and illegal aliens.

In fact, the Congressional Research Service found that the economic gain from immigration is divided between the immigrant and the immigrant’s employer. Guest workers gain from employment in the U.S. and employers benefit by reducing their labor costs. Meanwhile American workers bear the cost of guest worker programs through displacement, lower wages, and taxes used to provide benefits to low-income guest workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

too bad its fact

something happens in Denmark

Denmark would NOT allow corporations to out source jobs to cheap disposable foreign workers.

Uh, 8.5% of Denmark is guest workers and their descendants, projected to go to 13%. And they import twice as much from China as they export there. So....

Main languages: Danish, Greenlandic, Faroese, German

Main religions: Lutheran (95%), other Protestant and Roman Catholic (3%), Muslim (2%).

Minority groups include 55,600 Turks (1%), 17,400 former Yugoslavs (0.3%), Asians, Africans, Inuit and Faroese (data: Statistics Denmark, 2006).

Denmark is mostly inhabited by ethnic Danes. Very few Faeroese or Greenlanders have settled in mainland Denmark despite their status as Danish citizens. Small numbers of Germans, Jews, Roma, Poles and Hungarians, on the other hand, have been long established and are substantially assimilated.

Denmark (along with the United Kingdom and Ireland) has opted out of the common asylum policy of the European Union.

Since 1980, the number of Danes has remained constant at around 5 million in Denmark and nearly all the population growth from 5.1 up to the 2018 total of 5.8 million was due to immigration.[1]

According to 2017 figures from Statistics Denmark, 86.9%[2][3] of Denmark's population of over 5,760,694 was of Danish descent, defined as having at least one parent who was born in Denmark and has Danish citizenship.[4][2] The remaining 13.1% were of a foreign background, defined as immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. With the same definition, the most common countries of origin were Poland, Turkey, Germany, Iraq, Romania, Syria, Somalia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia and its successor states.[citation needed] More than 752,618 individuals (13.1%)[2][3] are migrants and their descendants (146,798 second generation migrants born in Denmark[3]).

Of these 752,618[2] immigrants and their descendants:

267,606 (36%)[3] have a Western background (Norway, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina, UK, Poland, Romania and Iceland; definition: EU countries, non-EU Nordic countries, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland, Vatican State, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand).
485,012 (64%)[3] have a non-Western background (Turkey, Romani, Iraq, Iran, Kurdistan, Pakistan, Thailand and Somalia; all other countries).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with whites? They are TOO tolerant of others.

I would not call decades of mass colonization across the globe "tolerance".

The US is made up of immigrants.
The English were "intolerant" of the filthy Irish, Poles, etc...
White Americans out west were intolerant of the Chinese who immirated there.
Many white Americans were intolerant of Black Americans.
Many white Americans don't want to allow in more nonwhite immigrants today.

So who is more tolerant? Indians, Japanese, Chinese, Nigerians?

This post starts with the proposition that white are too tolerant. Just because they are more tolerant than other nations doesn't mean they are too tolerant. Did you ever take even an elementary course in logic?

IMO, you can't compare the US, a nation of immigrants, with countries that never had much of an immigration population to begin with. Very few countries started out as a nation of immigrants.

Every country on earth started with immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Whites are the biggest colonizers. No other group comes close.

Not true by a long shot but thanks for your racism.

For example: 1 out of every 200 men worldwide are the genetic heirs of Genghis Khan. Talk about colonization!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with whites? They are TOO tolerant of others.

I would not call decades of mass colonization across the globe "tolerance".

The US is made up of immigrants.
The English were "intolerant" of the filthy Irish, Poles, etc...
White Americans out west were intolerant of the Chinese who immirated there.
Many white Americans were intolerant of Black Americans.
Many white Americans don't want to allow in more nonwhite immigrants today.

So who is more tolerant? Indians, Japanese, Chinese, Nigerians?

This post starts with the proposition that white are too tolerant. Just because they are more tolerant than other nations doesn't mean they are too tolerant. Did you ever take even an elementary course in logic?

IMO, you can't compare the US, a nation of immigrants, with countries that never had much of an immigration population to begin with. Very few countries started out as a nation of immigrants.

Every country on earth started with immigrants.

omg.. smh.. please don't go there.

[Anonymous]

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.

Barack Obama faced a border surge, Donald Trump faced a border surge, and Joe Biden is certain to face one as well. Each of these men like to talk as if they could enforce limits without turning away good people. Obama said we could just focus on "felons, not families," Trump had his "wall" (to keep out the "bad hombres") with a "big beautiful door" (to let "the good ones" in). Biden didn't focus on immigration during his campaign but his website promises to restore the Obama-Biden administration policy "to prioritize enforcement resources on removing threats to national security and public safety, not families."

None of these men's rhetoric measures up against Barbara Jordan's simple yardstick:

"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."
Jordan had four words for those who argued that unauthorized migrants should be exempt from immigration limits so long as they haven't broken any additional laws. "Let me be clear," she said, "that is not enough."

Without credible enforcement, she warned, illegal immigration would accelerate and undermine confidence in the entire immigration system.

https://www.numbersusa.com/sites/default/files/public/Testimony%20of%20Barbara%20Jordan_1994_Sept.%2029.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows that countries with culturally homogeneous populations generally have a stronger ability to maintain the social contracts that sustain progressive policies. This is not controversial.

When cultural values are highly divergent within a country, of course people will not be as willing to support the sort of redistributionist policies that are part of progressivism. The reason the US has been able to stick around so long with a lot of immigrants is because it did not have those sort of left-wing policies.

Your logic: the reason we don't have progressive policies is because racists won't support them. Well there's a vote in favor of progressive policies.

It's not "social contracts", it's "the social contract", and its' from Locke. Locke did not believe that the social contract was based on culture but on philosophical truths that are inherent to all of humanity.

[Anonymous]

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052918-020708

We find a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies. The relationship is stronger for trust in neighbors and when ethnic diversity is measured more locally. Covariate conditioning generally changes the relationship only slightly.